1979-02-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that representatives of all the railway unions of Newfoundland are meeting today with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) following a long campaign to have the minister become interested in the preservation and revitalization of the Newfoundland railway, led by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) in Ottawa, and supported by a unanimous resolution passed by the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and by about 100 per cent of all organized bodies and public opinion in Newfoundland, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the minister explain on motions on Monday the results of his discussions with representatives of Newfoundland railway unions, and that the government make a firm commitment that it will meet all properly audited and proven losses suffered by the Newfoundland railway division of CN and provide necessary capital funds for maintenance and improvement of facilities, and that a government commitment be made for the preservation and improvement of the railway mode of transportation in Newfoundland as is the case in the other provinces of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of dramatic food price increases-19 per cent last year-and continued escalation of meat prices in recent weeks, and noting that those people on fixed incomes, especially senior citizens, need help and protection from unfair price increases, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instruct the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to take action to hold down food price increases so that senior citizens will not face hardship and a lower standard of living.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR CONTINUANCE OF SUBSIDY IN RESPECT OF &quot;HANSARD&quot;-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the fact that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. De Bane) yesterday announced discontinuance of the subsidy in respect of Hansard, a most picayune action.
U0)
In announcing the end of subsidies for Hansard, many Canadians will be effectively denied access to the report of proceedings of the Parliament of Canada, particularly those on low incomes. It is the only means by which Canadian people can understand what goes on in parliament, and that is their right. Today, Hansard costs $3 a year but it is to be raised to an estimated cost of $65, a preposterous action.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House instruct the Minister of Supply and Services immediately to rescind the announcement with regard to the discontinuation of subsidies to Hansard so that no Canadian may be deprived of continuing access to information to which he or she is entitled.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 9, 1979


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction 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.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given that the 1977 Privy Council study on Crown corporations indicated the government's intention to table an omnibus bill in parliament that fall, the fall of 1977, a promise confirmed by testimony of a Privy Council Office official before the Standing Commitee on Public Accounts, and in light of the response to my question last Wednesday by the President of the Privy Council indicating that the government no longer intends to introduce such a bill, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That the President of the Privy Council make a statement on motions indicating that this House is no longer to believe the commitments given in the PCO study and clarifying the true nature of the government's Crown corporations' policy as it currently stands.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that the Prime Minister last week, in answering a question, defended Canada's comparative economic progress and referred to Japan's very favourable position as being in great part due to a policy of not laying off workers in periods of recession or stagflation, and in view of the fact that Canada lags far behind not only Japan but many western European countries in this aspect of employees' protection, and in view of the fact that the ideas of corporate social responsibility and workers' job rights remain practically excluded from our labour-management legislation in this country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):

That the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour show some leadership on this issue and persuade their provincial counterparts to adopt this type of progressive labour-management relations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AVAILABILITY OF CRUDE OIL FOR EAST COAST REFINERIES- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The reduction in the amount of Middle East crude oil available for world markets is of great concern to Canadian east coast refineries dependent on foreign crude oil for production. Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence):
That this House direct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to prepare and present a plan to ensure the availability of crude oil for Canadian east coast refineries so that members and all interested parties can examine and assess the plan.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the charges that CMHC operates on a system of patronage, and the reported statement by the assistant secretary to the Ministry of State, "I'd hate to see an audit done on all things ordered by cabinet", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House immediately instruct the Auditor General of Canada to undertake a detailed inspection of the financial management operations of CMHC for the last, preceding fiscal year.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
February 9, 1979



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Over the last two or three years, Canadians have been bombarded virtually daily by horror stories of inefficiency in safety standards in the air, on the water and on the ground. The matter culminated just this week in a further "leaked" report with respect to the difficulties with air inspection and safety measures.
I ask the minister whether this continuing story, that now embraces 18 or 19 serious major incidents in transportation in this country in the last two years, is the result of a breakdown in communications between the minister and his advisers, or is it a fact that the minister has not the time or the inclination to spend in order to ensure that Canadians continue to enjoy the right to safe travel or, equally important, the right to believe they can travel safely. What in hell is going on with transportation safety in this country?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the choice the hon. member gives me in the way of explaining something; however, since the "something" does not exist, I do not make the choice.
The level of safety in this country is very good. Obviously, we cannot ever be content with that answer alone and we are working steadily on the question and making improvements with a lot of very loyal and effective people involved in the operation. The so-called report to which the hon. member referred, as I indicated in the House yesterday, was not a report at all but a working document submitted by one participant of a task force. The task force itself was set up because of our earnest interest in ensuring that the system of inspection and operation in the matter of air travel is constantly improving. We will go on improving it. But, Mr. Speaker, do not let the hon. member's words about travel safety worry Canadians needlessly, when in fact we do have a very sound system.


J. Michael Forrestall: The difficulty with the minister is that he does not know what the hell is going on in this damn country. On every side-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would put his question.


J. Michael Forrestall: If the minister is suggesting that the issuance of two pairs of snowshoes to the fire chief at Cranbrook would have saved the lives of passengers in that disastrous
Oral Questions
crash from toxic fumes, then he is sadly mistaken or badly advised.
Surely he is not denying that we are now in a very, very serious situation. We have gone from eight to thirteenth place in the standards of world safety. In fatal accidents, by any standard you want to apply, we have at least doubled, and nearly tripled, those of the western world. For the minister to imply that there is no trouble and that we are enjoying the highest safety standards in the world is simply incomprehensible.
I ask the minister whether there has been a breakdown. I am not questioning his care and concern for safe travel in this country. But has there been a breakdown with respect to the advice he is getting from his officials regarding investigations that need to be made, new legislation that should be introduced, the upgrading of existing regulatory authorities and powers to bring them in line with transportation in the late seventies and early eighties. Where has the breakdown occurred? If he does not know, will he cause-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, once again, the hon. member made a long speech about a breakdown which does not exist. Obviously, regrettable incidents will occur such as in the case of Cranbrook. The hon. member, in a quite unfair way, made some suggestion about a solution which I had never heard before. He made fun of it. It is easy to erect a strawman on any issue and then be powerful in destroying it. That is what happened. I take it that having destroyed one another over sovereignty association and phantom deficits, they are trying to find a safer issue.


