1979-01-31

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that family allowances are, by law, universal and without a means test and, further, that a survey is now being conducted by Statistics Canada into the personal habits and incomes of every twenty-eighth recipient of family allowances and, further, that those interviewed are told that they must respond to these questions by an interviewer under penalty of a fine or imprisonment of up to three months, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling):
That this House directs that the survey by Statistics Canada of the recipients of family allowances which represents an unwarranted invasion of privacy be stopped forthwith and, further, that the minister responsible be directed to explain to this House or to the appropriate committee of this House the reasons for this survey which violates the principle of the universality of family allowances.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), I move:
That this House endorses the stand taken by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and by the Ottawa Women's Lobby to the effect that the Centre for the Study of Inflation and Productivity, in calling the recent wage settlement between Bell Canada and its clerical employees, most of whom are women, inflationary is dead wrong, it being clear that encouragement should be given to "catch-up" wage increases designed to correct pay distortions between male and female workers; and this House calls on the government to back its commitment to equal pay for work of equal value by taking positive steps to end pay and job discrimination against women in the federal public service.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House to put a motion on a matter of local, urgent and pressing necessity.
Since the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) refuses to meet the local member of the British Columbia legislature and the minister of the British Columbia government involved to resolve a difference over the routing of a water pipeline across or around the Dominion Experimental Farm in the Saanich peninsula, and since to route the pipeline around the farm would be more costly to the Canadian taxpayer and to the ratepayers of the municipalities involved, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That the Minister of Transport abdicate his role as spokesman for the three ministries involved and ask the Minister of Agriculture, who just possibly might be a little less intractable in this matter, to negotiate a settlement so that this pipeline might be routed by the more economic route at no cost to the federal government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

January 31, 1979
5.0.	43 SHIPPING


INCREASE IN PILOTAGE FEES-PROMOTION OF MARINE SERVICE BUSINESS ON EAST COAST-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the increase of up to 69 per cent in pilotage fees in the Atlantic provinces for small vessels recommended by the Canadian Transport Commission and approved by the government to go into effect January 22, be reversed by the government immediately to prevent a further decline in shipping in Atlantic ports in 1979 and to encourage the use of the ports of St. John's and other Atlantic province ports by foreign fishing and other vessels so as to promote the marine service business of east coast Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has delayed her new guidelines for Indian health services for six months, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard):
That the minister take steps to rescind the agreement between her department and Blue Cross-Blue Shield in the maritime provinces, that she inform her regional offices of the six-month delay, and that she inform pharmacists, ambulance companies and others directly involved that she has, indeed, made this six-month postponement.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a 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.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter that is urgent and pressing.
In view of the fact that railway passholder privileges have been restricted by the rationalization of transcontinental passenger service, and since the railway companies and VIA have not yet agreed to continue the existing pass privileges of widows, pensioners and employees, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of Transport require that Canadian National and Canadian Pacific employees, pensioners, and widows be allowed to use their passes on any VIA trains.


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.


FINANCE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter or urgent and pressing necessity.
In light of the devastating effect to the economy if foreign exchange controls are implemented, owing to persistent and increasing speculation on the part of some of the leading financial experts in this country that this government will momentarily impose foreign exchange controls, and in view of the fact that these same experts are advising Canadian investors to prepare for controls by transferring their investment funds to foreign corporations which they would control from Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That the Minister of Finance forthwith make a statement in the House of Commons in a clear, unequivocal fashion on his intentions in this regard.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
January 31, 1979



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister will know, on January 24 the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Bouey, said to the Senate committee:
I feel very strongly that further declines in the Canadian dollar resulting from this interest rate relationship would be much more inflationary.
Would the Prime Minister tell us if that is also the position of the government?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition was complaining that the governor was not appearing before a committee, and now he is quoting words of the governor in front of a committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Why not abolish the Senate?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is still confused about the difference between the House of Commons and the Senate, but he has not lost his refusal to answer questions in the House of Commons.
I wonder if we might have an indication of the policy of the Government of Canada in relation to the dollar, if it has one. Will he answer my question? Was the position stated by the governor of the Bank of Canada also the view of the Government of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and myself have said repeatedly that the policy of the government since 1970, has been to have a floating dollar and that the value of the dollar is established by the market system operating in the normal way.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the warning issued by the governor of the Bank of Canada is clearly that if the floating dollar policy followed by this government-which amounts to a sinking dollar policy-continues, then we are going to have a very serious inflationary problem in this country.
What I would like to ask the Prime Minister is, given the failure to stop the decline because of the policies that have been followed so far by the Government of Canada, has the government any new policies to propose that will stop the slide of the Canadian dollar? If so, what are they?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the best way to stop the slide in the value of the dollar is to make sure the economy is sound
Oral Questions
and is responding well. The policies of the Minister of Finance in his budget last fall, the announcements made by the government in August in terms of cutting vast expenditures from government spending, reducing the rate of growth of expenditure and the rate of growth of the public service, are our ways of ensuring that the Canadian economy remains strong.
I doubt very much if it is helped by the Leader of the Opposition saying one day that he wants a two to three year deficit, the next day it will only be a short one, and then having his erstwhile critic saying it will be a few months, or one month-a disappearing stimulus, as it were. That is not very helpful. Fortunately, people are now realizing there is a policy on this side and that on the other side there is just confusion and a welter of policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what the figures released this morning indicate is that there is, indeed, a policy on that side; it is a policy which has increased the size of the Canadian deficit; it is a policy which has brought down the value of the Canadian dollar. That policy is obviously not suitable to Canada today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Since the Prime Minister is now so interested in committees of the Senate, I want to ask why, if he is so proud of his policy, he continues to refuse to allow the state of the Canadian dollar to be examined and witnesses to be called by a committee of this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr.Speaker, I indicated yesterday the many occasions on which this House has had the occasion to discuss economics-the budget debate, the debate on the speech from the throne, and several opposition days that will be available in the next month and a half to the opposition parties who, if they want to discuss their views on this, can put them forward. However, I sense that they are not going to bring these issues forward, for a very simple reason.
The Leader of the Opposition says in his question that a larger deficit causes a sinking dollar, that he is concerned about a sinking dollar, and then goes on to propose a larger deficit. I do not really see that they have anything to contribute in this, except questions to which they do not know the answers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COMPARISON OF CANADA'S ECONOMIC SITUATION WITH THAT OF UNITED STATES
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. You will recall that yesterday he gave us some treatises explaining the economic panic that the goverment is in. He stated that various countries ship unemployment out of the country. It was a great reminder

January 31, 1979
Oral Questions
of the Prime Minister's comment to University of Toronto students some time ago that if they could not find jobs in Canada, to leave the country.
My question is simply this. Why did the Prime Minister avoid commenting on the United States performance yesterday, bearing in mind that they have a better real growth than Canada, less inflation, have reduced their unemployment, have approximately less than half the current account deficit we have and, of course, have a domestic deficit much lower, relatively, than ours? What have they done so right that the Prime Minister's government has done so wrong, resulting in our current dollar crisis?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member returns to the question of shipping unemployment out of the country. 1 remind him of what I said yesterday, that in Canada in the past ten years we have increased the number of jobs by 2 Vi billion, plus.


Charles Joseph Clark: Billion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Million. In Germany, during the same period, they have lost jobs. They now have nearly two million jobs less than they had ten years ago. If that is something the hon. member-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: How about the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now he asks about the United States. 1 indicated yesterday that on a ten over ten-year basis, or taking just the last six years, the hon. member will find that Canada has performed better than the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. members can challenge the figures if they can prove it. I indicated yesterday that real growth in Canada had been higher than in the United States over the ten-year period. The real disposable income in Canada went up twice as fast. That is, real income of every head of population in Canada, compared to real income of every head of population in the United States. It went up twice as fast in Canada as in the United States.
Just a few weeks ago the OECD indicated that, in terms of standard of living, Canada had just surpassed the United States, being second only, I believe, to Switzerland and Sweden.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can understand the groans from the opposition. The facts disturb their pessimistic view of the way Canada has performed in the past ten years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gillies:: Tell that to the million unemployed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister will make a point, in the coming months, of telling that to the unemployed of Canada.
Is he aware that governor Bouey, apparently feeling he was not being given the opportunity to respond to his critics, invited, on his own initiative, an interview with a representative of The Globe and Mail with a view to having published in that paper the governor's views concerning the current dollar crisis?
If the government is aware of the initiative taken by the governor to have his words put into print, would the Prime Minister tell us why he continues to be so hesitant to allow him to appear before a committee of this House so that, in addition to presenting his views, he can respond to questions by members of this House concerning the current dollar position?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: The governor of the Bank has appeared before the committee, and he probably feels that after the kind of questions he was getting from members of the opposition he would have more intelligent questions coming from the reporter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: He gave that interview. He was before a committee of the Senate. The finance committee is presently reviewing the Bank Act, and he is ready to appear there. All I know, after reading some of the questioning there, is that there is such confusion on the other side that the governor probably felt it was his duty to speak directly to the people.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: My question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Considering that lumber prices for home builders increased by a full 40 per cent last year, and considering that profits by companies engaged in this industry are at an almost all-time high, ranging up to 358 per cent, I should like to ask the minister what he is doing to head off an anticipated further 20 per cent increase in price this year which will have a major effect on the price of every Canadian home.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: As the hon. member knows, until the end of last year the AIB was in place and there was price control to a certain extent, together with monitoring of these prices. The agency no longer exists.
I have recently received representations of a similar nature from members of this side of the House and I have started an inquiry into the situation. I cannot tell where it will lead at the present time. I have been asked to look into the matter, and I shall.
January 31, 1979


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that the price increases amounted to 40 per cent last year, and 20 per cent the year before-that is a total of 60 per cent-and that a further increase of 20 per cent is anticipated in the coming year, making it 80 per cent, which is not bad-if a Canadian worker could get that, he would be very happy-and considering that the increase anticipated this year will add at least $1,200 to the price of the average Canadian home, will the minister take direct action, call in the heads of the major firms, draw these price and profit increases to their attention and request them in the strongest possible language to hold down price increases this year?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the figures the hon. member gives for the last year or two. I have come to be very suspicious of information the hon. member gives us in this House; I have often found it to be incorrect. However, I will look into this matter.
There is no longer a price control mechanism in this country. It may be possible to talk to the leaders of this industry if there appear to be unwarranted profits or price increases, but I want to look into this before I make any judgment on the question.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister has made what I take to be a gratuitous comment about inaccurate statistics. I challenge him to name one. If there is one, I will publicly accept this criticism and correct the inaccuracy. The figures I am giving are available to the public. There have been substantial price increases in the past two years.
The Prime Minister has lectured Canadian workers over the past week.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No.


John Edward Broadbent: He has asked them to hold down wage demands, while their increases have averaged just over 6 per cent. If the minister wants action and if he wants fairness in the system, will he call in heads of companies and request them to hold down their prices, because prices profoundly affect the price of every home and, indirectly, the quite justifiable wage demands of workers in this country?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I said I would do that if I thought it was warranted, but I want to look at the facts first. Before the hon. member raised this matter with me, several members of my own caucus did the same thing. I promised them I would look into this matter. I will do that, and I will call on company heads if it is necessary to do so.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, following the motion which I proposed yesterday, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State responsible for the CBC. Considering that the corporation has been given a mandate to present the views of the House and provide consistent and fair news reports to the entire population and considering that this Crown corporation systematically refuses to broadcast any news release from the Social Credit Party of Canada, is the minister prepared to investigate the attitude of the CBC and, if so, would he report the results of such investigation to the House?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Unfortunately Mr. Speaker, being ill yesterday I was unable to read the motion moved by the hon. member. I will read it carefully. If I understand the last part of the hon. member's question, he is asking me whether I am prepared to launch an investigation into the CBC and report the results of that investigation to the House. I must admit that I would not make a comprehensive inquiry, if this is what he wants, but of course I am prepared to consider carefully the suggestion he made yesterday before giving a final answer to the question he put to me today.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question.
I happen to know that the Secretary of State has already contacted the CBC for particulars. What I would like to know now is this: When something important is going on, for instance the Pepin-Robarts task force report, which has been much talked about this past week, if any political party takes an official stand on that issue, would the minister be willing, following the first round of talks he had with CBC officials, to inquire into the time spent over a given period of time to air the views of each political party on daily news broadcasts and would he report back to the House?


John (Moody) Roberts: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to inform the CBC of the representations made by hon. members and it is my duty to do so as effectively as possible. But it is quite another thing to conduct an inquiry; it is a very serious matter. Before making such a decision, I would like to have time to examine this matter and also the opportunity to consider the evidence or the reasons for such an inquiry. 1 think this matter would be a very serious one for the House to get involved in and I would like to have time to go into the matter fully before taking such action.

January 31, 1979
Oral Questions


NATIONAL REVENUE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Now that the forms in connection with the child tax credit allowance are in the mail-and they are even more complex and worse than we had anticipated-I would ask the minister what extra assistance, extra staff or help he intends to provide the 1.5 million Canadian women in this country who have never filed income tax returns, but who will have to answer what is a very complex and difficult form?
What extra help does the minister intend to provide those women to ensure that they are able to file these returns satisfactorily in order to get the moneys due them under the Child Tax Credit Act?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty that exists in respect of this form arises principally from the fact that many mothers who receive it are going to be filing an income tax form for the first time. I would dispute with the hon. member that schedule 10, to which he is referring, is unduly complex. It is a four-part form on a single page.
I think many persons will require explanations, and there has been a considerable degree of publicity conducted by my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who earlier this month mailed out some very helpful information, including a copy of the form. I should point out that my department mailed out some 1.5 million forms to those persons we believe would not ordinarily be paying income tax. We are going to require some 350 additional person-years to process the additional material. However, I would say that in addition to the regular advice given by Revenue Canada, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has allocated substantial funds to make certain that voluntary organizations are able to render assistance in this area to taxpayers.
We are encouraging our own officials to render whatever extra assistance they can, and many of them will be doing so on a voluntary basis. I have also encouraged members on our side of the House, certainly, who have taken a great interest in this, to offer the help of their offices, and I hope hon. members opposite will do the same.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, one part of this form, very briefly, reads as follows:
Subtract line 7 from line 1 to arrive at your child tax credit on line 8. If line 7 is greater than line 1, you are not entitled to a child tax credit. Transfer your credit to line 78 on page four of your return.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think even the minister himself could understand that bureaucratic gobbledegook. I should like to ask the minister, given the fact-


An hon. Member:: Don't you understand it?
[Mr. Roberts.)