J. Michael Forrestall: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could we come to a very specific issue and ask the minister if he would take concrete action and urge his colleagues in Treasury Board and the Department of Labour to get on with accepting the principle of comparability of pay, so that a new offer can be made by Treasury Board to the air inspection officers and we will not continue to lose them, thus further eroding the safety factor in that specific area? Would he please urge his colleagues to get on with it?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone needs to urge this government on the principle of comparability. That is exactly the principle we are trying to assert and to see in effect for people working within the government. Obviously, that is the very basis upon which all our negotiations proceed, and that applies to every group, including air inspectors.


STATUS OF INVESTIGATION INTO AIR CRASH AT ST. JOHN'S, NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a specific question. It is almost a year since the tragic crash in Newfoundland last June which claimed eight lives.

February 9, 1979
Oral Questions
The delay in the release of the investigation report is causing serious problems in terms of insurance claims. Can the minister tell the House why there has not been a report on the cause of the tragic air crash which took eight lives in St. John's last June?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check the status of the final report. My impression is the report was made available to the parties involved, for their final comments. I would want to check that.
Obviously, the report on the part of Transport into issues relating to safety is not necessarily decisive in relation to matters of settlement. Those ordinarily go before the courts in the usual way and quite a number of different issues arise in that regard.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, it is a major factor in the settlement of insurance claims, and so on, and until the report is released there can be no settlement. This is causing hardship for the survivors of that tragic crash.
In view of the concern, and rightly so, that there is in the country over what is happening in the minister's department with respect to the question of air safety and the seeming inability of the department to come to some satisfactory conclusion on this whole affair, will the minister tell this House why the government does not seem to be able to, or, indeed, want to set up some kind of independent tribunal to examine the causes of air crashes? This would remove any suggestion of conflict of interest which may exist within the Department of Transport in examining these crashes, because they formulate the regulations, they enforce them, and they have to investigate them.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member has been. We have put forward a proposal with regard to an independent accident board. In our usual way, we have had very thorough consultations with people in the industry and with the provinces on the subject, because some of the matters involved affect them. The hon. member knows that we are moving toward that legislation. Indeed, notice of the bill is to be put on the order paper today and first reading may be given to it on Monday or Tuesday. Instead of the usual obstruction by Conservative members of the transport committee, perhaps they would be willing to move the bill forward.


FINANCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the minister was reported as saying that Canadians would have to put up with the high cost of imported food for a while to build a stronger economy for the future.

If we have to put up with the high cost of imported food, what about doing something on the domestic front? Is the government considering reinstating the subsidy on bread and skim milk powder which they took off in the last few months, as well as the subsidy on fluid milk which was taken off two years ago?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, of course we are preoccupied with the problem and we are looking at what can be done on that front. We must always balance the problem of production and prices in Canada against production and prices from abroad. As I say, we are looking at some possibilities in that regard.
In terms of the subsidies, there is concern about the expenditure level of the government, and sometimes subsidies benefit at the same time not only the poor but the rich. As was explained in this House not long ago by the Prime Minister, we have increased family allowances for the poor and we have given pensioners more money in order that they may cope with some of these problems. At the same time, we cannot introduce too many artificial distortions into the marketplace.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the government gives millions to the NHL and to the pulp and paper companies, but no money is given to subsidize skim milk.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The minister is quoted as saying in June that a new food policy would be announced within a few days. On Tuesday of this week he said, again, that a new food policy would be coming within days. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance said that we must put up with higher food costs for a while, while he builds a stronger economy. Is this the food policy of the government? Is this the only thing they can come up with?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I never said that a new food policy would be coming in a few days. I did say at different times that we would have some measures to announce with respect to food and food prices, and we did that. Last summer, the Minister of Finance asked the Anti-Inflation Board to conduct a special study into food price margins. The AIB did that and presented their report in the fall.
In addition, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture asked the marketing boards to increase their production quotas in certain areas, and they did that. The measures that I referred to last summer and last fall were announced and put into effect. The fact that they did not solve
February 9, 1979

the total problem is, of course, something we are still dealing with. We will announce further measures in due course.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Despite that, Mr. Speaker, the price of food in this country went up by over 19 per cent the last year. The minister said he would be announcing a few new initiative in the next few days. The Minister of Finance said we must put up with the higher cost of imported food in order to build a stronger economy.
Is the government considering, as part of its food strategy or initiative, the possibility of increasing food self-sufficiency in this country, since if you take away grains we have a big deficit; in other words, promoting more growth of Canadian fruits and vegetables and a "Buy Canadian" policy which is similar to the policy of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce when it comes to manufacturing?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the government will announce its policy when it is ready.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question to the Solicitor General.
In a speech which he delivered recently at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, the Solicitor General stated that his department is about to close the women's prison in Kingston, a decision surely taken as a result of a recommendation made by the special committee on penitentiaries. I congratulate him for doing so because it is quite an old prison which should not remain open in 1979. Could the minister tell the Flouse whether his department intends, while closing that prison, to decentralize penitentiaries for female convicts?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Indeed it is the main objective of the decision I announced while I was in Vancouver some ten days ago. We have, Mr. Speaker, about 140 prisoners in Kingston. We want to bring them closer to their families. That is why we are negotiating with the provinces to get them to accept readily some prisoners who are now in Kingston.
I would like to point out that the province of Quebec has agreed to keep in provincial institutions almost 58 per cent of female prisoners under federal jurisdiction. Now we want to encourage that province to accept the rest of the prisoners. As far as British Columbia is concerned, that province has already taken almost 53 per cent of female inmates under federal jurisdiction and we would like that province as well as the others to accept more. We have also been dealing with Ontario to get that province to take some more.
Oral Questions


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor general.
I thank him for his answer, but I am still concerned about one thing, that is decentralization. If Quebec agrees to take so many female inmates and if British Columbia takes the balance, those from the prairies and other provinces will be just as far from their families. Can the minister tell us whether he discussed with any of the western provinces the possibility of having also a penal institution in the prairies?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, given the relatively small number of female inmates, we are not in a position to provide each province with an institution. Consequently, we are trying to come to an arrangement that would achieve the avowed aim of the hon. member.

[DOT] (U30)


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HIS EXCELLENCY, MR. RAYMOND BARRE, PRIME MINISTER OF FRANCE
Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with the question period, I ask all hon. members to join with me in acknowledging the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor in the person of His Excellency, Mr. Raymond Barre, the Prime Minister of France.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, who will recall that on November 26, 1976, his present Deputy Minister of Finance, Dr. Hood, stated that every one-cent drop in the Canadian dollar would result, over a two-year period, in 0.3 per cent added inflation in Canada.
Oddly enough the dollar on that day was at par with the American dollar. It has since fallen over 16 per cent. I ask the Minister of Finance to confirm to the House that based on Dr. Hood's calculation, the diving dollar has now cost 5 per cent extra inflation in Canada.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I indicated on a number of occasions in the House and I confirm today that the fact that the Canadian dollar is losing ground to its American counterpart may be reflected within the Canadian economy by higher costs for imported goods, which, I repeat, is the price we must pay at this time for the new

February 9, 1979
Oral Questions
competitive position we have gained recently and which has made it possible for many sectors of our economy to boost their production to such an extent that the pulp and paper, wood, steel, footwear and clothing industries are now operating at nearly full capacity.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What is the true consequence of the minister's faulty and fiscal monetary stance and that of his predecessor? Would the minister not agree that if he had structured fiscal and monetary matters in this country properly and held the dollar at, say, 92 cents, beef on average would be selling for 22 cents a pound less, and lettuce would be selling for 10 cents a head less? I could go through several other items, but would the minister not agree that that is true?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to see that the hon. member does not realize the progress the Canadian economy has made. The economic policies implemented by the government in 1978 resulted in the creation of some 450,000 new jobs for Canadians, which is more than in any previous year. While Canada was faced three years ago with a balance of payment deficit, it enjoyed in 1978 a trade surplus of $3.5 billion. Food costs are certainly high in Canada, but beefsteak prices in Ottawa were reported in newspapers yesterday as being lower than in Washington and 10 times lower than in Tokyo.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Finance what was the consequence for the consumer in Canada of the diving dollar and he told me everything else but what that consequence would be. The minister waxes eloquent about profits and increased opportunities for his pulp and paper friends-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -but I would like him now to explain to the Flouse what that means for products being sold externally. Is it not true that because our dollar is collapsing, the foreigner can now buy our produce virtually at half price?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would go to northern Ontario, B.C., Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, he would find that there are hundreds and hundreds of Canadians working in paper mills for good pay. The policy we have followed has put them back to work and increased the utilization of productive capacity to about 100 per cent. Let the hon. member tell them that is a bad policy.
I think that it is very important that we increase production in Canada in order to put more people to work. I have said many times that that would bring about a cost. Perhaps we have to pay a little more for some foods, but that is one of the difficult choices we had to make. We made it in order to make more jobs available to Canadians: that is our priority.
[Mr. Chr6ticn.J


POST OFFICE
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Postmaster General follows exchanges in the House yesterday between the Minister of Labour, my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver South, and myself. Now that the minister has had to swallow himself in comments to the media outside this House and admit, as have some of his cabinet colleagues, that reprisals against postal workers taking place in Hamilton are not "just an internal union matter" but that the law of the land does supersede the law of the union, can the Postmaster General say what initiatives he is prepared to take to safeguard the interests of his own employees?
[ Translation]


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the hon. member that we are keeping a close watch on the way this situation is evolving in Hamilton and Toronto. However, the issue should not be confused by far-fetched interpretations of our intentions. [English]
Let us be clear and not confuse the subject. The legal adviser of the Post Office is in Toronto looking into the matter to see what we can do. We also have the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, who is a good member, pressing to see what is going on.


An hon. Member:: That's a hope.


Mr. Lamontagne:: I said last Wednesday that under normal circumstances, when workers cross picket lines in a legal strike situation, that is an internal matter between the union executive and the union members, but if the same union prevents a worker from going to work during an illegal strike-and especially after Bill C-8 last October-at that point I believe the union is preventing a worker from abiding by the law of the land.
We will look into this matter very closely, but at the moment I do not know any precise facts and I have heard no complaints from anyone. The only thing we can do is consult the Department of Justice and the Department of Labour and see what our legal adviser tells us when he returns.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to provide the minister with all the facts he needs about this very unusual case. In order not to make a hollow mockery of the guarantees given by the former minister of justice in this House with regard to protecting those who wanted to return to work, will the minister stop the trials in connection with last October's strike and will he call for an investigation into the circumstances of the affair as described by a number of letter carriers? These trials are impairing the efficiency of the post offices of Hamilton.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I just told the hon. member that I am in contact with the Department of Justice and we are doing everything we can to see what kind of union trial is
February 9, 1979

involved. However, if the hon. member has facts and names to supply to me so that we can act, I am prepared to do so.


INQUIRY WHETHER MEASURES WILL BE TAKEN TO ENSURE CONTINUED SUPPLY OF OIL TO INDEPENDENT DISTRIBUTORS IN GREATER MONTREAL
Hon. Francis Fox (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the minister's answers this week in the House concerning the supply of oil and the possibility of setting quotas for this supply, in view particularly of the numerous price increases which the major oil companies have imposed on independent distributors, especially in the greater Montreal area, can the minister advise the House whether he is prepared to take the necessary steps first to ensure continued supply for independent distributors, and second to avoid the inevitable loss of these distributors to the same multinationals through continued increases at the wholesale level, which increases affect only these smaller distributors but not the distribution network of the large multinationals?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of representations from the hon. member and from Liberal members-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: -my officials and I held a number of meetings with representatives of the industry. I have myself met with members on the supply side of the industry as well as with those affected by the situation in Quebec. I understand the situation and recognize that it is a serious one. It has been seriously aggravated by the shortages created by the Iranian situation, and undoubtely there is also a price squeeze which is affecting the profitability of the independent marketers in Quebec.
We are dealing with this question and hope to be able to provide some relief. I have received undertakings from some of the suppliers that they will revise or at least review their pricing practices. I believe my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, is also looking at this situation from the point of view of competition policy .
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