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I will let the Prime Minister read it. Perhaps if he did, he would not be sending out this stupid form.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: 1 would like to ask the minister-


An hon. Member:: Has he read it; have you read it; has she read it?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, given the complexity of that form, given the fact that these women have never filed income tax returns before, and given the fact that they are entitled to a child tax credit, will the Minister of National Revenue withdraw the form, particularly if he is not prepared to provide sufficient councillors, which he obviously will need, and instead require a simple declaration, as is the case in respect of the guaranteed income supplement under the old age assistance program? Surely that is all that is required.
If the minister is not prepared to do that, then he will have to answer in this House for the problems he will be creating by this bureaucratic gobbledegook which is going to confuse the people of this country.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand the hon. member attempting to mislead the House by his statement and
by-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: -extracting the language that is in the form without presenting the form. If he were more fair-minded, he would indicate that these instructions reflect facts that are far more obvious to anybody studying the form.
I do not deny, as I have not denied earlier, that women who are faced with filling out of the form for the first time may find it burdensome. That is why I explained some of the processes to help that are going to be undertaken. I would suggest to the hon. member that, instead of creating apprehensions which do not exist in the minds of most people by extracting information from the form, he should learn more about it himself and then he might be able to help his constituents fill them out.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, so much for Tony the Tiger.
I should like to direct this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is there any connection between the survey being conducted by Statistics Canada involving every twenty-eighth recipient of family allowance, asking very personal questions about things from income to the use of personal hygiene products, and the child tax credit bill? If
January 31, 1979

there is no connection, perhaps she could explain to the House and the country why this massive invasion of privacy is being allowed, as it seems to violate, if not the letter then certainly the spirit of the universal Family Allowances Act.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should have directed his question to my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He has been in the House long enough to know who is responsible for Statistics Canada. As the hon. member is probably afraid of my colleague, I have just consulted him and he has assured me that there is no connection.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services.
In view of the fact that the Pepin-Robarts commission has recommended, in the section dealing with unity and the health of the economy, that government purchasing policies be based upon considerations of market costs unless specified social and economic objectives would otherwise be served, could the minister indicate whether he goes along with this recommendation and when he intends to implement it, so that small manufacturers and suppliers within underdeveloped regions may have access to and take full advantage of commercial opportunities made available by Canada as a whole?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria by saying that the federal government being the major purchaser in Canada, it goes without saying that our duty is to use this purchasing power to reach various goals, which include strengthening Canadian industries and, as the hon. member has stated, helping our less favoured regions. In this regard, I might say that I have instructed my department officials to buy this year from our less favoured regions four times as much as they did over the past few years.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he would tell us if the misleading external trade figures for June and July of last summer, produced by Statistics Canada, had an adverse effect on the Canadian dollar and, if so, has he taken
Oral Questions
this matter up with his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in order to prevent a repetition of this latest gaffe by our national statistical agency?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the fact that the figures published in July showed a deficit for the month of June, which was not the situation in the month of July, was not particularly helpful to the Canadian dollar.
You have to give the benefit of the doubt to the organization, because those figures are perhaps being published too quickly. They come out only a few weeks following the end of the month and can be misleading because all the information is not in. Perhaps if this situation is repeated it would be worth-while looking into the possibility of not publishing these figures so quickly. In this way they would perhaps give a real reflection of what happened in the previous few months and the market would not then operate on information that was found to be correct a month later.
The same thing happened for the month of November, when a surplus of $100 million was shown. It could be that the same phenomenon will occur for the month of December. I cannot blame Statistics Canada, because perhaps it is forced to report too early. Maybe we could look at the possibility of waiting a longer period, so there will be no misunderstanding.


STATISTICS CANADA
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question relates also to the subject of statistics and I would direct it to the Prime Minister.
I wonder if he could take us into his confidence and tell us whether he has yet found time to answer the request of the president of the CLC regarding what I understand to be a unilateral decision by Statistics Canada to abolish the job vacancy survey, the only reliable statistics on the labour demand side? If he has not had time to answer this request, perhaps he could tell the House what decision he has made.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I answered that letter a week or two ago. The first thing I would point out is that it was not a unilateral decision. On the contrary, I had a meeting with the CLC executive and some ministers early in December, 1 believe-or perhaps late in November-at which time they asked us to bring out, alongside the new consumer price index, the old one. In effect, that is what we did in consideration of their request.
We looked into the cost, it was not very great, to publish these additional figures. We feared it would be confusing because, naturally, there can be only one set of official figures. We cannot have two sets of CPI figures side by side, particularly because of the importance of the consumer price index in

January 31, 1979
Oral Questions
establishing indexed pensions, and so on. We must have only one official index. Thus, we brought out that one official index but, acceding to the CLC request, we brought out in a parallel manner the old index, making it clear that the old index was not the official one. If the unions want to use it for certain purposes, of course we will not stand in their way.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Duff-erin-Waterloo.


Mr. Hogan:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will hear the hon. member's point of order at three o'clock. The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo.


CROWN ASSETS DISPOSAL CORPORATION
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services: it arises out of a $15,000 consultants' report by Stethem-Gareau Ltd., of Montreal, dealing with the question of employee morale at Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
Can the minister confirm the reports that the study, which was conducted at the cost of $15,000 to taxpayers, disclosed serious morale problems within Crown Assets Disposal Corporation? Can the minister tell the House whether, in fact, he has read a copy of the report since he and I first discussed it a month ago?
[ Translation]


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the hon. member that the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation has indeed commissioned different studies. I will be very happy to make available to the hon. member the one which deals with the performance of the corporation. As regards the study commissioned by the administration on the attitudes of the employees themselves, I do not think it is of public interest, considering it is already somewhat dated.
However, I can tell the hon. member that I asked the president of the corporation to undertake another study on that matter as soon as possible. And if the hon. member would like to have the president appear before the parliamentary committee, I would agree and it will be seen how she has doubled the sales figure within three years with the same number of employees.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer my question as to whether he has bothered to study the report which disclosed very serious morale problems. Can the minister indicate that?
Also, in view of the fact he stated in his response to me that he feels the study conducted just a little over a year ago is stale-dated, can he confirm that in 1978 virtually one-half of the employees of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation left the employ of the corporation? If so, what possible justification can the minister have for suggesting that circumstances have changed since the report was commissioned?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the hon. member my method of looking at any corporation or board for which I am responsible. As long as I have confidence in them, and as long as through their performance that confidence is justified, I will not act as a backseat driver.
If the hon. member would like her to appear before a parliamentary committee, he can ask her all the questions he wants, and I hope the hon. member will reach the same conclusion as me. When the hon. member realizes that she has increased services in three years, without increasing the number of employees, and all other parameters, I think he will reach the same conclusion. It is not up to me to ask for a report-


An hon. Member:: But you are the minister.


Pierre De Bané: -which has nothing to do with the performance of the company but concerns a particular problem which happened two years ago.


An hon. Member:: Did you read it?


POST OFFICE
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. Is he aware that at least 50 letter carriers in Hamilton are facing formal charges by the Letter Carriers Union of Canada because they obeyed parliament's back to work legislation last October?
During that debate, the minister assured the House that no postal workers would be harassed if they wanted to work. Thus, what will he do about this particular situation in Hamilton? Will the minister make clear to CUPW that the government will not tolerate Post Office employees suffering reprisals for obeying the law of the land?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, this question has been drawn to my attention. The position of my department was that it was an internal matter with the postal union.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lamontagne:: If these people asked us for help to protect them against their own union, we would consider it; but as a matter of fact at the moment there is no question of

January 31, 1979

harassment. The law is there. If they want help, again, we will consider it.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue, who is also the minister responsible for cutting down paperwork. My question is supplementary to the questions put by the hon. member for St. John's East.
I plead with the minister and his colleagues that this is not a laughing matter, nor is it a case of anyone trying to mislead anyone else. In view of the fact the mix-up in his department and the complications of the process will result in many thousands of mothers-perhaps hundreds of thousands-not receiving their child tax credit on time, and that when Bill C-10 was before the House we pleaded for the simplest possible arrangement, will the minister now apply himself to finding a way to deal with this matter in very simple terms? Why not accept the simplest statement from any mother that she is entitled to the payment, to ensure she receives it, leaving another year to sort the matter out as far as the details are concerned?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I am more than conscious of the problem created by the process.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: But I think we can be lured into exaggerating the complexity of this problem. I assure the hon. member that the department under my direction, my colleagues, all members on this side and other departments will co-operate fully to help mothers fill out these forms. I reiterate, the hon. member for St. John's East was trying to obscure the fact that this is not a laborious procedure once it is explained or understood.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Basically, schedule 10 contains four questions: What is the net income of the mother; what is the net income of her spouse; do they add up to more than $18,000-and if not, then they transfer that amount to the regular income tax form, sign their name and send it in.


Mr. Alexander:: And that is where the fun begins.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Let me reiterate, I do not doubt that for many mothers even the prospect of filing a return is a problem. It is that problem we are ready to encounter. All the officers of my department are conscious of this problem, as they are of others. Once again, I encourage the hon. member to help his constituents, through his own office, wherever he finds difficulty.
Oral Questions


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, does not the fact there are 1.5 million mothers who are non-filers of income tax forms, and who are into this situation for the first time, convince the minister that they will not be able to deal easily even with the so-called simplified form to which he just referred? Granted that in the course of a few months the minister might sort it all out, surely there can be a simple arrangement at this time, so that these mothers will get their money in April.
If the minister is caught with the Income Tax Act, caught with regulations, and requires some amendment to the statute to simplify the situation, will he ask the government House leader to discuss this matter with the other House leaders, for I am sure we would agree to put the necessary amendment through in half an hour?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I think we must acknowledge that the system has been agreed upon by parliament. It was devised by the Department of National Revenue for at least this year, to be carried out as effectively as possible.
I have no doubt that if a very small percentage-say 1 per cent of 1.5 million filers-are frustrated, this can amount to a very substantial number of people, by its very nature. But I do not think I could undertake or lead the hon. member to think that a change could be made at this stage. Next year there will be a far simpler return because-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Hon. members laugh. The fact remains that parliament passed this bill on December 4 and it was quite inconceivable that the taxation forms could be amended prior to that date to take account of a bill which might or might not be passed.
What I am suggesting is that hon. members opposite, as they have here, accept the fact that this will present some difficulty the first year and, instead of spending their time belly-aching about it in the House, get out and help their constituents fill out the forms.


CHILD TAX CREDIT-REQUEST THAT TAX FORM BE WITHDRAWN
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. minister that parliament did not pass on this incredible form.
My question is directed to the hon. lady, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Considering that when we debated the child tax credit bill, we on this side of the House warned the hon. lady that going by the method of the negative income tax, what would happen has happened, and considering that the form now before 1.5 million mothers in Canada is an incredible means test, has she made representations to the Minister of National Revenue to withdraw this incredible, indecent means test and to simplify the whole methodology, as

January 31, 1979
Oral Questions
suggested by the hon. member for St. John's East? Has the minister made these representations to the hon. Minister of National Revenue and, if not, will she assure the House that she will do so?
[ Translation]


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but the hon. member is all mixed up. In the second part of his question he refers to a means test. Granting social benefits by using the income tax is the most dignified way to evaluate the income and means of an individual and his family without having public servants interfering. That is why we have chosen it. Naturally, I do not want to be too long in answering my colleague. This is the method we want to apply. We want to use the most dignified and fair means to give each Canadian family in need an additional share of federal funds. Moreover, in the first part of his question he referred to the problem of filling a double form. It was I who informed the House of this problem, who explained that for the first year of application the revenue computer program had been working since the end of August and that in light of the present situation we had decided that it was better to give this money to the mothers in 1979 than to have them wait a year more to give the department a chance to design a simpler form.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. lady that I am asking this question because of the mothers in my riding who perceive this form as a reprehensible means test. She can call it what she wants. I am asking her again: considering the representations that have been made to members on this side of the House that this is a reprehensible means test, because of the bureaucratic form prepared by her colleague, did she ever determine that that is what it would be, and will she now make recommendations to him to withdraw this nonsense and simplify it; or is she just going to turn a deaf ear to the House?


Mr. Speaker:: That is a repetition of the question just asked. The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Mike Landers (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the fact that 1979 is the International Year of the Child, and as it appears that provincial governments have neglected many of their responsibilities in the field of education for special populations, has the minister given consideration to hosting a federal-provincial conference with a view to providing adequate facilities and programs for children with learning disabilities?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, two years ago my department gave out a grant of approximately $15,000 to the Canadian Association for Children with Learning Disabilities to hold a national conference. We gave another amount of close to $45,000, if my memory serves me well, for them to carry on a study, the report of which is expected in the near future.
If the purpose of the question is to assist these children, the mechanism of a federal-provincial conference in a field which is clearly provincial will not help at all. I would suggest that the Canadian association could act as a pressure group and have the effect of putting pressure on the various provincial governments to help children with learning disabilities.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I wish to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. On January 24, the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated that Canada's High Commissioner had delivered a personal note to the British Foreign Office indicating Canada's disagreement with the apparent decision to move Air Canada's London operations from Heathrow to Gatwick.
In view of the confusion such a move will create for travellers leaving Halifax, for example, en route to European destinations, will the Prime Minister tell the House if he has followed up this matter and, if not, will he now take whatever action is possible to alert the British authorities, if necessary at the ministerial level, of the seriousness of this move as it applies to Canadian air travellers, especially businessmen flying out of Halifax, Nova Scotia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the matter was taken up directly by me when I met with the British Prime Minister and his minister responsible for air transport when I went to London in early December.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance explain, because it puzzles me, why it is that in the course of pursuing the policy of a floating dollar and only making moves to ensure orderly marketing, some $5 billion more has been spent in buying Canadian dollars than in selling them? One would have thought that under the policy stated by the minister there would be a balance. Would the
January 31, 1979

minister explain this to me as simply as possible, so I will understand?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this matter often. Many times I have said that we have had to borrow abroad, not only for the question of the exchange rate but to supplement the flow of capital into Canada, because some years ago the provinces, municipalities and other institutions were borrowing abroad. These organizations are not borrowing as much at this time because there is a great deal of liquidity in Canada. The savings rate for the third year in a row is at a record level.
Because we are having this balance of payments problem, we must maintain some inflow of capital. We have borrowed in order to achieve this, and as we are operating the exchange market through the Bank of Canada, of course, it is serving that purpose at the same time.
It is a very complex issue and I can understand why the hon. member would be confused when his leader talks about a phantom deficit that is appearing or disappearing from week to week or month to month and deals only with that aspect of the economy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I can still understand gob-bledegook and evasion when I hear it. If I understood the minister correctly-and I hope he will correct me if I am wrong-he has just told me that because the provinces have not been borrowing as much as they usually do, the Government of Canada has felt it necessary to support the Canadian dollar.
Would the minister correct me if I am wrong and, if I am, would he explain to me why the purchase of $5 billion more, Canadian, than is being sold does not constitute support for our dollar to that extent?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. I said that Canada is in a poor balance of payments situation, we have had to maintain the flow of capital from abroad to Canada. In past years it was the provinces, municipalities and other institutions that were borrowing abroad, but now because there are enough savings in Canada and a great deal of liquidity, they are borrowing on the Canadian market and the federal government has decided to borrow abroad to supplement the flow of capital into Canada. I think it is very clear and simple.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister-he has not made it perfectly clear-whether or not, despite all his talk about a floating dollar, the government has actively supported the Canadian dollar in the manner he outlined in the last two answers.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have said many times that the governor of the Bank intervenes in the marketplace to maintain an orderly market. In all the currency that is floating in the world- Japan, Switzerland, Germany and the United States-all the
Privilege-Mr. Jarvis
governments are intervening to make sure that there is a normal market. It is very simple.