SAFEGUARD PROVISIONS IN SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTORS TO ARGENTINA
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The AECL is seeking to bid for a second nuclear energy reactor to be supplied to the Argentine.
In light of the fact that the Argentine government has not ratified the non-nuclear proliferation treaty and has so far balked at Canada's demand for full-scale safeguards on a bilateral basis, and in light of the admission by Admiral Madero, president of the NAEC of the Argentine, that the Argentine was contemplating the use of material from the first Canadian reactor sold to them for the reprocessing of material which would be used for nuclear weapons, will the minister give assurances to this House that Canada will not proceed with the sale to the Argentine of further nuclear reactors until full safeguards are secured?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish, as always, to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. Despite its technical nature, I think I can give him an assurance on the specifics. To be more precise, the agreement we have with Argentina is specific and states that all equipment, material and nuclear material and facilities subject to the agreement- and here I am quoting from it-
-shall be used for peaceful purposes only and shall not be used for the development, manufacture or detonation of any nuclear explosive device.
The second point is that the Argentines may not reprocess any material subject to the agreement without seeking Canada's agreement to do so; and, third, in the event of non-compliance, Canada may suspend co-operation and may request that Argentina immediately cease to use any Canadian supplies. If the hon. member would like me to send him more details, I would be glad to do so.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the minister. I referred to a tape recording held by the Washington Post of an interview held with Admiral Madero who is president of the NAEC. Has the hon. gentleman's department secured a copy of that tape? Is it available and, if so, will he table it? I am told it indicates a clear intent to use the products of the first Canadian reactor for nuclear weapons purposes.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In view of the questions asked earlier by the hon. member and others, including the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, I made inquiries as it was said the tape was available. Our embassy people in Washington asked for it and were denied access to it by, I think, the news person who was involved. Despite this, however, I can assure the hon. member and the House that indeed the agreement already existing prevents any use of Canadian materials for-as I believe the hon. member said-explosive purposes or war material purposes.

February 9, 1979
Oral Questions EMPLOYMENT


JOBS FOR STADLER HURTER EMPLOYEES RETURNED TO CANADA FROM IRAN
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Has the hon. gentleman received application from the firm of Stadler Hurter to have his officials try to place the 130 employees of that company who were brought back to Canada from Iran? Most of them were directly associated with the pulp and paper industry.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, unless contact was made through my officials, I would have to say no, it has not been brought to my personal attention.


Robert Hylton Brisco: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In his absence, I would hope that his parliamentary secretary is in the House.
My question is this: bearing in mind that Stadler Hurter, a Canadian company, has indicated that it is not able to pay its employees who have returned from Iran in accordance with all the requirements set out in the agreement with them, will the minister look into the fact that the Stadler Hurter parent company in the United States skimmed off $15 million directly into the United States from a company that is supported in Canada by the Export Development Corporation?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I am sure my colleague would be able to give a more complete answer, but I think that the whole consequence of the move of Stadler Hurter and its employees from Iran will be dealt with fully. 1 suggest to the hon. member that most of these employees are very highly qualified and will have little difficulty settling into alternative employment. In any event, we will be looking at the settlements reached with these employees.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General? It arises from the extremely disturbing report in the Globe and Mail this morning and similar representations made earlier by members on this side of the House.
Is the Postmaster General aware that one out of every 20 parcels passing through the bulk mail section of the Gateway facility in Mississauga is damaged, and that one out of 50 packages has no chance of being delivered or returned? What action does he propose to take to remedy a situation in which 3,000 packages a day are destroyed during normal times, and during the peak season, around Christmas, probably 20,000 packages a day?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, personally I feel one can give any interpretation one pleases to the article published this morning or yesterday in the Globe and Mail. This morning I had a meeting with the general directors and managers of the various postal establishments across Canada, and I think that, as far as the article is concerned, there may be room for improvements which are already under way. For instance, when mention is made of a 10-foot drop from the conveyor belt handling parcels, I do think there is a slight exaggeration; it is merely a matter of having to change the design of the belt which should be done in the near future.

You know, you can interpret this in any way you like. When they say parcels are lost, it could be, for example, that books cannot be reconciled to their wrappings. At that point they say they are lost, but they are not actually lost. It could be a book on "The wonderful world of the Post Office." It is not necessarily lost. It could be claimed back.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the Postmaster General when he says that a great many of the parcels are lost or destroyed because of the fault of the sender. I would concur with him in this, since I have had the privilege of visiting that facility.
I would like to ask the hon. gentleman whether he agrees with the report in the press that a major part of the fault lies with the design of some of the machines. I would also ask him whether he agrees that there are many more "drops" than there should be. Is he willing to give an undertaking that instead of just sweeping this matter under the carpet and being on the defensive when questioned in the House, he will look into providing remedies to the technical designs which presently require parcels to be dropped from as high as ten feet? I am not sure whether that is "high", but that is what the report says.
Will the Postmaster General now give serious consideration to this matter, at a time when 5 per cent of parcels at the facility, which handles 47 per cent of all Canadian mail, are destroyed?


Maurice Lamontagne: There is no question of sweeping anything under the rug as far as I am concerned.


An hon. Member:: There is no more room, anyway.


Maurice Lamontagne: With regard to the statement that 5 per cent of the parcels are damaged, I should like to be more precise because this can be very confusing. The 5 per cent damage is related to non-commercial parcels. As far as commercial parcels are concerned-which is the great bulk of our parcels-it is only 1 per cent.
February 9, 1979

As far as the design of our mechanization is concerned, I can assure the hon. member that already it is planned to modify the design as soon as possible.


FINANCE
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Based on representations by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and myself, is the minister in a position to give members of the Flouse any further information regarding grants in lieu of taxes to the City of Ottawa?


Mr. Alexander:: That is Walter Baker's question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to make an announcement next week. I should like to thank the hon. member for Ottawa West and the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier for their representations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that ELTs installed on Canadian aircraft were ordered removed or deactivated almost two years ago due to corrosion and explosion hazard associated with the lithium batteries used to power such transmitters, and that a safe, new alkaline type battery has been developed by a Canadian company and presently is used on approximately 200 aircraft flying in British Columbia, will the minister tell the House why the inventor of this new alkaline battery has been unable to receive flight certification for his safe, new battery after waiting several months? Why has the MOT failed to reply to the inventor's request of July 22, 1978, that his battery be subjected to the required certification testing?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to find out why progress has not been made in this specific case. In conjunction with people in the scientific and technological fields, my department has been working on the issue of developing a variety of batteries for the ELT. Something like 90 per cent of the ELTs have batteries which, while not perfect in all weather conditions, are good enough to be used.
As a result of this, ELTs are back in quite a number of aircraft and more aircraft operators are being encouraged to go that route. We are not in a position to require ELTs to be
Oral Questions
replaced because of the deficiencies in their operation and the number which still require modification. Certainly, I will look into the specific case; I am somewhat surprised to hear about it.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Since the minister has had over a week to look into the question of forms prepared by his department so that mothers may claim the child tax credit, has he reviewed the problem? Is the minister ready to inform the House that he will withdraw these forms, which amount to a reprehensible means test, and allow mothers to make simple declarations as is done in the case of old age pension supplements?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I did not need a week to discover that the form was perfectly understandable and that it is being readily understood by many thousands of Canadians today. I urge the hon. member not to underrate the intelligence of his fellow Canadians.


Mr. Gillies:: Do you understand it?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Further, I point out that there are several provincial acts, such as the Alberta Rental Assistance Act and the Ontario act that assists renters, which use the Canadian income tax collection process and far more complex schedules. Over 700,000 forms are filed annually under the Income Tax Act by people who ordinarily do not pay income tax. I suggest the form is relatively simple and that it is being filled out now. If the hon. member will address himself to that and to helping his constituents rather than raising this red herring of a means test, he would do well.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. minister that my questions are based on the fact that thousands of telephone calls have been received by the constituency staffs of members on this side of the House. There have been literally thousands of calls.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


William Heward Grafftey: Before this incredible form was put together, did the minister's department consult the Department of National Health and Welfare? If not, and since the form has been published, has the minister received representations from the Minister of National Health and Welfare to withdraw the form and allow a simple declaration as in the case of old age pension supplements? My question is based upon thousands of calls received by members on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Order.

February 9, 1979
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, instead of using colourful phrases such as "reprehensible means test" or "incredible forms", I urge the hon. member to look at the form and he will see that the schedule is relatively simple. It asks four straightforward questions: What is the income of the wife? What is the income of her spouse? Do the two incomes, together, equal $18,000. If so, then they are entitled to enter that amount on the income tax form and receive their tax credit.


An hon. Member:: How do you figure that out?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Of course I have dealt with the Minister of National Health and Welfare on this matter; we have had several discussions. As I have acknowledged, it is true that in the rush I wish there could have been more time to advise taxpayers how to Fill out the form. But at this point I dispute that the hon. member and his colleagues have had thousands of telephone calls.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It being Friday, perhaps we can sum up the Boeing case in a few words. It is something the minister seemed totally unable to understand during four days of questioning.
Boeing has stated that it made double payments to a consultant or consultants in Canada to facilitate aeroplane sales. Boeing has admitted that the purpose of the double payments was to enable the consultant to have deposited the second payment in a foreign bank. The Solicitor General stated that he knows the name of the individual who received the payments. Can the Solicitor General now tell us what the holdup is? Is there a difficulty in finding a charge, or is it a question of jurisprudence?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated quite clearly the entire background and I do not think I have to repeat it. For the third day running the hon. member has indicated that there was a double payment.


James McPhail Gillies: Boeing said that there were double payments.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I would like the hon. member to identify from where he received that information.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Jacques Blais: In terms of the investigation, the RCMP has conducted a very complete and thorough one. If the hon. member has some additional facts or some additional allegation which he feels ought to be investigated, I would be pleased to receive them. I invite the hon. member to provide me with any additional information. In terms of the information made

available and allegations which have been identified, the investigation has been completed. The advice I have received indicates that there are no grounds upon which a charge could be laid.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, the only allegation made in the House which is totally unsubstantiated by documentation is the one made by the Solicitor General on February 6 in reply to the hon. Leader of the Opposition.
My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. I trust the minister has been following this case with his usual accuity. Boeing has admitted making double payments in Canada. Such payments are made to enable individuals to receive the second payments in foreign bank accounts. The usual reason for the dodge is so the recipient can avoid taxes on part of his income. Has the minister had a tax investigation conducted on the individual who is well known to the Solicitor General and, if so, what were the results?
Hon A. C. Abbott (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)): Mr. Speaker, fortunately for the reputation the hon. member ascribes to me for accuity, if the income taxes of the individuals are under investigation, it is a matter of confidentiality and I could not answer the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Last Friday, I asked the minister a question concerning Noranda and Texasgulf raising the price of copper and doing so in such a manner that the Canadian price for copper is higher than that charged to American buyers. In view of the profit increase of 44 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if hon. members could extend a little courtesy to the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.
February 9, 1979