REASON CANADA GAMES PARTICIPANTS ASKED TO PROVIDE SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) which relates to the Canada Games in Brandon. Could the minister explain to the House the rationale for the organizers of this event asking for the social insurance number of all participants?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, that would have been a decision of the organizing committee in Brandon. I presume it is for the same reason as is generally the case in sporting events. Numerous youngsters enter their names in different ways: perhaps they call themselves Bobby Smith, Robert Smith, Robert Smith, Jr., and so on. In order to keep very good track of who is at the games and where they are, they like to keep the numbers straight.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Under the circumstances, has the minister an agreement with the Minister of National Revenue that if there is any confusion, that is the purpose for getting these numbers, so there can be no question about who these people are and where they live.
Has the minister arranged to have access to the computer of the Department of National Revenue in order to make sure that there is no mistake, or is this just another attempt to build up the social insurance number as an identifying number in government generally?


Iona Campagnolo: No, Mr. Speaker. I think I am quite safe in saying that the only concern we have is for the welfare of the young athletes who will be participating at Brandon and in assuring their parents that all their goods-their gloves, their shoes, their bags, all the things they take with them-will not be lost.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege relates to the availability, or lack of availability, to be more accurate, of the document tabled in this House on January 25, known as the report of the Task Force on Canadian Unity. I was able to confirm-and I apologize that I was only able to confirm this just before question period because there was some uncertainty about it-that one copy only of this document will be made available to members of parlia-

January 31, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Jarvis
ment. I hasten to point out, however, that any Canadian can purchase the document for $3.50 from the Department of Supply and Services, as is the case with many government documents.
I make no comment about the content of the document. That was dealt with by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and others on the day it was tabled. I might say that the style and readability of the document is attractive to me, and I think it is to most members. I should like to deal with what led up to the document, however. The order in council establishing the terms of reference of the commission directs that the commissioners shall, among other things;
(c) contribute to the knowledge and general awareness of the public the initiatives and views of the commissioners concerning Canadian unity;
The first line of the report indicates that the task force was created:
-with a broad mandate to obtain and to publicize the views of Canadians regarding the state of their country-
I emphasize the word "publicize", Mr. Speaker.
Finally, if I may quote briefly from the Prime Minister's remarks on January 25, he said, as reported at page 2552 of Hansard:
I am confident the report will take its place as a document of the first importance-
Later, he had this to say:
I am sure that all members of the House, all members of the provincial legislatures, and many thousands of Canadians will want to read and reflect carefully on this report.
I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing, without reservation or qualification, with the Prime Minister in terms of that particular statement. We have a document about which we may conclude there is no doubt of its importance, no doubt of the mandate the commissioners had to publicize their findings and, finally, there is no doubt, on no less an authority than the Prime Minister, that thousands of Canadians want to read the report.
How does that affect my rights and privileges, given the situation where only one copy is available to me? First of all, I must ask myself why I have the rights and privileges in the first place, and why I share them with fellow members. I believe that part of the reason is to enable me to fulfil the responsibilities that the electorate has bestowed upon me. Whether one interprets those as a quasi-trust relationship, a particular political mandate or not, I believe I have certain responsibilities. Given that position I believe that certain rights and privileges are accorded me in order to fulfil those responsibilities. One tool-whether it be important or unimportant is purely subjective in the mind of a member-is documentary material.
I should like to refer to a situation which I believe to be completely analogous. It was not long ago that certain constitutional proposals were put before us. In relating that to my specific riding, I wish to inform you that in the usual course through an annual questionnaire I consult my constituents on

various issues. I was told through my last questionnaire-and I suspected this to be the case-that 82 per cent of my constituents who replied did not regard the constitution as a high priority compared to other issues, namely, the economy. An even larger number, 85 per cent, indicated that they wanted more access to constitutional information. I do not consider those results contradictory, Mr. Speaker. In the minds of constituents, one reason for establishing the priority may be the lack of information. I interpreted those results in terms of my responsibilities to mean that I had an obligation to get as much information to my constituents on that issue as was possible.
As a result of this I-and I am sure many other members have done so-consulted the information service that provided the constitutional material. I received crates of material, Mr. Speaker. It was piled almost to the ceiling of my office. My staff was intimidated by the quantity. I did my best, and was able to distribute about 2,000 copies of this package which was composed of five documents. I am sure many other members were faced with the same situation. We were literally barricaded from our offices by the stacks of material.
Relating that case to the task force, I got only one copy of that report. Maybe I could accept the proposition that my rights and privileges can be changed, can be lessened or ameliorated, given certain other higher priorities. I think restraint of government spending is not a bad argument for changing certain rights and privileges from time to time, particularly in terms of documentary material. I can accept that. I may argue about whether the government should pick that particular document in order to exercise restraint, but I would accept it as a pretty good argument that it wants to cut costs.
How can I accept that it is the restraint on spending that prevents me from getting more than one copy of the unity report on the one hand when, on the other hand, I deal almost daily with the Canadian Unity Information office through the Department of the Secretary of State and in one package alone I received 41 documents? The initial package contained 41 individual documents-posters, pamphlets, booklets-now I can even get phonograph records. I can get them by the thousands and tens of thousands from this office, dealing with exactly the same issue as that dealt with by the task force.
When I can get tens of thousands of copies of gun control documents, tens of thousands of budget documents-even tens of thousands of the speeches of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan)-


An hon. Member:: Good grief!


Mr. Whelan:: Those are information sheets.


William Herbert Jarvis: If such documents are available to me in virtually unlimited copies then I simply cannot accept that I can only receive one copy of the very important document-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot seriously disagree with the contention being put forward by the hon. member. I think
January 31, 1979

he and other hon. members realize that he probably does not have a question of privilege in the technical sense, but it is certainly a very interesting, if not a thoroughly valid grievance.
I think the hon. member has raised a point that concerns all hon. members. The importance of the report of the Task Force on Canadian Unity, its quality, and the high level of interest in it, are things that would lead all hon. members to want to secure and distribute more copies, if that is at all possible. I am not able to say at the moment whose responsibility that ought to be on behalf of members.
1 think the hon. member will understand that technically it is not a question of privilege, but it is certainly a very valid point to raise and one that ought to be pursued. If this is the area of authority of the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) I hope he will address the problem. I will make sure that the hon. member's remarks to this point are known. If he has any concluding remarks to add, perhaps he would do that now.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, to conclude it will take me less than 30 seconds. I came to you because I did not know where else to go in view of the information I had received before question period. If I have no other responsibility, do I not have the responsibility to see that reasonable number of copies of this document appear in the high schools of my riding? In that case, sir, I understand your ruling. I believe you indicated how you were about to rule. If you can use your offices in any way whatsoever to assist me in what I consider to be a serious shortcoming of this government, I would be very much obliged.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply and Services I am pleased to have the opportunity to tell all hon. members that 16,000 copies have already been produced by the printing department of the Department of Supply and Services. There will be 65,000 additional copies printed immediately. Certainly hon. members will note that if they ask either the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Reid) or the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. De Bane) and follow the usual course, copies are readily available through the normal channels. I would suggest that to the hon. member rather than having him contradicting himself by saying he supports restraint on one hand yet, on the other hand, wanting everything printed in the thousands.


POINT OF ORDER
Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I see the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has left his seat. My point of order concerns something I brought up last November. It was raised in the question period today by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). The hon.
Point of Order-Mr. Hogan
member asked the Prime Minister why the job vacancy survey was cut out and if he had answered the CLC request. The Prime Minister misunderstanding, either deliberately or otherwise, replied concerning the distinction between the consumer price index that included food, and the consumer price index as it is usually known.
A distressing thing about being a member of parliament is that one knows people in the front seats can not only give inadequate answers but do not have to answer. The Prime Minister did not answer the question at all. The hon. member for Central Nova is absolutely correct. Through the cutbacks or through the restraint program there may have been things collected by Statistics Canada that are not vital. However, I cannot understand how the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) can make proper policy in this country without a job vacancy survey which is the only type of measurable demand of labour.
We know from a political point of view what has happened. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) gave the game half away at some of the committee meetings on unemployment insurance because they were so embarrassed that there was only an average of 40,000 and 50,000 in job vacancies, including full time and part time jobs, over the last few years, while there were close to 1 million unemployed. Because of this the government decided that this was a good thing to cut out.
I would say, in relation to price indices, this is one of the biggest failings which shows how poor the policy-making is in this government by the Prime Minister and his finance department. They are responsible for all kinds of nonsense that the press runs across-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member has been seen on a point or order. He is now obviously getting into an attack on the positions taken by the ministers during the question period. If I were to recognize every member who wanted to do that every day following question period by way of a point of order, we would probably do very little else. Perhaps the hon. member might want to bring his remarks to a conclusion.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, thank you for reminding me. I got carried away. I do not get a chance during question period to raise these things and debate them. But I would like to make this point. The wholesale price index was dropped as well. If hon. members take a look at what the Council of Economic Advisers to the United States said and look at the president's message on the economy they will see that the wholesale price index was shown there as an indicator of future inflation. We had one based upon a 1939 base. This should have been modernized. Now we have no wholesale price index being measured. How can policy be made that way, Mr. Speaker?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) has put before the House most of what I wanted to say. While I appreciated receiving the answer from the Prime Minister

January 31, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Alexander
(Mr. Trudeau) it left a totally misleading effect on the House because it did not relate to the question I asked. I appreciated the answer to the question 1 did not ask.
I only wanted to ask-to save the question for later, perhaps some of his staff could take note of the question and let me have an answer as to why this most important statistical information, and as the hon. member has said it is the only systematic information about the demand side of the labour market, has apparently been abolished. In conclusion I would like to state it is little wonder, if this level of misinformation and misunderstanding exists over there, that we are in a position where we are spending approximately $1 billion per week while incurring about $1 billion per month deficit in this country. It is no wonder if that is the kind of information that emanates from the government benches.
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question of privilege raised I would like to say that StatsCan places very high priority on its labour surveys and I want to assure the House of that fact.
Secondly, the job survey that was done by Statistics Canada was found to be burdensome, not very useful and not used very often. In place of that StatsCan has assured labour organizations in Canada that it will continue to compile a CPI figure for them based upon the old basis, purely to assist in determining wage increases and COLA clauses in the years ahead. It was an agreement reached with the government and the labour organizations that the one would be more beneficial than the other.


PRIVILEGE
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to let you know how concerned we are on this side of the House. I want to speak on behalf of the thousands of postal workers who returned to work in light of some very adverse conditions at a particular time. I am sure, sir, you will remember we had a debate concerning the importance of maintaining services to which the Canadian people are entitled.
I was most disturbed when the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne), in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott)-and I do not know how far he went-indicated there was some possibility of 31 odd members being subject to some disciplinary action when they will be appearing at a meeting which I understand will be held on February 5.
To recall, we were all very concerned because at that particular time a number of postal workers wanted to return to work. As a matter of fact it was so important that a question was posed to the then minister of justice. I want to get this on the record, sir, because the Postmaster General has indicated
[Mr. MacKay.J
this type of harassment is none of his business, that it is an internal matter dealing with CUPW and their union members. Keeping this in mind, that this is a closed shop, if there is any disciplinary action which would mean they are relieved of their membership, you can well imagine that they will be out of work. These people went back to work with the understanding that they had the full force and clout of the government behind them.
In order to let you know what the government thinking was, which does call for some explanation in light of the answer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member, despite the importance of his point, will have to persuade me that it has something to do with the order of business, that is to say, by way of a point of order-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, with all respect-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wants an opportunity to debate or take issue with answers given during the question period in a sense that they may contradict earlier answers or positions taken by the same minister or other ministers, surely that is not disorder. It has nothing to do with order in the proceedings in the House. The hon. member will have to persuade me first that he has a point of order before I can let him go on.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that you did not hear me in the first instance, and I beg your indulgence. 1 did not say that I was rising on a point of order, I said I was rising on a question of privilege speaking on behalf of countless thousands who do not have the opportunity, and who have been misled by the then minister of justice.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question of privilege, he is in the same position. If he will persuade me as to what the question of privilege is, I will hear him further.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: After having been asked questions with regard to the protection of those who wanted to work, the then minister of justice said on October 23, as reported at page 344 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, we have been, as has the Post Office, urging the return of these various employees to work, assuring them of every possible protection in the exercise of what is now their legal duty. That is the position we have been taking and will continue to take.
My question of privilege is that the Postmaster General has now abdicated that position. He has left these workers hung out on the line to dry, which is reprehensible, irresponsible, and calls for an answer. When we make statements in this House, the people believe what we say. They believe they will get the full force of this government to protect them from any harassment. We should stand by that commitment. That is my question of privilege. Whether Your Honour rules it out of order or not, I wanted to stand on behalf of countless thousands who take this government at its word.
January 31, 1979


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member knows, when the hon. member talks about a question of privilege he is talking about a tightly defined question which relates to the procedures of the House in a very strict way. As he says, he may have a grievance on behalf of some postal workers in this country. If I am going to entertain that under the heading of a question of privilege, I will equally have to entertain all of those who perhaps disagree with other answers given on behalf of other groups in the course of the question period today or any other day. Surely the hon. member must realize that privilege relates to a very narrowly defined interference with his ability to function as a member, or of all members' ability to function, and a number of other very tightly defined areas in respect to contempt of the House and its proceedings. Surely, as he knows, I cannot find that his grievance today comes within that definition.


MR. LAVOIE-RECOGNITION BY CHAIR DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege will be very brief, maybe the briefest in the history of parliament. It deals once again with the same matter, namely the oral question period. When I raised that question of privilege last week, I was told by the Chair that later that week or this week I would be informed whether or not there are precedents. Since I will be absent as of today on important business in my constituency-because my riding is just as important as parliament-would the Chair give me an answer on that matter?


POINT OF ORDER
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order relating to House business. In the course of the question period today, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. De Bane) indicated that he was prepared to move a motion to send the whole question of the disorder in the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation to the appropriate committee. I wonder whether the acting government House leader might indicate when such a motion will be moved in the House.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, this whole matter will be taken under serious consideration. We will advise the hon. member further.
Introduction of Bills PRIVILEGE
MR. MacFARLANE-POST OFFICE


Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I feel 1 have a question of privilege. Other members have referred to the postal question. I believe that two thirds of them are in my constituency. My interpretation of the answer did not fit with theirs. I was assured that the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) would indeed prevent any harassment, that the internal matters he referred to were their dealings with their union and that, if they reported back, this would be looked at by the government.



Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a brief point of order with regard to the proceedings on the adjournment motion last night. Anyone reading Hansard would certainly be puzzled as to what went on in the third question last night in the adjournment debate. Not only the title of the question I was asking makes very peculiar reading, but the answer of the parliamentary secretary bore no relation whatsoever to the question I asked. I have had some discussion with one of the officers at the table. We will have another adjournment debate in the near future and it is hoped we will get the right question and the right answer at the same time. I hope Your Honour will bear with us through what will be extensive amendments to Hansard in the near future.


Mr. Speaker:: I am grateful the hon. member has brought this to my attention. I will certainly look into it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-457, to amend the Canada Council Act (financial accountability).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, this act is in response to criticisms levelled against the Canada Council by the Auditor General, later substantiated in the public accounts committee and supported by Treasury Board, regarding the financial accountability of the council. At the moment the Canada Council is not a Crown agency.
2760

January 31, 1979
Order Paper Questions
This bill will provide for ministerial responsibility for the Canada Council, so far as constitutional restrictions on private member's initiatives will allow, in order to enable elected representatives to perform more effectively their duties of overseeing government expenditures intended to promote the arts. At the moment the council is a closed organization which refuses to divulge information to the arts community or parliament. As a Crown agency, hopefully responsive to a freedom of information act, the Canada Council will become more open.