Reginald Cyril Symes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand the Liberals have reason to be rather agitated these days. In view of the profit increase of 44 per cent in the base metals industry, which includes a 154 per cent increase in the fourth quarter over the previous year, a trend which will continue with these recent price increases, has the minister determined whether the action taken by these two companies will be disadvantageous to Canadian industry and consumers relative to the United States?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, following the hon. member's question last week, I referred the matter to the people in our combines investigation branch, which is the appropriate thing to do. They are looking at the evidence, but I have not yet had a report from them.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources which relates to the issue of copper pricing.
Given the upsurge of base metal prices and the effect that this will have on the cost of manufactured goods in Canada, and given the strong world demand for base metals and the profitability of the companies concerned, has the government given any consideration to implementing a two-price system for base metals such as copper, lead and zinc which would enable our domestic market price to be lowered and thereby help consumers and give Canadian manufacturers an advantage over international competitors?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, on every occasion in the past when suggestions of this kind have been made, at least that I am aware of, an examination of the issue would indicate this would be counterproductive, it would not serve the performance of the Canadian economy and would be administratively very complex and difficult.
In addition, in all probability it would be counterproductive to the mining industry, an industry which the hon. member knows is highly cyclical and which is just coming out of the doldrums of depressed metal prices, prices which have been depressed by overhanging inventories and a poor international market situation. I think the trend toward firmer prices should be welcomed because this will assist the Canadian industry to carry on with its development plans.
Point of Order-Mr. Alexander BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Cafik) in his capacity as deputy government House leader with responsibility for the business of the House of Commons. My question has to do with Bill C-29, the amendments to the National Housing Act, which for two weeks in a row now has been rather far down on the list of priorities of the government, according to the minister's answers.
Given the concern of the great majority of municipal governments about the delay in the implementation of this bill, and particularly the community services grants program which has such an effect on projects and planning of municipalities, will the deputy government House leader undertake to consult with the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) in whose name these amendments stand to see whether it can be brought forward at an early time next week? I ask this because of the concern of municipalities all across the country over the delay that has prevented for too long consideration of this legislation.


Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would be very happy to discuss this matter with the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). In light of the question the hon. member has asked, I hope that we on this side of the House will be able to count on the support of all members in this House in dealing with this bill in an expeditious way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: It is quite evident there are a number of priority bills with which we have to deal. This is one we would like to deal with, and I hope we can make an arrangement, through discussion with House leaders, to deal with it at all stages in a very short, brief period of time.


POINTS OF ORDER
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I just want to follow up on questions asked by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott). This involves a very urgent matter, Mr. Speaker. Given the fact that the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) has indicated that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) is involved with this matter, with a trial now taking place, and given the fact that the Minister of Justice indicated at the time, as has the Postmaster General, that these employees will be assured every possible protection in the exercise of what is their legal duty to work, it seems to me it is incumbent upon the government to indicate when a decision will be made by ministers of the Crown. Obviously this is a matter of extreme urgency and we cannot wait during this procrastination and

February 9, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. McKenzie hesitation by the government, because the trial is liable to be over before-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the hon. member will have to justify that kind of intervention on the basis of our procedure.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Because of its urgency. mr. mckenzie-use of picture of governor general and


FAMILY IN LIBERAL PARTY CAMPAIGN LITERATURE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it was stated in yesterday's Ottawa Journal that Liberal election material to be used during the next federal election campaign will include pictures of the Governor General and his wife. This appears to be a blatant misuse of the office of the Governor General.
I should like to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I am giving notice of my intention to raise a substantial question of privilege on Monday. I will ask whether this document was printed in the House of Commons, and I would like you, sir, to inquire whether it was done with the use of House of Commons facilities, whether you authorized it or, if not, who authorized the printing of this Liberal literature using a picture of the Governor General and his wife. I hope that I can be informed this afternoon whether this document was printed with the use of House of Commons facilities, as it appears to be a blatant misuse of the office of the Governor General. As I say, I intend to pursue this on Monday.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the point of order being raised-and I do not believe it is a point of order at all-I would simply suggest that surely the office of the Governor General, representing Her Majesty, is an office in respect of which there is a common right of everyone in this parliament and in this country, an office of which everyone can be proud. I certainly do not think it is in any way partisan for a member of parliament to associate himself with this high office. I cannot think of a more reprehensible charge than to say someone who takes pride in the holder of that office is in any way playing partisan politics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) has asked me to look into the matter he has raised, namely whether something was printed under the auspices of the House of Commons. I will certainly be glad to do that and provide him with the information. Whether that would in any way constitute a question of privilege, I do not know, but I will give the hon. member that information.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Montreal-Bourassa: for leave to introduce Bill C-460 respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Trudel:: Mr. Speaker, as indicated in the bill, the new name suggested for this riding would better reflect the representation and distribution of the population. I feel that, because of the new geographic boundaries, the people would feel better identified if this bill could be passed giving the riding the name of Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic.


[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.)
Mr.   Wm. Andres@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 189, 238, 700, 701,731 and 893.


Mr. Howie: Since April 1, 1977, what amount was spent on entertainment by the Department of Employment and Immigration?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: For the period April 1, 1977 to October 30, 1978: $336,627.20 (88 per cent of this amount is for Foreign Service Branch).


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	As of March 31, 1978, was there an excess of $9 billion in the Public Service Superannuation Account and, if so (a) in what instruments was the $9 billion invested and in what amounts (b) what is the debt series of the investment (c) what are the issue numbers of the instruments (d) what is the rate of interest on the investments?
2.	What are the full details as to the portfolio buying procedures?


Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: 1 and 2. As of March 31, 1978 the balance in the Public Service superannuation account was $9,041,851,849. The amount in the superannuation

February 9, 1979

account is not held in cash or invested in securities, such as bonds. The account forms part of the public debt of the Government of Canada and is recorded in the statements of assets and liabilities of the public accounts. All money credited to the account is used by the government for general government purposes with interest being credited quarterly to the account or the use of the funds.
The quarterly interest earnings of the account are calculated as if the excess of receipts over disbursements in each quarter since 1924 had been invested in long-term (20 or more years) Government of Canada bonds and as if these amounts were reinvested at current rates every 20 years. Therefore the rate for the account as a whole is the weighted average rate of the amounts so invested in respect of each quarter. At present this weighted average amounts to an effective annual interest rate of almost 7.9 per cent.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With reference to the $24,000,000 reduction in the level of DREE contributions, which sub-agreements will be affected in (a) 1978-79 (b) 1979-80?
2.	What part of the $24,000,000 reduction will be made in each province?


Mr. Donald Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: Reductions to be made by the department relate to expenditures which have been planned for current programs, but which will not be made in the time period originally envisioned. It is anticipated that such reductions will be achieved through the cash management of programs in either of two ways:
(a)	through a slowdown in spending under existing commitments for approved programs, which are largely in the form of federal-provincial agreements. This is sometimes possible because of a change in provincial priorities or because a province finds it impossible to proceed as quickly as planned with the implementation of an agreement.
(b)	through a slowdown in the undertaking of further commitments for approved programs. This could mean, for example, delaying for several months a new initiative which would otherwise have proceeded more rapidly.
While the department fully expects to achieve these reductions in the aggregate, it is not possible to identify specific reductions with particular sub-agreements or provinces. Even when these reductions have been realized, they will consist of a considerable number of variances from previously budgeted expenditures, the net sum of which will accord with the over-all reduction announced by the President of the Treasury Board.
Order Paper Questions DREE-BUDGET REDUCTIONS


Mr. Forrestall: Will any activities or projects be curtailed or terminated as a result of the $7,500,000 general reduction in the DREE budget and, if so, which ones?


Donald Paul Wood: The reply for the Department of the Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: Please refer to the reply provided to question No. 700, Fourth Session, Thirtieth Parliament answered this day.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is the government aware of the detailed and extensive report recently prepared by the U.S. Comptroller-General for the Congress which stated that "it is not the current United States Policy to convert from the present customary system to the metric system"?
2.	Is the government co-ordinating Canada's metric conversion programme with that in the U.S. in order to minimize any costs and negative effects for our industries and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Is the government aware of a survey in the U.S. Comptroller-General's report showing that 80 per cent of the businesses in the Fortune 500 list did not expect any significant change in exports or imports as a result of the metric conversion?
4.	Has a similar survey been conducted for Canadian businesses and (a) if so, what were the results (b) if not, for what reason?
5.	Is the government considering a moratorium on further metrication in Canada until the positive and negative features can be re-examined in light of changing attitudes towards metrication in the U.S. as reflected in the Comptroller-General's report?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. The General Accounting Office (GAO) Report to the U.S. Congress prepared by the Comptroller General, entitled "Getting a Better Understanding of the Metric System" has been reviewed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Metric Commission Canada.
As stated in an article on page one of the "Metric Monitor" of December 1978 on this subject:
"The United States Metric Board does not share this opinion"
i.e. that it is not U.S. policy to convert to the metric system.
That the GAO has misinterpreted United States policy is further stated in a letter dated Nov. 27/78 from U.S. Congressman Olin E. Teague, Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology, to Dr. Louis F. Polk, Chairman of the U.S. Metric Board. In his letter Congressman Teague states:
"It has come to my attention that the recently issued GAO report on the Metric System may have caused some misunderstanding of the legislative intent embodied in Public Law 94-168, the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 ... contrary to the analysis in the GAO report. . . this (Act) . . . does, in fact, set forth a clear policy for metric conversion in the United States. That policy is to facilitate the conversion to metric use in our country to reduce the total cost and inconvenience to our people".

February 9, 1979
Order Paper Questions
The full text of this letter is contained in the December 13, 1978 official report of the Proceedings (Issue 17) of the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce in the evidence given by Mr. D. R. B. McArthur, Chairman of the Metric Commission Canada.
2.	Yes. This is the policy being pursued as said out in the White Paper on Metric Conversion in Canada (January 1970), agreed to by the House leaders of all parties.
3.	The GAO report indicated that there are more significant reasons for increasing export markets than a metric changeover such as "competitive prices, high quality, superior technology and good reputation and reliability" but this does not mean metric conversion is not a factor in promoting exports. A majority (66 per cent) of the largest U.S. industrial businesses (the Fortune 500) who responded to GAO's questionnaire believe metric conversion is inevitable and would facilitate trade through a common measurement language. The breakdown of responses to the GAO question as to whether metric conversion will increase or protect the present amount of exports and work overseas is: 27 per cent (agree), 32 per cent (disagree), 23 per cent (does not apply), 18 per cent (no basis to judge).
4.	One of the first activities carried out by Metric Commission Canada in January and February 1972 was to conduct a survey on the expected effects of metric conversion on Canadian businesses. A letter-questionnaire was mailed to about 100 national associations. Seventy-eight associations replied. One of the questions asked was:
"To what extent must your program be planned to take account of developments in metric conversion in the United States"?
(1)	Is this relationship controlling?
(2)	If not, can conversion be undertaken independently of action in the United States?
(a) The response to the 1972 letter-questionnaire was summerized as indicating 62 per cent of the companies responding expected to take into account developments in metric conversion in the U.S. A.
Only 39 per cent of this 62 per cent considered this relationship controlling. A good example of this is automobile manufacturing industry, and the majority of 1979 model year automobile parts are already being manufactured both in Canada and the U.S.A. to metric dimensions. Another example is the aircraft industry and here metric conversion is proceeding slowly.
About 38 per cent considered that metric conversion could be undertaken independently of action in the U.S.A. The Canadian Construction Association, the Canada Grains Council and the Fisheries Council of Canada are a few examples. Many sector plans express the view that metric conversion will assist export sales. For example sector 7.42 Sporting Goods in their metric conversion plan state:

"It is felt that the introduction of SI Units will help the sporting goods industry to become more competitive in countries when metric measures have been established".
The working group on Metric Export-Import Trade (MEXIM) of Metric Commission Canada; which represents all Metric Commission Canada steering committees carried out a study in 1976 which indicated that 45 per cent of Canada's exports are metric sensitive. As a by-product of meetings of the MEXIM trade group a growing number of companies already have been identified as increasing their sales as a result of metric conversion. For instance, as a result of metric export opportunities to the United States, Canadian companies such as Intercomp Resource Development and Engineering Ltd. of Calgary, McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd. of Toronto, Spectrum Educational Supplies Ltd. of Markham, Science Research Associates (Canada) Ltd. of Willowdale, and Merlan Scientific Ltd. of Mississauga to name a few have exported for the first time to the United States.
5.	No. The United States is proceeding with their metric conversion program and sector committees in the Canadian program maintain close contact with their U.S. counterparts. The U.S. House of Representatives recently defeated a bill seeking abolition of the U.S. Metric Board and the repeal of the 1975 U.S. Metric Conversion Act by a 4 to 1 margin which is the same margin of those in favour of the passage of the 1975 Metric Conversion Act. The first appropriation for the U.S. Metric Board passed the House of Representatives in 1978 by a 302 to 75 vote. These votes reflect the broad support for the U.S. program.