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

Robert Lloyd Wenman: for leave to introduce Bill C-458, to protect the Canadian environment by instituting mandatory impact assessment procedures prior to the construction of installations potentially damaging to the environment.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, an act to protect the Canadian environment by instituting mandatory impact assessment procedures prior to the construction of installations potentially damaging to the environment was written because of the failure of the government's environmental impact review process. I gave a full description of this bill and the need for it on January 31, 1977, regarding its provisions for freedom of information, public access to that information and restrictive time-frames that will add efficiency to the process of evaluation.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 682, 683, 865, 871 and 876.


Mr. Herbert: I.	Is the Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare presently studying the Liefmann drug for sufferers from acute rheumatoid arthritis?

2.	Is the drug presently being tested in the United States?
3.	Is the drug presently being manufactured in another country and has any application been received either to import the drug or to manufacture the drug in Canada?


Monique Bégin: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: 1. No. The study and development of new drugs is a function of the private sector.
2.	Not to the knowledge of the United States Food and Drug Administration.
3.	We have received information that a similar drug is being manufactured and used in the Dominican Republic. The Health Protection Branch of the Department has corresponded with the agents of the manufacturer, and has extended an open invitation to them to meet and discuss the requirements to establish the safety and effectiveness of the drug. The manufacturer has not yet submitted data to satisfy the safety and effectiveness requirements.


Mr. Howie: For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978, what amount was paid to farmers under the Canada-New Brunswick Agricultural Development Subsidiary Agreement as DREE's share to assist with (a) dairy production (b) field crops?


Mr. Donald Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: For the fiscal year 1977-78; (a) $222,800. (b) $505,150.


Mr. Howie: Since April 1, 1978, what amount was spent to date on fermentation technology by the National Research Council and what amount was spent on extra mural contracts?


Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned, the reply is as follows: The total expenditure on fermentation technology amounted to $2,849,000 of which $1,682,000 was for extra mural expenditures.


Mr. Howie: Did the National Research Council acquire land for the Industrial Materials Research Institute?


Pierre Bussières: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned, the reply is as follows: No. The National Research Council in conjunction with the Department of Public Works is currently studying land purchase possibilities for the Industrial Materials Research Institute in the selected site area of the south shore close to Montreal.


January 31, 1979


Mr. Howie: How many NRC laboratories are located (a) outside of Ottawa (b) in New Brunswick?


Pierre Bussières: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned, the reply is as follows: (a) 7. (b) 0.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 276 and 411 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 276 and 411 be deemed to have been made orders for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Did Canada borrow money between the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1978-79 and, if so (a) in what amount (b) what percentage of the amount was borrowed against Canada Savings Bonds?
2.	Did Canada borrow money through chartered banks and, if so, in what amount?
3.	Did Canada borrow money abroad and, if so (a) in what amount (b) from what countries (c) from which financial institutions (d) at what interest rate (e) for what period of time (0 what are the terms and conditions of reimbursement?
Return tabled.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	In each year 1970 to date, how many service men and/or women were serving in the Canadian Armed Forces and where were they located in Canada or abroad?
2. For the same years, how many men and/or women were (a) recruited (b) retired from the Forces and, in each case, how many were (i) bilingual (ii) unilingual English (iii) unilingual French?
3.	For the same years, how many (a) promotions (b) demotions were made to (i) bilingual (ii) unilingual English (iii) unilingual French service men and/or women and from what ranks to what ranks were such promotions and demotions made?
4.	For the same years, what amount was spent by, or on behalf of the Forces for advertising in (a) the French language (b) the English language (c) other languages and, in each case, what media was used?
Return tabled.
Referenda


Yvon Pinard: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, January 30, 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. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, last night, when I called it ten o'clock, I was saying that Canadians generally do not want a referendum on the constitution, that generally they are not particularly concerned about the constitution. What the majority of Canadians want is a sound administration in which the unemployed can find work, the mother of a family can have something to put in the refrigerator, as I said last night. Mr. Speaker, let us not make a secret of the fact that, since 1976, since the Parti Quebecois came into power, we have heard all sorts of statements on national unity from men in the public eye.
In the last three years, we have been able to see that such statements, instead of creating harmony and allowing citizens from the various parts of Canada to better understand one
80047-3 3'/2

January 31, 1979
Referenda
another, has fostered discord between provincial and federal governments. From what 1 have seen in the last few months, there is a fight going on between the two main parties involved in this constitutional conflict, namely the Quebec premier and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). One of my fellow-citizens pointed out to me recently, speaking of the constitution and the deadlock and disagreements between the Quebec and central governments, that they reminded him of two roosters fighting over the same hen, not to meet the needs of and satisfy the hen, but to gratify their pride and vanity.
So, Mr. Speaker, those two, with their resounding statements, are only aggravating the debate. They are only stirring up more discord between the two governments instead of finding, or attempting to find, ways of appeasing those divergent views. No, Mr. Speaker, it is neither with referendums nor with meaningless speeches that we will find a way to get along together. It is very simply through considerable understanding, by making allowances, even many allowances, and by everyone doing his or her part that we can achieve harmony from the Pacific to the Atlantic.
Mr. Speaker, so long as the federal government is not assuming its responsibilities and placing monetary creations under the responsibility of the Bank of Canada instead of the chartered banks, we shall face problems of this nature. As a matter of fact, we shall only be able to live in harmony in Canada when we all have something to put on our table, when we all have the feeling to live in a beautiful and great country, and are sure that tomorrow will be full of promise for each and every one of us. So I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this government will at last assume its responsibilities and give us assurances in that regard.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I could certainly not refrain from making some comments in this debate on second reading of Bill C-9. I have already heard several speeches, and I may tell you immediately that I do not agree with everything I have heard in the House on this legislation.
Yesterday, I heard members from Quebec, and particularly the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve), who urged the hon. members of the House to support the government in its endeavour to acquire this repressive tool because she felt the danger which is upon us. I was sorry to see her lack of trust in the decision that Quebeckers will be making, and I think that she has acknowledged her party's failure to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of a province and meet with the objectives of a majority of Quebeckers as well as of all Canadians, who would want to see, in this constitutional reform, a chance to secure an interesting future for all concerned.
I also heard, one of our colleagues, a member from the NDP, say how surprised he was to see that only the member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), Quebec's representative, would vote against this bill. 1 think that our Social Credit colleagues are also aware of the dangers of this legislation and

of the government's intentions in this regard, and it is because of these intentions, which concern us, of course, and which explain the present mistrust towards this government, that our Quebec colleagues from the Social Credit Party of Canada will, I think, vote against this legislation.
But I think we must first of all try to find the reason for introducing this national legislation on referenda. It is clear, as the Minister of Communications has indicated, that the federal government, in view of Quebec's upcoming referendum, considers it essentiel to pass an act to oppose a possible decision by a majority of Quebeckers. It is obvious that the government has failed, with its Quebec team, and because of this monumental failure in the eyes of Quebeckers, who had expected a government that would have better understood their aspirations, it is trying to give itself a tool which will only lead to the worse confrontation ever.
We, on this side of the House, are confident that with a philosophy that would be concerned with Canadian and Quebec interests as well and should there be a new government, it would be possible to bring about a constitutional reform and to discuss openly a new distribution of powers thus allowing a large majority of Quebeckers to understand that philosophy and the necessity for those changes. The referendum does not frighten us at all because we are confident that Quebeckers in their wisdom and with the necessary degree of flexibility, would reject that idea of breaking away from Canada provided a federal government would come up with those changes that are necessary to meet the natural aspirations not only of the people of Quebec but also the people in various regions and various provinces.
So why that referendum in Quebec in the first place? I think it is important to remind our colleagues in this House, and on both sides, that in this country, because there has been a lot of talk in the past few days about this legislation-and I intend as a Quebecker to remind them also of a few things that might not be the most pleasant-but I don't think I will be saying anything new if I talk about the frustrations that Francophones felt in this country, even long before the Parti Quebe-cois came to power.
I am thinking, for example, of the bitter fight that was fought on a bilingual currency, on simultaneous translation, frustrations that members understand today, but how many Quebeckers came to this place without being able to be understood because there was no simultaneous translation. And bilingual currency. You will say it is symbolic. That was important years ago. Of course, things have improved and people demand more, and that is normal, Mr. Speaker, but those frustrations that were being felt by French-speaking minorities generated, particularly in Quebec, a loss of faith in the federal government and a feeling of alienation towards it.
January 31, 1979

And to think that all Canadians should have noticed long ago those concerns and that lack of credibility! Of course, the people in Quebec who were living in a vacuum had to put up with the situation, and their governments fought the federal government in the name of autonomy. In the last years, from 1950 to 1960, there was some improvement as some provincial ministers felt the need to co-operate with the then prime minister. But for practical purposes, let us go back to 1960 when Mr. Jean Lesage became leader in the province of Quebec as an Ottawa-trained federalist and sold the slogan "Maitres chez nous".
At that time, as my colleagues from Quebec will remember, this contributed to develop a certain awareness among Quebeckers. And, of course, Mr. Lesage sold that slogan "Maitres chez nous." He also made thousands of Quebeckers aware of that objective which was not one of separation but rather a certain concept of autonomy and nationalism which was very well received. But even Mr. Lesage did not succeed in awakening the Canadian nation as a whole and particularly his federal colleagues. In 1966, Mr. Johnson became Quebec premier and nobody will deny, I think, that Mr. Johnson, a true federalist, tried to promote the development of the Francophone bloc in Quebec while respecting the rights of the minority that had and still has its place in Quebec.
And Mr. Johnson in order to reawaken the public and make the federal government realize that changes were urgently needed had to launch the slogan "Equality or Independence". Certainly it was never in Mr. Johnson's mind, and I knew him well, to separate Canada. But he must have been really disappointed and frustrated to add the possibility of independence to his drive for equality. Mr. Johnson was after equal opportunities, equal language status, and also probably a sizeable number of jobs in the public service for Francophones I think the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) knows what I am referring to and he no doubt agreed on gradual entry into the public service of a percentage of the French-speaking population.
We all know the untimely death of Mr. Johnson led to a Liberal government under Mr. Bourassa coming to power in 1970. But then again Mr. Bourassa was compelled to refer to cultural sovereignty, something that gave Liberal members here a good laugh. I remember all the humiliations that Mr. Bourassa had to suffer because of this government even though they were political cousins. This government took credit for the election of Mr. Bourassa, and because of that he could not make any decisions for himself, everything was decided by this government.
Those are comments I heard on the part of Liberal members when I was myself sitting on the other side of the House. I remember hearing comments which nearly shocked me, Mr. Speaker. Because Mr. Bourassa was not supposed to control anything, those in the federal government had decided that he would be elected and so he was. But then he tried to promote the objective of cultural sovereignty. What could be more legitimate than to allow a bloc of more than five million
Referenda
French-speaking Canadians living on the same territory to have the tools they need for their cultural development? It seems to me that there was nothing shocking about it, but this government rejected many times the demands made by the Liberal government headed by Mr. Bourassa. What a lot of deceptions and betrayals! What is even worse, is that they were made by this team from Quebec, by the three doves and the 60 members of parliament from Quebec who arrived on the same side of the House in 1968. Mr. Speaker, what a dream for Quebeckers!


An hon. Member:: In 1965!


Roch La Salle: I am sorry, in 1965. This is even worse. From 1965 to 1979. We were promised a just society and the possibility for Quebec to develop and gain recognition within the constitution. But how many times, as I said earlier, have Quebeckers been disillusioned by the rejection of the representations made by the Quebec government, and this was not a separatist government, Mr. Speaker. How many humiliations did Mr. Bourassa and other Liberal ministers in Quebec suffer in the hands of their colleagues in Ottawa who refused to listen to the quite legitimate requests of Quebec. There is no doubt that it caused a certain alienation. When Mr. Bourassa felt the need to talk about bill 22 in Quebec, it led to the events of 1976 and the defeat of the Liberal government which was replaced by a government which advocates separation from Canada.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, why Quebeckers dismissed the Bourassa government in 1976. Perhaps we should ask ourselves why Quebec federal members here have not been more attentive and have not succeeded in bringing their own government to the required flexibility, that flexibility whose necessity we have acknowledged for a long time and which we will not hesitate to show. How little you know us if you think that we would give the provinces the very shirt off our back and that we are prepared to negotiate the partition of Canada. There is no question about that.
However, we are thinking about a reassessment of powers, a duplication of jobs and we believe in this. We also believe in the aspirations and needs of the various areas and provinces of Canada. We think federalism should undergo radical changes and the Pepin-Robarts task force realized that as well.
This bill is now introduced, because the government has failed to carry out its duty. Quebeckers cannot forget the fight of the "gens de Fair." Quebeckers cannot forget the betrayal about the sales tax, as they cannot forget the recent position of the government concerning Bill C-14. Those are the problems which Quebeckers have to face. With a team of some 60 members, we ought to be able to resolve those problems, Mr. Speaker.
We have failed to cater to the needs of the Quebec people within a reasonable period of time. We have failed to still the concerns of the French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec. We have also failed to dispel the regional disparities which

January 31, 1979
Referenda
hurt not only the French-speaking community but also Canadians in several parts of the country.
On account of this government, we have had to establish a commission, after the Laurendeau-Dunton commission whose report was laid to rest at the bottom of a drawer even though it did cost plenty to the Canadian people, and they all know that! Today, we have the report of the Pepin-Robarts task force which will not prove too expensive if we are to make use of it, but the government has already shown some hesitation. The report makes it clear that not everything is going fine with federalism as we know it. That has been admitted.


Eymard G. Corbin: Where do you stand?


Roch La Salle: I will not explain my position on the Pepin-Robarts report to the hon. member because he probably would not understand it.
Today we are studying Bill C-9 and I hope we will have the opportunity to discuss the conclusions of the report of the Task Force on Canadian Unity. The fact remains that the task force shows that the government made a big mistake with its policies, and this in the ten years I have been here.


Yvon Pinard: Explain!


Roch La Salle: This deception in the minds of Canadians is due to the fact that there is a problem. The government thinks that it can put an end to the controversy on national unity by means of a national law on referenda. But this government does not understand that it will be unable to restore links, links of genuine friendship between all groups that make up this country unless it makes them all feel that they really participate in the life of the country, unless it gives them decent incomes, unless it makes the different groups that form the country respect each other.
All that is needed, Mr. Speaker, are changes in attitude, and openness of mind from both French and English-speaking Canadians and all ethnic groups. I suggest that we must demonstrate understanding. Realizing that it has failed the province of Quebec, that its great team has not succeeded in making room for Quebeckers within Canada, which would be acceptable to them, this government has introduced a referendum bill in the hope of offsetting the decision the people of Quebec will make in a few months from now.
Mr. Speaker, the important point is to agree to a change of attitude, commit ourselves to an early study of the Pepin-Rob-erts commission recommendations and implementation of the proposed reform, and let the provinces know just how much change is required to meet what I regard as fundamental needs and I am not thinking only of Quebec, as that province is not the only one which is dissatisfied with the present system.
There have been federal-provincial conferences which readily revealed disaffection and confrontation as between provinces, and their refusal to accept this government's attitude. So, Mr. Speaker, the lack of response with regard to the Canadian feeling, the lack of solution with respect to constitutional reform, the fact that our provincial partners have been

kept waiting for too long and the fact that our provincial premiers have been continuously confronted and treated like school children, all that has caused division in this country.
The country is facing serious questions and Canadians are concerned. Now we are asked to provide parliament with a legislation which according to government members would be the solution to the national unity problem. But how blind can they be to believe that this legislation will solve the problem? How blind and how devoid of ideas can they be to ingenuously imagine that this legislation on referenda will solve the problem in the event of a favourable answer to the referendum on sovereignty association as advocated by the Parti Quebecois, by the government of Quebec?
Yesterday, the Minister of Communications said in fact that she was concerned, and this was quite obvious, over the possibility that the Quebec government might win the referendum on its stated objective, and that we should pass this legislation as quickly as possible in order to provide the government with a tool, which would change nothing. Let Quebec decide. Do we really believe that by passing legislation on the referendum we would settle the issue? Absolutely not. I think it is high time we understood the feelings of Quebeckers and the frustrations of other provinces over other issues and that we try to resolve these problems. This national referendum bill is in my opinion nothing more than a political gadget.
The Prime Minister, in the wake of his fiasco and monumental failure on the political and economic fronts, has designed this tool to enhance his image as the great saviour of confederation. Actually he is responsible for and the originator of our present problems with his team riding his coattails and not daring to speak up. I was told yesterday that we were free to support the bill or not. That is a joke, Mr. Speaker, since we know fully well that no living body on the other side would dare stand up and speak against this legislation even if he felt like it. It was the same thing with the sales tax and with Bill C-14. We are all aware of the position, of the state of subjection of those people, and we are also aware of the deep frustrations of Quebeckers.
Today, as a Quebecker, I enumerate those frustrations we have suffered, when we are still waiting for a federal government which fails to understand what changes are needed in order to create the climate we want. Quebeckers are only too willing to find ways of improving our beautiful country of Canada. Nobody will have me say otherwise. We will immediately be accused of sleeping with the separatists. This is the argument of the weak, Mr. Speaker. They will even say, as they did last summer with regard to the sales tax, that we just wanted the vote of the Parti Quebecois members, whereas the Liberal and UN leaders supported Mr. Parizeau's position. Of course, government members will keep very quiet about the report of the C. D. Howe Institute issued this morning which says that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) should have copied some of the measures adopted by the Quebec minister of finance. I am not saying that, but the C. D. Howe Insitute did this morning, as reported in the press.
January 31, 1979

So, one can understand the incompetence shown by the Minister of Finance and the refusal and stubbornness of this government, despite the fact that it is led by a man who should understand Quebec. I certainly would not like to surrender such a tool to this government which will use it to further its political ends, and we all know that.


An hon. Member:: Yes, precisely.


Roch La Salle: This government is, of course, responsible for achieving an ideal that is mine, that of reshaping and modernizing this country and giving all Canadians the status that is rightfully theirs. Such is the responsibility of the government and it is with this ideal in mind that we intend to battle with this government, to fight against this legislation because it is not a solution; on the other hand, with that ideal in mind we shall attempt to convince the majority of Canadians. Whatever may be said on the other side, it remains that Canadians are now witnessing a shocking bankruptcy, both economical and political, and are becoming aware of the fact that our leader is bent on achieving flexibility and the participation of the provinces in the making of our great national decisions.
Those are changes which should be brought about, Mr. Speaker, and this is the way to achieve that national unity, that national harmony which I prefer because it is important, I think, that we begin admitting the existence of those groups who have different views, of those ethnic groups who came here to help us build this country and to harmonize those differences which are remarkable, legitimate and also natural. But both as a Quebecker and as a Canadian, I am looking forward to seeing in this House a government open and positive enough to put forward legislation which coincides with the reality of Canada. But this is not what they did, Mr. Speaker. They conceal the real reasons for introducing this piece of legislation. Thank God we shall not be taken in because we know this government's intentions, namely that they want to move around with that umbrella called Bill C-9 under which they may hide their deplorable performance and the feeling of frustration they have too often instilled all over the country.
In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I will repeat that we shall not be able to achieve national harmony by means of a piece of legislation. I would invite all my colleagues, indeed all Canadians and my colleagues opposite from Quebec to reflect on the historical background of our country. I mentioned the word frustration; well, there has been some frustration, and that is what has nurtured this loss of confidence in Quebec. And if 60 Quebeckers opposite are unable to find a solution in such a coercive measure, then they have failed in their duty. And if they are unable to bring into their caucus the changes that are expected by the population, I suggest they will not only have failed in their duty, but they will have betrayed the province they represent. On this point, I believe Quebeckers are about to pass the required verdict. In spite of the critics that have befallen some of the proposals we have made, in spite of those critics-
Referenda


Yvon Pinard: What proposals?


Roch La Salle: Anyone who knows about politics knows what I am talking about.


Mr. Guay:: Name one of them, only one!


Roch La Salle: Still, Mr. Speaker, when we deal with an objective which should be to restore the economy and not to campaign once again on Canadian unity, because what the Canadian people actually need is still bread and butter, and the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) knows how many unemployed there are in his own constituency and he is also going to wrap himself in this flag the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is trying to foist on us with this Bill C-9. They are hiding behind this smoke screen and are telling Canadians that only the Prime Minister can save Canada, when in fact he is the one and only person responsible for the present deteriorated climate. It must be said that Canada has never been more divided, and I will not hesitate to say it on every forum I will be offered in Quebec.
Never has such a large Quebec group been so weak in the Liberal caucus. Never has a 60-member group from Quebec betrayed so often the vital interests of the province of Quebec. This needs to be said, Mr. Speaker, and a bill is not going to solve those problems. So I say to this government which so often broke its word that it can expect to be judged and I hope Quebeckers will not miss the opportunity-we are all longing for that opportunity that will come hopefully very soon-to really see if they are not as intelligent as the rest. In the circumstances, I believe many members may feel a little worried and I can assure them that it is not this little bill that is going to solve the problem, and it is without hesitation that I will deny them that tool that hides the truth, Mr. Speaker, that tool devised here in this House by this government because it has failed in its fundamental duties since it came into power. Therefore, I will be proud to deny them that tool that is obviously devious.


Hon. Francis Fox (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):: It gives me great pleasure, of course, to take part in the debate on the referendum bill introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Reid). I listened with great interest to the speech made earlier by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard). I admired the serenity with which he managed to make his point. I listened with no less interest but perhaps a little less admiration to the kind of speech that was just made by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), and in his case serenity yielded naturally to passion, and we know what happens in such cases. The hon. member is quite prepared to make all sorts of accusations in this House, and right after making such irrational remarks, he does not hesitate to leave rather hastily.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that in a place like this honest and upright politicians can have different opinions on fundamental positions that may affect the future of their country. What is wrong, Mr. Speaker, is that we are told half-truths and given a

January 31, 1979
Referenda
very personal interpretation of past history disguised as the truth. This is just about what he did-maybe not on purpose, maybe he simply got carried away in certain parts of his speech, but this is what he did. I would like to give a few examples of this.
He said for instance that for the government, the referendum bill is the answer to the national unity problem. No member of this House can seriously suggest that this bill was introduced for that reason. On the contrary, we have all seen, at least in the last ten years, the constitutional reform process introduced by the government, a whole series of federal-provincial conferences, and more recently, the introduction of a series of working papers prepared by the government starting with a very serious paper entitled "A time for action", as well as the establishment of the Pepin-Robarts task force which has just issued its report. The hon. member for Joliette knows quite well that it would be more honest to admit that this is not the answer of the government on the unity issue. He is well aware of the position of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the leader of the government, to the effect that everything is negotiable during constitutional discussions, except for two requirements, that is the preservation of the Canadian federation-and I would like to know if the hon. member for Joliette agrees with the basic principle which says that the legislatures have certain responsibilities within their respective and largely independent jurisdictions-and we all know the second requirement, Mr. Speaker, which is that basic individual rights be included in a charter which will be enshrined in the Canadian constitution.
And on that score, the political group to which the hon. member belongs certainly has no lesson to teach people on this side of the House. He only has to ask the leaders of other Conservative parties in other provinces, the hon. Premier of Manitoba or the hon. Premier of Ontario, whether they are prepared to grant the minorities who speak the other official language in their provinces the same rights granted to the English-speaking minority in the province of Quebec. He should ask them that question before giving us a lecture here.
On this side, our position cannot be more specific and straightforward. We think that all Canadian citizens must enjoy the same fundamental rights across this country which is called Canada. If the hon. member cannot make the same statement, then he has no lesson to give to the people sitting on this side of the House. According to the hon. member, the Pepin-Robarts commission stated that over the years the Trudeau government made mistakes and that it criticized the government policy. He knows quite well and I could quote from the report where the Pepin-Robarts commission gave its unqualified support to the official language policy of this government. I found another point-not very clear I must say-in the passionate address of my friend from Joliette. He also referred to the Laurendeau-Dunton commission and stated that it had not been acted upon. In other words, that report tabled by the commissioners according to him would have simply been shelved. Here again, the hon. member for

Joliette knows better than that. And I challenge him to prove me wrong. He was in this House when the government introduced the Official Languages Act which was a direct result of the Laurendeau-Dunton report.
The hon. member has the right, the privilege and even the duty to disagree with the government. But in expressing his opinions he does not have to misrepresent the stands put forward over the years by this side of the House. Besides, Mr. Speaker, we witness here one of the shortcomings of our parliamentary system, in the sense that all along opposition members took a negative stand, always taking the opposite view of that taken by the government.
Still there is a field where I think it would be extremely useful for hon. members to extend their policies and their views. As an example I take the field of external affairs where we do manage to show some sort of common front in the House; even if we do not agree on all points and all incidents that may occur from month to month and year to year, it clearly demonstrates that our position is quite similar. And, Mr. Speaker, unless federalist forces in Canada succeed in the short term in adopting a position acceptable to the majority of federalist forces, I think they will serve the interests of the Parti Quebecois which knows full well that for electoral purposes the major political groups of the country will contradict one another. The only winners in that process, Mr. Speaker, are those who want to destroy rather than build the country. And I readily recognize that the hon. member for Joliette, in spite of the half truths he said in the House of Commons, is in fact a true Canadian who wants to build a country which will be even better than it is today, which will be all the more capable of answering the needs of regions and reflecting the duality of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I had no intention to make a partisan or an impassioned speech this afternoon. Rather I intended to pursue one or two of the ideas voiced by the hon. member for Joliette. And I agree with him when he says that the rub of the debate is the phenomenon of alienation and the lack of confidence in our democratic institutions in Canada. I agree with him on this but I do entertain many reservations about his suggestions so far. I for one would like to concentrate on the question of the lack of confidence in our democratic institutions and the alienation of the people and see how the new legislation on referenda proposed by the Minister of Justice might help to a certain extent. I am not saying it is a cure-all, nobody says so, but it would help to strengthen our institutions.
Any question about the integration of the principle of referendums in our system of parliamentary democracy requires that one look fully into the meaning of the concept of democracy in a modern society. It also requires a certain assessment of the state of that democracy. The very concept of democracy, as everyone knows, has changed with the times. The concept of democracy in a modern society has certainly evolved a great deal since antiquity when it was considered as an active, continuing, personal and direct participation of the citizens in the political decision-making process. Representa-
January 31, 1979

tive democracy has replaced direct democracy, if it ever actually existed. This representative democracy is now generally recognized as the only true practical form of political government. It means that the people agree to entrust their sovereignty to a selected group of individuals to whom they have confered the mandate of governing for a limited period of time.
Today, the principle of representative democracy is widely supported by the people. Yet, according to certain studies, it seems that this support is becoming less unconditional. Some feel that a shift is taking place whereby our institutions are perceived in some circles as becoming less and less democratic. In my opinion, it is true that our democracies are experiencing problems the importance of which must not be underestimated. Some years ago, a research group submitted a report on the governability of modern democracies to the trilateral commission. The title of that report was "The Crisis of Democracy". And in their account of the situation, the authors stressed the potential dangers that threaten democratic governments. I should like, Mr. Speaker, to quote one or two extracts from that document. The authors, for instance, quoted a well-known German politician, Mr. Willy Brandt, who at the time of his resignation or shortly after, said the following:
Western Europe has only 20 or 30 more years of democracy left in it; after that it will slide, engineless and rudderless, under the surrounding sea of dictatorship, and whether the dictation comes from a politburo or a junta will not make that much difference.

Closer to home, Mr. Leon Dion, in his book La societe el la politique, la vie des groupes, wrote the following:
It has never been easy to govern. Leaders and governments nowadays are just as good and perhaps even better than they were before. Their task is often even more demanding, as the paths of democracy are more difficult today. We are entering an era where literally everything is in question. This is a challenge and we must meet it.
These views may seem pessimistic although they want to be realistic, but they bring the problem in a perspective of urgency. We have to ask ourselves questions about the condition of our democracies, either here in Canada or elsewhere, about their viability in the future, and about the means which would ensure their continuity in the future. In the case of Canada, it is up to us and we cannot shirk the problem.
Some people will insist that there is no such emergency at least as far as our country is concerned. They will point to the strong participation rate of the electorate-80 per cent-a typically Canadian phenomenon. It seems to me that if we want to assess correctly the health of our democracy we must examine the question further. One of the revealing factors in that respect is the degree of political alienation of a society. In the case of Canada, in spite of some studies made in that area, this phenomenon is still not very well known. However, the few indications there are point to a few conclusions. Political
Referenda
alienation must be examined at two different levels, the individual and the group.
As far as the individual is concerned, a number of studies in Canada clearly show that people are indifferent to politics. Here in parliament we see only people for whom political life is everything. This is the centre of political life in this country, the place where we hear criticism, the place where major political decisions are taken but, of course, that high level of interest is not found everywhere across the land. The indifference rate is generally estimated at 50 per cent of the people, and more troubling still, those studies also point to a definite feeling of being powerless in the face of politics. Some 45 per cent of the people believe they have little or no influence on political events. In a democratic society, these results deserve to be closely studied by those who are interested in political life in a democratic context.
Although it is difficult to statistically evaluate how these attitudes change in time, it appears that despite higher schooling, which is usually recognized as a factor of increasing participation in political life, a significant part of the people remain indifferent to politics. If we look at political knowledge among Canadians, results confirm the foregoing conclusions. We are faced with a population that has little concern for politics unless it affects their daily lives. For instance, Mr. Speaker, three months after the general election in 1965, a Canadian survey showed that 25 per cent of the people could not identify their member of parliament, 15 per cent could not identify his party and, more important, 58 per cent said they had read or heard nothing about him.
Another survey among 1,000 university students showed in 1973 that while 98 per cent could identify the prime minister and the governor general, 3 per cent only could identify the Speaker of the House of Commons. And we all know, Mr. Speaker, that according to a fairly recent Gallup poll, very few Canadians can even name one federal cabinet minister. I quote, in English, from the October 28, 1978 Gallup report.
When Canadians were asked recently to name a cabinet member in Ottawa, and to identify his responsibility, 33 per cent were able to supply this information correctly. Another 14 per cent recalled the name of a cabinet minister but were unable to identify or incorrectly identified his responsibility. This compares to 19 per cent who named someone other than a present-day cabinet minister, and to 34 per cent who would not venture a guess.

It would be possible, Mr. Speaker, to support these facts with other examples. Of course, some people will now say that democracy is protected by the existence of a solid and well-established party system which guarantees the possibility of enlightened choice. Unfortunately, once again we cannot be too optimistic. More and more surveys show a continuous erosion of the party identification phenomenon. Thus people are less and less inclined to identify themselves with a political
2768

January 31, 1979
Referenda
party. The allegiance of individuals has become short-lived, and now, from election to election, more and more citizens change their allegiance, going from one party to the other. I refer now to a survey sponsored by the Gallup firm which was published in La Presse of January 16, 1979. We read the following comment:
At the beginning of December, a Gallup poll showed that 21 per cent of Canadians are tied to a political party; 7 per cent are very committed; 14 per cent, more or less. Another 22 per cent of the adult population can be classified as sympathizing. Most voters, 55 per cent, reject any connection with a political party.
As for the phenomenon of political alienation, at the community level in Canada it is especially felt through regionalism and the task force directed by Messrs. Pepin and Robarts has given a detailed description of that phenomenon. We often hear about the alienation of western Canada toward eastern Canada. We should also include among those phenomena of political alienation the separatist movement in Quebec and probably also the isolation feeling in the Atlantic provinces. In each case there is a deep feeling of under-representation in relation to the real weight and such feeling leads to the disparagement of political institutions in Canada.
Needless to say, that political alienation does exert strong pressures on our institutions. Indeed those pressures are so strong that they even threaten the survival of Canada. Both kinds of political alienation to which we have just referred put Canada in a paradoxical situation which is even dangerous in a certain sense. On the one hand, we are witnessing a lack of political interest and involvement on the part of an important sector of the Canadian population, and as a result a considerable loss of support for our political institutions. Here again, Messrs. Pepin and Robarts pointed out this phenomenon in a very interesting fashion. On the other hand, increasing pressures are being brought to bear upon those very same institutions, even in Canada. In this connection, I should like to quote from the findings of the trilateral commission in its book "The Crisis of Democracy" which deals with Canada. One can read these conclusions, and I quote:

As identified by this colloquium, Canada's foremost governability problems can be regarded as falling within four major areas: the questionable ability of the evolving political institutions to aggregate an increasing volume of demands efficiently and at the same time to retain their accountability to the public; the increasing rhetoric/performance gap; the decline of a 'public philosophy'; and the problem of communications. Several characteristics of the Canadian system were found actually to enhance Canada's governability, that is, its parliamentary and federal structures of government, a reasonable degree of decentralization of authority and the absence of class-based political parties. However, a general consensus emerged that Canada's governability problems (as redefined) while not insoluble are real and deserve urgent attention and remedial action.

In short, we are being told that our political system has been well served by political decentralization by our parliamentary system and by the absence of events generating a loss of confidence, such as the one the Americans lived through,

which culminated in the removal from office of the President of the United States.
However, those characteristics, and others as well, are not solutions to the problem; at the very most, they could serve as checks on a growing tendency. It is therefore imperative for us to consider what remedial measures can prevent that tendency from becoming a permanent reality and completely undermining our political system.
We are now discussing the possibility of making the referendum one of our political institutions. We should take advantage of this opportunity to think of that instrument in terms of the revalorization of our parliamentary democracy. Indeed that is the aspect I would like to deal with in the rest of my remarks.
In my opinion, the referendum can constitute a positive means in the context of a more extensive democratization of our institutions. It might enable us to bring closer the government and the people, a move which our system seems to need badly.
As we all know, referendums are used in numerous countries. One thinks immediately of Switzerland, the United States, France and now, of course, Great Britain. In each case it would be possible to show that the institutionalization of this means of popular consultation was brought about by a clearly felt need to associate the people with some very important political decisions. In all cases representative democracy was associated with the concept of direct participation by the people in the decision-making process. Depending on the countries and the needs involved, the use of the referendum has developed unevenly. Some, like the United States, have deemed it advisable to make an extensive use of it, while others have been satisfied with a more restricted use.
Some hon. members have said that the idea of a referendum may not be consistent with our British-type parliamentarian-ism. In my opinion, they are wrong. However, although there may not be an opposition between the two ideas, I think a certain incompatibility may develop in connection with the use of the referendum. For instance, an excessive use of it would not be in agreement with the principles of a British-type parliamentarianism which are essentially based on the sovereignty of parliament.
It goes without saying that like any other instruments, referenda offer not only advantages, and that an abuse of them may bring about disadvantages which may exceed by far their advantages. It is necessary to realize that a referendum will not remedy all the ills of our democracy. Although it is an extremely useful tool of democracy, it will not solve the problem of political division. As far as Canada is concerned, we must never lose sight of this principle. An excessive use of referenda can also result in a downgrading of the role of politicians and undermine the principles of representative
January 31, 1979

democracy. The most positive aspect of referenda is that it provides an opportunity for grass root involvement in major political decisions requiring a long term commitment. By the same token, it can bring about a sense of belonging in the national community by enhancing the value of political institutions and creating a feeling of genuine participation in the hearts and minds of ordinary citizens. As far as upgrading the image of our political institutions is concerned, I would like to make a suggestion regarding Bill C-9.
Pursuant to clause 1 of the bill only the governor in council may direct the Chief Electoral Officer to issue writs for a referendum. No other person, group or agency has this authority. Accordingly, the government has decided on a government-initiated referendum, implicitly rejecting a parliament or people-initiated referendum. I think that the popular referendum used in some U.S. states does not suit parliamentary democracy and that its serious disadvantages would prevent its use in our parliamentary context.
However, I am not at all convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the same arguments can apply to the parliamentary referendum. It is a principle of government which is recognized in several countries, in Denmark for example. The parliamentary referendum could revitalize parliamentary institutions. The conditions would be subject to discussion and we could easily conceive that could come before the House in committee of the whole following a proposal by two-thirds of the hon. members. This procedure is not at all incompatible with the government-initiated referendum and it would favour the development of a more important role both for the elected representatives and for the people.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that in the next few months, perhaps particularly in the debates on matters affecting national unity, we could try to move further and further away from those ad hominem attacks which make perhaps the fame of what happens in the House of Commons to take a much more positive attitude and to demonstrate clearly and precisely our positions and to try to sell them to the Canadian people not because they are taken by a particular individual but rather because they meet the deep aspirations of the population and because they will bring about changes which will benefit the people who elected us. Furthermore, the basic principle which should never be left aside is that individuals should come before governments, that governments are here to serve the individuals and not the other way round.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the bill we are now considering seems to me to be an ill-advised response to a malicious expectation stemming from prejudice. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if the present debate had been held five, eight or ten years ago, this bill could have been regarded as a reflection of the government's intentions to provide an opportunity for the grass-root participation in government's decisions.
Referenda
However, even though we advocated, ten years ago, the use of referenda in order to know exactly how Canadians felt about, say the abolition of capital punishment or the legalization of abortion, the whole question was taboo, Mr. Speaker. The government was not the least interested in introducing a bill aiming at popular consultations. How come, then, that today we are considering a legislation dealing with referenda? Nobody can deny that this bill is the result of the government's reaction to the policies and, above all, the expressed philosophy of a provincial government.
And now they try to prove to me that we are dealing with something else; it is a shame to see a government act like that, a government about which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself has said that it is merely a local government in a huge country, only one of ten provinces or of 12 provinces if we include the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. That is what the Prime Minister thinks. And yet he maintains a contradictory and unhealthy attitude towards the manoeuvres of a government which a growing number of people in Quebec seem to approve, at least for the administration it provides.
Mr. Speaker, this preamble is to show that we have to do with a controversy that the present government and especially the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) want to win and that they are not concerned about finding adequate solutions to the national problems facing this country. Rather it is for the Prime Minister a matter of winning a controversy that he triggered decades ago; indeed some 20, 25 years ago the Prime Minister was already talking about these issues with Rene Levesque and Gerard Pelletier and others and at that time the Prime Minister was already being stubborn the way he is today. This lack of intellectual evolution on the part of a man who is now leading the country means that Canada now faces a period of insecurity and that it is a little hard today for a Canadian to go abroad and see how his country is being ridiculed, at least as far as the dollar is concerned. A determination to resort to confrontation rather than seek fair and equitable solutions is the trademark of the right hon. Prime Minister and his government. Where does such an attitude stem from? Merely from its refusal to accept reality. The government is determined to ignore reality not only on the Quebec political scene but all over Canada nor does it make any reasonable effort to seek equitable solutions.
Mr. Speaker, when the government put forward so-called solutions to the constitutional problems of Canada, by adopting the Official Languages Act, and introducing a motion aiming at upgrading the status of French, I voted against it mainly because I felt that these were not adequate solutions, and now a few years later, the House must recognize that I was right. For what is the result of this band-aid designed by this government? It led to the decision, effective April 1, 1979, to reduce by over 33 per cent the number of civil servants responsible for the promotion of bilingualism in Canada. A cut
80047-34'/;,

Referenda
of over one-third; it was considered they were not important any longer.
On the other hand the top brass in the federal government has not significantly changed in number. And in the higher spheres of that administration, we find only 2 per cent for example in relation to research, with this figure increasing to 5 per cent and 6 per cent in some departments, and reaching 7 per cent and 8 per cent in others. Those are the opportunities for Francophones within that federal administration. On the whole, Francophone public servants account for about 25 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I said then and 1 repeat it today: Even if the whole federal administration became bilingual, if French Canadians or Quebeckers do not take full and equal part in the administration of this country, absolutely nothing would have been solved. It is not a question of language. It is above all a question of participation. That is why the right hon. Prime Minister and the government would never find the solution in bilingualism. It is not there. It has been put to the test and we see today the results of such a policy. Mr. Speaker, I already said and I repeat once again because it is so true that the problem in this country is not related to a question of language, but amounts to a question of nationality, a question of participation with pride and dignity, on equal terms, in the development and the emancipation of this country.
That is what Quebeckers want. They want nothing less than equality. Equality does not means 25 per cent representation in the federal administration.
Equality does not mean saying in English or in French how much one owes the income tax people. Equality means working together to create the things we must manage jointly. It is as simple as that. Even today, Mr. Speaker, although the Irish people have decided to use the English language as their medium, I am sure they would resent being called Englishmen.
I am saying this to show the difference between national participation as a people and language difference. Those are two things quite different. And this is why the government failed. They forgot that the problem to be solved in Canada, in the first place at least, was not a language problem, but a nationality problem.
Quebeckers, having acquired an objective awareness of their strength and potential, never wanted to infringe upon the rights or privileges enjoyed by the rest of the country; they simply decided to be themselves and to offer their wholehearted co-operation to the rest of the country, so that the latter could truly develop. Our objectives should be aimed in that direction. There should be no more reference to destroying the country because a part of the country wants to rebuild it.
There is a world of difference between rebuilding a country to fit its inhabitants, and destroying it. But whenever someone rises to defend the particular interests of his nationality or his people, he is immediately branded a separatist, and this does away with any difference between that and the opportunity to

improve this country, on the basis of separate entities that are nonetheless willing to closely co-operate to promote everyone's well-being.
It is utterly ridiculous and irrational to think we will solve the Canadian problem with references to opportunities for bilingualism in B.C. It is just as ridiculous and irrational to think we will solve that problem with opportunities for total bilingualism in the Trois-Rivieres area. Mr. Speaker, let us be serious. We must see things as they are. This is the reason why today, if we want to build a Canada that will really fit our respective aims as Anglophones or Francophones, we must be objective not to fall into animosity and bickering. Unfortunately, there are no other words to qualify this legislation.
Yesterday, I listened to the comments made by the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve). Hers was a vindictive contribution glowing with animosity, if not hatred, and she said things that were untrue if not clearly irresponsible. I feel it is unworthy of someone from the cabinet to find nothing better, in defence of a piece of legislation put forward by the government, than politicking and electioneering against a certain party in a certain province.
In her speech, the minister, for instance, stated that the present premier of Quebec was purposely trying to foster confusion. She went on and on along this line, talking about confusion as if this whole bill was not itself adding to the present confusion. It will be absolutely indescribable and it can create such a turmoil that it could end up jeopardizing peace and order in our country. There is confusion, indeed. This government is looking for it and is creating it. The minister said, for instance, that the Premier of Quebec was confused and dishonest when he was pretending he was following the same line as his predecessors.
Mr. Speaker, I still remember in 1960 and 1962 Mr. Lesage's fantastic team in Quebec, a team which had been elected because it went much further than the Duplessis government had ever gone before on the road to autonomy. They went as far as using, in 1962, the slogan "Masters at home" which became the leitmotiv of the Liberals in Quebec. In 1966, Mr. Daniel Johnson following the same line went even further and declared: "What Quebec wants is equality and if ever Ottawa denies us this equality, we will have to consider independence." Everybody knows it, and why is it that the hon. Minister of Communications does not know it? All this led to the victory of the Parti Quebecois in 1976. Their objective was to reshape and restructure the country so that Quebeckers would have absolute control in all areas under their jurisdiction and be able to influence the development of their province and work toward its cultural and social fulfilment. With this objective in mind, they say that this country must be reinvented and that its component parts should be
January 31, 1979

given sovereignty within an association which will create a new Canada, truly reflecting the national realities of the country.
What is so scandalous about it? What is so scandalous when one knows, Mr. Speaker, that we are the thirteenth generation descending from the French settlers who came here in Canada? I do not have any complex with respect to anyone whatsoever. I feel at home in Quebec, I feel at home in this country and at one point, without overriding anyone's rights, I declare that I want 100 per cent respect as I want to fully respect my own partners and to blame me for that, Mr. Speaker, would be just the same as to blame me for loving my own mother and my own father, because if I am a Quebecker today, Mr. Speaker, it is because I was born in Saint-Casimir, in the riding of Champlain, and that is that. If I had been born in Moscow, I would be a Russian; if I had been born in Rome, I would be an Italian, if I had been born in British Columbia, I would be very pleased, I would be a good English-speaking Canadian. Mr. Speaker, let us face the facts. Let us stop making the situation even more complicated in prejudging what is going to happen and looking for evil intentions and objectives which exist only in the mind of some poor frustrated people.
And we have before us a frustrated government that, on November 15, 1976, lost its head and managed to devalue our Canadian dollar from $1 to 82 or 83 cents compared to the U.S. dollar. A government that, for the sake of revenge, caused a flight of capital not only in the province of Quebec but throughout Canada, a mean and small government that tries to destroy our country when we only wish to establish harmony in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, as long as this government will speak with so much hatred and animosity, which is totally inadmissible from a government, from people who should be above all partisanship, there will be confusion like the minister said. We might laugh at the cat and mouse game the government is playing if the consequences were not so sad. In fact, we are studying a bill in case something should happen in Quebec. We never know! What if Quebeckers answer yes instead of no? Just in case the province of Quebec answers yes, we are drafting legislation in such a way that we too will answer yes just to oppose the other government. We are asked to take part in those childish manoeuvres and to give our support to this bill.
I understand perfectly the members of the official opposition who are against it as well as those of the Social Credit party. Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly normal. Why do they want us to take part in the four-ring circus? Why do they want us to play that little game where they say: In case they found the answer we are going to take it from them? Mr. Speaker, it is terrible. I understand my friends opposite who wish to expedite the matter. But, Mr. Speaker, I did not want to let this go by without making those few remarks and now I am going to give objective evidence of what I am saying.
Referenda
A brief analysis of the report of the Pepin-Robarts commission, Mr. Speaker, forces us once again to realize that the personalities appointed by the government itself-although admittedly it had some difficulty in finding them, especially in Quebec-after making a survey of the situation all across Canada could do nothing but add to the objective conclusions one must inevitably come to. But, here again, what was the reaction of the Prime Minister? He immediately said his friend, Mr. Pepin, was naive; he said so right off the bat, without thinking-


An hon. Member:: It's true.


René Matte: Someone across the way says it is true. See what I mean! So, the personalities appointed by this government come to the obvious conclusions. That task force was appointed to-It would appear that the Prime Minister wanted the commissioners to support his own views. In other words, the task force would have been appointed only to satisfy the egotistical wish of the Prime Minister to see a supposedly objective commission come to the same conclusions as he.
Since this is impossible since the Prime Minister and the present government are the only ones to support a position which is quite close to an absolute status quo which is totally inadequate for the solutions needed at this time. These public figures, Mr. Speaker, recognized the facts in their objective report, and as long as the members opposite will not recognize them as well, they will not be able to come up with a solution. The facts must first be acknowledged. With regard to confederation, the commissioners state on page 16:
"Ottawa," as we found on our tour, is for many Canadians synonymous with all that is to be deplored about modern government-a remote, shambling bureaucracy that exacts tribute from its subjects and gives little in return.
Mr. Speaker the team we have had in front of us for ten years now has managed to create that image of the federal government across the country, not only in Quebec. Here is the saviour of Canadian unity. They are the ones who put such ideas in the minds of people.
Mr. Speaker, as things stand, referendums will not settle anything. And if the Quebec government has already made a mistake by calling for a referendum, and I say "if', why is this government trying to do better by wanting a referendum also?
Allow me to quote once again the first part of the report where the commissioners say this:
The election of the Parti Quebecois, and all that it entails, has compelled or allowed Canadians to confront problems which they would have been obliged to face sooner or later. It would be foolish for Canadians to think of the challenge which lies ahead solely in terms of the forthcoming referendum on the independence of Quebec. A victory for the federalist cause in the referendum will accomplish little, if no effort is made to address the sources of discontent which have occasioned it.
Mr. Speaker, those proposals go clearly against this stupid and ridiculous piece of legislation which only show the petti-

January 31, 1979
Referenda
ness and narrow-mindedness of its drafters. Mr. Speaker, if the commissioners reached such conclusions and dared state them, it must be kept in mind that normally they are prejudiced in favour of the government's position and in spite of this, faced with the facts and the plain truth, they are compelled, for the sake of intellectual honesty, to bring down such conclusions.
I did not have to wait for the task force report to say what I am saying now, because obviously I have always tried to reflect in the House the Quebec reality as it is. I repeat once more that on the night of November 15, 1976, there was at least one federal member who was not surprised, and it was the member for Champlain. I knew that the pride and dignity of an entire people could not be confined and restricted indefinitely. And if this pride and dignity is now ready to take a concrete form in a new Canadian context, what is wrong with that?
Let us now talk in a positive way instead of always talking negatively and let us start talking about restructuring this country. Throughout the report, the commissioners not only refer to cultural and ethnic duality, but they also deal at length with regionalisms.
Mr. Speaker, I wrote a book on that because it seems so obvious to me that in this country you have to take into account the geographical distribution, demographic entities as such and the economic interests that stem from it. It is quite obvious that this country is made up of five separate regions that could be associated in a new Canada. I think that suggestion I have been making for a long time is borne out in that report and I believe we should not be afraid of identifying the real sores to find the real solutions. As I say, and I want to be clear on that, I do not want to be 25 per cent or 33VA per cent of Canada.
What Quebeckers and French Canadians want is just to be equal in this country. And if my friends opposite are satisfied with being nonentities, I, Mr. Speaker, will not accept anything short of total equality in this country without wanting to take anything away from anyone. Only by moving toward that objective of equality and thinking about restructuring this country, always in that broad dimension, but within geographical, demographic and economic limitations shall we be able to find proper solutions, I am sure. But if from the outset you reject any solution that closely or remotely resembles the one advocated at this time by a ruling government, that is just electioneering. We should be responsible and decent enough to avoid displaying-at least in this House-that cheap electioneering which is the cause of many problems.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that it is increasingly urgent and essential to have a positive attitude when considering the future of this country. The government would have to change entirely its attitude by withdrawing such a bill that only proves his animosity, and shows his intention to fight a government with counteracting legislation. If you want to fight

an election campaign against the Parti Quebecois, then wait until an election is called in Quebec, and then go out and fight that government. It is despicable to use this parliament as a tool for vengeance. As worthy members of this House we should not take advantage of our power to legislate to go against the democratic will of any part of this country which, in this case, happens to be a people. That is just being mean, and the culprits are defeating their own purpose.
Yesterday I received telephone calls from people in federal political parties in Quebec and they were simply telling me: "We have just realized you were right". There is nothing to be done in this country. Other solutions have to be found if the Liberals are there. Therefore, we must get rid of these people in the next election and replace them with more responsible people who will know how to see the facts as they are in order to reach the goals and ideals of every Canadian. Therefore it is with this approach and these intentions that we should legislate in this House. And I feel insulted, Mr. Speaker, to think that I am being asked to co-operate and give my consent to a bill which only serves to satisfy some petty resentment. I simply wanted today to make known the views of my constituents and, I am sure, of the vast majority of Quebeckers who refuse to be insulted again in this way and who had enough of these methods. I hope they will have the opportunity to show it pretty soon in an election.


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I decided to take part in this debate when on Monday I listened to what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said about Bill C-9 respecting public referendums in Canada on questions relating to the Constitution of Canada. In a speech made in the best traditions of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the Leader of the Opposition acted as if this bill contained a series of threats which, I can tell you, are all in his imagination. I suspect he expressed his so-called concerns with the very serious objective of creating entirely unjustified fears among the Canadian people.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned that with this bill the federal government would be entitled to hold referenda concerning aboriginal rights, religious rights and education because one way or another these matters are included in our constitution. He omitted to say that before any subject concerning the constitution can become the subject of a referendum, we would need a resolution approved by both Houses of parliament after a debate of 40 hours or three weeks, and he also omitted to say that the government is not bound by the results of the referendum and that these subjects are protected by the present constitution and will be even better protected by the constitutional proposals introduced recently by the Prime Minister.
There is also the Bill of Rights passed by parliament in 1960, and finally, the Leader of the Opposition neglected to say that we can always appeal to our judiciary system. He paraded a lot of ghosts to justify his opposition to this bill and
January 31, 1979

to confuse the population. Of course we hope we will not have to use this bill. We hope we will not have to use this tool which, in the hands of the Prime Minister, could counter a false or antidemocratic referendum in Quebec or verify its honesty. The Prime Minister also said: "I do not want the referendum to be at the centre of our action, it is only a counteroffensive tool."
Last Monday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) brought out a list of ghosts and goblins, brandishing the spectre of referendums on educational and religious rights, and rights of expression, implying that somehow the use of this bill could conceivably threaten these liberties which all of us cherish. He conveniently omitted mentioning that the subject matter of a referendum has to be debated for three weeks and passed by both Houses of parliament, that even then the government would not be bound by any result, and that any result would in no way affect existing constitutional safeguards. He neglected to mention that the Bill of Rights passed in 1960 would also be a block to any interference with these traditional rights. He neglected to mention that in the final analysis our court system would provide protection for these basic rights.
We may never need to use this bill, but we do need it as a tool to keep the Quebec referendum honest. The naivete with which the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow cabinet member, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), the former mayor of Toronto, approached the prospect of transacting with a separatist prime minister of Quebec is alarming and dangerous. We need this bill to give us a flexible, tactical weapon that may well be useful from the federal government's point of view in the struggle for minds which lies ahead of us.
The Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative party would deny us this tactical weapon. I just do not understand the opposition's rationale or logic, which would be akin, in my view, to having the federal government going into a wrestling match with the separatist government of Quebec with one or both hands tied behind its back.
The Canadian people should sit up and take notice that the Conservative party and the Leader of the Opposition are not objecting to the separatist Parti Quebecois holding a referendum with the avowed purpose of splitting up and dividing one of the world's most admired countries. But they are objecting to the federal government arming itself with the same kind of tactical weapon, couched in far more liberal, democratic and open rules than the Quebec proposed referendum, in order to give itself all the manoeuvrability that would be required to deal with this threat to the economic well-being and the basic civil rights of the people of Quebec in particular.
The Conservative party's reaction to this bill is an expression of the same naivete and shortsightedness which have characterized its whole approach to dealing with the threat posed by the Parti Quebecois. This naivete seems really to provide the common ground whereby people like the hon.
Referenda
member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), who I know honestly and idealistically believes a reasonable accommodation can be worked out with the Parti Quebecois in the event of a referendum result favourable to separatism, can agree with those in the Conservative party who all along have favoured a simplistic, two-solitude solution to linguistic problems in Canada.
According to the two-solitude reasoning, there will be nine provinces speaking only English and one province eventually speaking only French. The Pepin-Robarts report seems to have arrived at the same conclusion in its recommendation dealing with language minority rights. If the Pepin-Robarts recommendations on minority language rights were to be accepted, many of the French-speaking minorities outside Quebec would be subjected to irrevocable assimilation, and the Englishspeaking people of Quebec would lose basic civil rights which are theirs by virtue of both the Quebec Act of 1774 and the British North America Act.
I reject, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) rejects, and 1 think my colleagues reject the proposed Pepim-Robarts formula which neither protects nor promotes minority language rights, and I was pleased to be able to sign a declaration to this effect, prepared today in collaboration with the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).

We flatly reject any formula which neither protects nor prompts minority language rights. We also reject the very pessimistic point of view that the minorities would be subjected to irrevocable assimilation. It is not by leaving language minorities at the whimsical discretion of the provincial governments that we are going to strenghten the structure and the basic fabric of Canada. On the contrary, the reason for the existence of the Canadian federation would be seriously hampered.

If Canada is to survive, a declaration of rights and freedoms, including minority language rights, must be enshrined in our constitution. There are many English-speaking Canadians outside Quebec who are separatist oriented, and there are many separatist oriented French-speaking Canadians in Quebec who have convinced themselves that this two-solitudes solution will somehow work and ease the tensions which have been grabbing headlines for the last 15 years. I want to assure both that this is not going to happen. The French minorities outside Quebec are not going to allow themselves to be assimilated. Even if Quebec should decide to separate, there is still going to be a rightful insistence on the part of French minorities outside Quebec on linguistic and educational protection that will allow the survival of their language. Of course the same is true in Quebec. The separatists in a separate Quebec need not expect, as most of them do, that the English population will be less of a problem in a separate Quebec. I can assure them that will not be the case. In a separate Quebec the English minority will become much more demanding in every single aspect of what western democracies regard as basic human freedoms than has been the case up to now.

January 31, 1979
Referenda

As 1 just said in English, many Canadians believe that the solution to our problems lies in the two-solitude concept of nine English-speaking provinces and one French-speaking province. I want to assure English-speaking people outside Quebec and French-speaking people in Quebec that this is no solution. The French-speaking minorities outside Quebec will never accept assimilation. Should Quebec decide to separate from the rest of Canada, the French-speaking minorities outside Quebec would still insist, and rightly so, on getting protection on matters relating to language and education so that their language might survive. Obviously, the same goes for Quebec.
Separatists should not expect, as most of them do, that in a separate Quebec the English-speaking people will be less of a problem. I can assure them that this will not be the case. In a separate Quebec, the English-speaking minority will be much more demanding that it has been up to now as regards every aspect of the fundamental freedoms as they are now recognized in western democracies. We have renounced violence, we have renounced the use of the armed forces to hold the country together, if the citizens of Quebec, in a completely democratic manner and with full guarantees of democratic freedom to all its citizens, vote positively for a separate country. Elowever, let us keep in mind that if this vote is favourable, which I doubt, it would only be the beginning of extremely complex and delicate negotiations. The Conservative party's position as laid out in this debate would have us hamstrung before we start.
We have renounced force and, rightly so; we have renounced the use of the army to hold the country together, if the citizens of Quebec, in a completely democratic manner and with full guarantees of democratic freedom to all its citizens, vote to form a separate country. But remember if in the unlikely event such a vote were favourable, it would be only the beginning of the negotiations in an extremely complex and delicate exercise. The Conservative position would have us hamstrung before we begin. What naivete. It is a naivete which has crossed the boundary into irresponsibility. How else can one describe the Conservative party's unthinking, intellectually shallow, opportunistic seeking of accommodation, with the regionalism which has tugged always at our national fabric by promoting policies which will strengthen the forces of regionalism in Canada?
This blinkered approach to a strong Canada is evident in the commitment of the Leader of the Conservative party to do away with Petro-Canada, our national oil company, which in a few short months succeeded in bringing back under Canadian control an important percentage of our hydrocarbon industry.
Why do Conservatives want to do away with Petro-Canada? Partly the reason is ideological: pure free enterprisers do not want the government around, even if it means turning around a situation in which more than 85 per cent of the Canadian

petroleum industry was foreign owned. According to this line of reasoning, it is all right if companies such as Petro Par, controlled by the Government of France, or BP, controlled by the government of Great Britain, can own a major chunk of our oil resources; but it is not all right if we Canadians do it through our government. As I have said, it is only partly ideology which has driven the Conservative party to a commitment to abolish Petro-Canada. The other driving force in this commitment is the regionalism to which the Conservative party now is catering. In simple terms, some westerners do not want a national oil company in their resource field.
Let us look at the Yukon. The Conservative party now is committed to giving provincehood to the Yukon. What does that mean? It means provincehood to the Northwest Territories shortly after, and eventually it means turning over the natural resources of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories to extremely small populations. That policy was enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative party. If that is the position of the Conservative party, the Liberal position is somewhat different. The government considers the natural resources of the north are the common heritage of all Canadians. First and foremost, the inhabitants of the north should call upon those resources to assure themselves a standard of living second to none in Canada. But after that occurs they are the heritage of all Canadians, and they are part of the cement which can bind and can continue to bind the country together.
What is the position of the Conservative party on offshore resources? In effect the Leader of the Opposition wants a turnover of offshore resources to the provinces. The 600,000 square miles which have been added to the Canadian sovereignty are a Canadian heritage; they belong to all of us. In effect, the position of the Conservative party will give these to the provinces.
What will happen to the things required to attract Canadians to a strong central government, if these two policies of giving away our Arctic and offshore resources-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) rises on a point of order.


Mr. Towers:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Ian Watson: I would be delighted after I have completed my remarks. I alluded to the Arctic and offshore resource situation as examples of the official opposition's movement toward supporting the concept of regionalism in Canada at the expense of a strong federal government.
Just imagine this situation: we are faced with separatism in Quebec. Rene Levesque would deprive all Quebeckers of their heritage in our Arctic. The Leader of the Opposition would go further. He would deprive all Canadians of their heritage in our Arctic. Rene Levesque would deprive all Quebeckers of their heritage in the 600,000 square miles recently added to our Canadian sovereignty. The hon. Leader of the Opposition would deprive all Canadians of their heritage in that 600,000 square miles. This debate has made it clearer than ever that
January 31, 1979

the Conservative vision in Canada is lacking, if we want a strong central government. *


Mr. Nystrom:: Which vision? They have two or three.


Ian Watson: I do not know if they have a vision.
Returning to the subject matter of the referenda capacity the bill will give to the federal government, it is a necessary tool to deal with the extraordinary situation before us now, which situation will intensify in the months ahead. To increase our manoeuvrability and to increase our ability to have a tactical weapon to play the game of chess developing between the federal government and the separatist government of Quebec, we need every flexibility in the bill.
In my view, the Conservative position is wrong. When Canadians have heard the versions aired in the House during the past one or two weeks, I am sure they will have very, very serious doubts about the Conservative position not only on this bill, but on its entire approach toward Canada-Quebec relations and a solution to the problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Gordon Towers: In view of the statement by the hon. member indicating that the Yukon and the Northwest Territories should give up their natural resources, the logical question would be: would Quebec be prepared to give up its natural resources, including the James Bay project?


Ian Watson: I think Quebec would be about as prepared to give up its natural resources as Alberta.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself for a few minutes to this notorious Bill C-9. Several of my colleagues have already spoken, and still others will because this bill is of great interest to us. I also note, Mr. Speaker, that this bill on referenda is being debated after the publication of the Pepin-Robarts report, which is a direct consequence of the election of the Parti Quebecois, and also after the decision, taken by Quebec, to hold its own referendum. As the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) said a moment ago, I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that if Quebec had not decided on a referendum, we would never have discussed the issue in this House.
It is always the same thing, I mean the reason for all this bickering, the main reason for all this bickering in the House and across Canada, the fact that the government is not doing its job and is always jumping on the back of the provinces, especially of Quebec. I think that we will have to say things clearly in the future and state whatever is on our minds.
Some people say: Quebeckers are impulsive people. But I was glad to see, in the course of the debate, that there are impulsive people among English Canadians too. I used to think English Canadians were so cool that they had no reactions at
Referenda
all, but they do react as soon as you interfere with their rights. As the preceding speaker just said, if you meddle with the rights of English Canadians in Quebec, we will react, we will rise and we will fight. I congratulate them for such a noble stand, but let them realize that for 111 years, Quebec has respected the rights of English-speaking Canadians and for 111 years, these same rights have been denied to Frenchspeaking Canadians in the other provinces.
I think that French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec- and the hon. member tells me that they agree about that- have been extremely patient. Therefore, we can understand that they are more exacting in the stand they take today. I think English-speaking Canadians should try to understand them instead of bullying them. But I do not wish to develop that point any further since it is not the issue I want to addresss myself to today. Others have talked about that and it serves no purpose to start all over again.
I would like to add a few words to whatever has been said and call attention to the remarks of the previous speaker because deep inside I was pleased having finally realized that English-speaking Canadians are like any other people; when they feel threatened and think they are discriminated against, they can react.
Well, Quebeckers have been reacting for 15 years. I hope that that turning point in history will enable us to restore a sound measure of fairness. Mr. Speaker, the government is now ready to deal with an important issue which concerns the fate of all Canadians. In the interpretative clause 2 of this bill, the following definition was maintained:
"Constitution of Canada" 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;
That interpretation, Mr. Speaker, is too broad. The government is running the risk of needlessly thrusting its designs and constitutional concepts upon the provinces.
In fact, this definition is so unprecise that it would permit parliament to interfere more and more in provincial affairs by bringing the majority party into play. This bill would make it possible to seek the approval of all Canadians or some of them on all agreements and settlements relating to constitutional matters. Thus it would become the ideal tool for federal intervention into provincial jurisdictions by merely allowing voters all over Canada to negate provincial decisions. This policy would in fact deny provinces their sovereignty. Let us take a look at the confederation act, or read the definition of a confederation in a dictionary: We will find it is the union of sovereign provinces.
Today, it is no longer possible to mention sovereignty, or claim our province is sovereign under confederation without

January 31, 1979
Referenda
being branded a separatist. Provincial legislative assemblies have received a very precise mandate from the voters whom they represent directly, to the same extent as federal members. Members of provincial legislatures appear to belong to a lower category. Well, no, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of this bill is to do away with the concept that the federal government must act as the co-ordinator of the provinces, the creation on a more or less voluntary basis of a separate political and economic entity, made up of the British colonies joined together. The British North America Act distributed the powers in a precise way, leaving to a central government the responsibility for legislating on behalf of all parties involved certain questions of common interest.
The time-honored customs and agreements of jurisprudence determine to a large extent the current and future destiny of Canada. Under Bill C-9, the federal governement could hold a referendum to make significant changes to these agreements. Since we all know that the present cabinet is not too keen on provincial demands for amendments to the constitution, these consultations of the Canadian public may serve as a means to bypass provincial legislatures, this stratagem has been used in the past and may very well be used again in the future.
We still remember the conscription during the 1939-45 war, Mr. Speaker. We did not forget it. They held an election on that, and it was also under a Liberal administration which said: They will never force conscription upon us. Then they attracted lower Quebec that way, and they knew that Quebec was 95 per cent against that conscription. Well, they established it from coast to coast, and we were cleaned out but we were not forgotten because 4,000 of our young people were killed in the slaughter, in battlefields, as our French Canadians were used to protect the British troops which were behind them.
Mr. Speaker, we do not want such situations to recur through a referendum. Now we are told: Yes, but we shall have a 40-hour debate when we move a motion for a referendum. And the hon. member who spoke before me said earlier: It will have to be accepted by both Houses. Fine. But we know that with the system we have today, when the government takes a decision, with compulsory vote for all its members, sure enough, the legislation is passed. Even if you fight for 40, 50 or 80 hours, it will pass. It does not matter any more.
There is also to some extent some danger with regard to the independence of the highest judicial system in our country. In fact, Bill C-9 would authorize the government to interfere with the decisions made by the Supreme Court of Canada or by appeal courts. This is what could happen. An appeals court making a decision in favour of a province might prompt the government to exercise its right to hold referendums so as to challenge this decision through the electorate. This legal precedent would put into question the whole judicial infrastructure which protects the judiciary system against all political attacks

from within or without, from within if the institution becomes a political organization, and from without if the institution is the victim of political attacks. Any government interference in the judicial process would be extremely prejudicial to the independence of our courts of justice.
Those remarks might seem excessive, Mr. Speaker, but they serve to make a very important point in the debate. This bill refers only briefly to the type of circumstances that would prompt the government to hold a referendum. The bill only provides that the governor in council has the responsibility to hold a referendum. The decision is made at the ministerial level.
If the department considers that an issue related to the Constitution of Canada or any amendment thereto it requires the opinion of the electorate, the governor in council may, by proclamation, order that it be put through a referendum to the electorate of Canada or of any province mentioned in the proclamation. Besides, such is the intention now as concerns the province of Quebec.
The circumstances in which a referendum is required are not specified at all. Yet, it seems to us normal and even inevitable that the government should take legislative action to clearly define the requirements for holding a referendum. And only through strict regulations will abuse of discretion be avoided. It is therefore important to make sure that the government will bring forward specific criteria so as to prevent any political group from misusing such a tool.
This referendum bill allows the federal government to hold a referendum within a province, many provinces or across Canada. However, it does not elaborate on instances where a referendum may be held in any area in Canada. The government should define more clearly that clause of the bill so that public opinion will not eventually be manipulated.
Since the bill empowers the cabinet to determine the scope of the referendum, the government might exploit interregional antagonisms in this country to get the results it wants. The bill as worded would allow the government to take away, through devious means, the right to participate of a province expected to fiercely oppose the referendum. This is a possibility since the bill does not say how the government would determine the provincial or national scope of the referendum.
For this reason, the referendum, because of a reactionary hurry motivated by the Quebec referendum formula, may become a political instrument with which the federal government could materially alter the desires of the federated components.
One of the most often repeated points in the verbal struggle launched in the House of Commons on the referendum issue revolves around the fact that the House of Commons could always defend public interest during the period of debate reserved for members under clause 3 of the bill. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) had this to say:
January 31, 1979

"If there is a particular referendum which we do not think is popular, the point is that we have the means in this House as an opposition to hold things up beyond the eight days. Indeed, if it happened that the government of the day, whether it be this government or any other, rammed through a referendum bill in the face of united opposition in the House of Commons, one does not have to guess what would happen. A referendum of that nature which did not have reasonable support and had to be rammed through would be defeated in advance. Any government would know that."
I am not at all as sure as that, Mr. Speaker, because I can assure you that in the 17 years I have been in the House, every time the government wanted to pass a law there was nothing to prevent them from doing so. They have all the means to have it passed. We believe that the common position of the Liberals and of the New Democratic Party shows a definite lack of perspective. There are very rarely unanimous votes in the House. Following the directives of the caucus of the two main political parties, we have to realize that there will always be an important division in the House on serious legislative measures. In other words the present parliamentary structures are such that unanimity in the House is very rare indeed.
The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby and his friends show a certain amount of dishonesty when they foresee the possibility of a consensus between the cabinet and the federal members. On the contrary, the current political make-up of the House would lead one to believe that on any controversial questions about the referendum there would be a division. If need be a majority government could easily get a motion passed explaining the proposed referendum to this House without serious clashes unless it clearly perceived the unpopular character of that motion among a majority of voters. The electoral vote is always what they fear.
The title of Bill C-9, an act respecting public referendums in Canada on questions relating to the Constitution of Canada, makes it quite obvious that if Quebec had not decided to hold a referendum within its boundaries in order to find out the opinion of Quebeckers about a major issue in that province, the central government would never have thought of presenting such a bill. It therefore demonstrates to the people that the federal government can no longer take the initiative because Quebec is always one step ahead. The federal government therefore keeps playing its dangerous game of hide and seek. As soon as Quebec takes a step forward in its struggle for liberation and survival, the federal government comes right after him making the same move in all sectors. When it comes to examples there are plenty of them available. As soon as Quebec opens new fields of taxation, the federal government grabs them. The latest example and the least funny is that of Loto Canada where it got in in order to make unfair competition to the provinces. There would be no end to the list of such interventions if I wanted to state them one after the other.
Referenda
As soon as they saw that the provinces were making a little money with Loto Quebec, Loto Ontario, etc., they established Loto Canada, and it is like that in every area. And then, Mr. Speaker, they are hypocritically surprised at the present crisis. They are even looking for the causes. I would say that the only cause of that crisis is the ever increasingly centralistic attitude of the central government in the hope that some day it might turn the provinces into simple administrative areas, a solution that Quebec will never accept, and the Prime Minister knows it quite well.
The Prime Minister once said here in this place that the federal government had no business in the bedrooms of the people; I believe the time has come for him to put his theory into practice and to get out once and for all of the bedroom of the province of Quebec before Quebeckers take it upon themselves to get him out in their own way in the next general election. As I said before sincere and loyal Quebeckers are jealous of their sovereignty that is guaranteed under the BNA Act, and in spite of the hundreds of repeated violations by the central government, they will not allow federalists to go and snoop in their province, which is their exclusive jurisdiction.
After being harassed for 111 years without hope for more understanding, Quebeckers are reluctant and we should not wonder why. Therefore I believe that because of the present form and intended purpose of Bill C-9 our party cannot accept it and we are going to vote against it.


Mr. Richard Janelle (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate my colleague the hon. member for Rober-val (Mr. Gauthier) for the excellent speech he has just given and for the stand he took on this bill. In 17 years of parliamentary life he certainly has seen a great number of bills, but I wonder: has he ever seen a bill designed to achieve as negative a purpose as Bill C-9? The government, the Liberal party, avowedly introduced this bill to counter the Parti Quebecois, a party elected democratically within a province by people who, I think, decided they had had enough, a party which may advocate the separation of Quebec, and does decidedly advocate the right of the province to determine its fate, and which also advocates, I feel, through that right to determine its fate, the giving back to all the provinces of Canada the powers that are rightfully theirs under our Canadian constitution.
I note that this bill will lead exactly to the same type of confrontation that occurred at the time of the two Canadian plebiscites. I have here the figures on the plebiscite on the Canadian conscription held on April 27, 1942; they prove the spirit of confrontation it stirred.
In that plebescite, 25 per cent of Quebeckers voted for conscription, and 75 per cent against, while in the provinces other than Quebec the ratio was practically the opposite: 80 per cent of the people in English-speaking provinces were for conscription and 20 per cent against. It led to a state of

January 31, 1979
Referenda
confrontation at that time, a state of uneasiness and abdication in a country.
This bill will probably create the same situation: confrontation between French and English-speaking Canadians, even though they could live in harmony and respect each other if we had better laws. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) often talks about harmony and I believe it is a good term to describe Canadian unity. Harmony is unity of thought and 1 believe that the Canadian people can achieve this.
Bill C-9 is rather long. It contains many clauses. One thing that strikes me about this bill is that it authorizes a referendum to be held at the same time as a provincial election or referendum since it says that a national referendum cannot be held at the same time as a federal election. Why such a restriction? Why do we need twice as many expenses? Why not hold a referendum at the same time as a federal election? Why not hold one during a provincial election? Once again, this simply aims at creating confrontation with the provinces.
Quebec could decide to hold an election tomorrow morning and the federal government could say: As we cannot get openly involved in this election, we shall do so indirectly. We shall get involved in the election by holding a referendum at the same time. This is quite legal. We could hold a referendum at the same time as the referendum in Quebec. The bill allows this.


An hon. Member:: This is not true.


Richard Janelle: The government always tries for confrontation. Someone has shouted that this is not true. This hon. member should read the bill!


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) on a point of order.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would have us believe that in the event of an election in any province, the federal government could take immediate action through a referendum. He has not read the bill because the question asked in a referendum must be submitted to both Houses for a minimum debate of 30 days. The election could be held twice during that time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Each hon. member is entitled to his own interpretation. I think it is the turn of the hon. member for Lotbiniere to speak.


Richard Janelle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Moreover, because of this bill, confrontation will continue. I should like to give an example which everybody can understand. Suppose the Supreme Court of Canada, dealing with Quebec Bill 101, decides that a particular section is acceptable under the Constitution. The federal government, refusing to accept this decision, decides to submit the same question to the opinion of the Canadian public in order to have it judged and reversed.
With this bill, we also run the risk of weakening the judiciary and letting the political power interfere with the judiciary. As a matter of fact the federal government, namely the Liberal party, is trying to impose its will on the provinces and to deprive them more and more of their sovereignty. The powers of the provinces have been eroded since 1968 and even before. The federal government is entering more and more into areas of provincial jurisdiction. A spirit of confrontation is brought about and a little sovereignty is taken from the provinces. This bill will enable the government to go further into the provincial fields of jurisdiction and to take a little more power from each of the provinces of Canada. The spirit of sovereignty does not exist only in Quebec, but also in most provinces which want to have what belongs to them under our Canadian Constitution which is not implemented, which is eroded quietly, day after day, with some little piece of legislation and then another little piece of legislation. Furthermore, the federal government increasingly takes hold of cultural fields, taxation and other fields. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 1, 1979