Mr. Howie: For the fiscal year (a) 1977-7S (b) 1976-77 (c) 1975-76, what amount was paid by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for (i) new housing (ii) housing maintenance and repairs on each Indian reserve at Kingsc-lear, St. Mary's and Oromocto, New Brunswick?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (a) 1977-78	(b) 1976-77	(c) 1975-76
Kingsclear			
(i) New housing	$30,000	$30,000	$20,000(ii) Renovations	5,310	4,000	5,000Oromocto	(i) New housing	$10,000	$10,000	$20,000(ii) Renovations	1,146	11,546	4,647St. Mary's	(i) New housing	$36,000	$20,000	$30,000(ii) Renovations	4,354	15,000	5,000


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.
February 9, 1979


Mr.   Wm. Andres@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalisin: Mr. Speaker, if questions 212, 589 and 779 could be made orders for returns, those returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that questions 212, 589 and 779 be deemed to be made orders for returns to be tabled forthwith?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


Mr. Jones: 1.	How many cities in Canada will participate in the "Canadians and the Arts Study"? Which cities are they? Was Moncton one of the cities to be awarded a grant to conduct this study?
2.	What criteria was used to determine the suitability or desirability of communities for this study?
3.	What is the nature and purpose of this study?
4.	What was the amount awarded to each city for the purpose of this study?
5.	How many people are employed in this survey? What criteria was used to determine their qualifications to conduct such a survey?
6.	Who were hired to participate in this survey? What were their qualifications? How and why were these people selected?
7.	How many other people applied for this program? Who were they and what were their qualifications? Why were they not suitable for these positions?
8.	What are the individual salaries of each of the people employed in this survey?
9.	Will the general public participate in this survey? If so, how?
10.	How will this survey group determine the needs of the Moncton area with regards to the arts? How will the citizens and the city of Moncton benefit from this survey?
Return tabled.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	To which programmes and departments was the President of the Treasury Board referring when he stated in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates on November 25, 1977, as recorded at page 2:26 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence that the government had or was in the process of subjecting "quite a few programmes and, in some cases, departments to a total review of their budgets in a form that" would be described "as being a zero based approach"?
2.	What other departments, programmes, agencies or government activities have been subjected to the same kind of process to which the Minister referred?
3.	Has the Department of Fisheries and of the Environment, or any of its programmes, agencies or activities ever been subjected to the kind of process referred to and, if so, what programmes, activities or agencies have been studied?
4.	(a) Have any such studies and/or reviews referred to in the answer to Part 3, dealt with programmes of the Forest Fire Research Institute, the Eastern Forest Products Laboratory, the Western Forest Products Laboratory, the Petawawa Forest Research Station and/or any other programmes or agencies of the Department concerned with forestry or related files and, if so, what were the study's or studies' conclusions regarding future funding of these programmes, agencies, activities and institutes (b) did the studies or reviews indicate that funding to these agencies, programmes, activities or institutes in each case,
Point of Order-Mr. Whiteway
should be increased, decreased or kept at the same level of spending, in real dollars and, if so, in each case, what was the proposed level of increase or decrease in programme spending, and in what year's dollars?
Return tabled.


Mr. Howie: For (a) 1977-78 (b) April 1, 1978 to date, what amount was paid by the Canada Council to each theatre for the performing arts or resident company in Canada?
Return tabled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
* *
*



POINT OF ORDER


Dean Waldon Whiteway: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, relating to question No. 580, which has been on the order paper since November 16, 1977. It is a question concerning the Canadian unity information office. I know that the minister responsible, after having gone through three ministries, has the answer. I cannot understand why the government refuses to answer this question. It relates to the cost and the number of the various packages of propaganda put out by the government. I cannot understand why, after all these months, the government would not put the answers to those questions before the House of Commons and the people of Canada.	'
The government talk of restraint, but will not tell us the cost of their propaganda office. I find it reprehensible that this minister would refuse to answer my question No. 580, especially when he has had his staff collect the information yet will not release it.


Mr.   Wm. Andres@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism: Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is not true that the minister will not allow this question to be answered. The question will be answered correctly, but it is not quite as simple as the hon. member indicates. I will look into the matter to make sure that the question is answered.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: When?

February 9, 1979
Canadian Constitution



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: That, in the opinion of this House, the federal government having taken advantage of the weaknesses of the British North America Act (BNA Act) to infringe on provincial jurisdictions and undermine the sovereignty of the provinces, has failed:
-to leave the initiative of constitutional negotiations to the provinces, in accordance with the spirit of Confederation, by giving them the final say in the decision-making process;
-to discuss the introduction of economic rights for all citizens in a new Constitution;
-as well as to recognize that new constitutional arrangements may be ratified only by the population of the provinces through referendum held in the respective provinces.
[DOT]-Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to move a motion which will interest to the highest degree, I am sure, the House and all members, and which reads as follows, and I quote:
-having taken advantage of the weaknesses of the British North America Act (BNA Act) to infringe on provincial jurisdictions and undermine the sovereignty of the provinces, the federal government has failed:
-to leave the initiative of constitutional negotiations to the provinces, in accordance with the spirit of confederation, by giving them the final say in the decision-making process;
-to discuss the introduction of economic rights for all citizens in a new constitution;
-as well as to recognize that new constitutional arrangements may be ratified only by the population of the provinces through referendums held in the respective provinces.
Mr. Speaker, as this is perhaps the last opportunity we have to put forward such a motion before parliament is dissolved, I think it is a good thing to look back on the road we travelled and even risk a little review on the 112 years of confederation in which we find weaknesses, of course. We are going to examine closely the actions of certain people or governments who took advantage of those weaknesses and even brought them about in order to create a climate of suspicion rather than of co-operation. We will then be suggesting ways which would enable Canadians to live up to their Canadian reality in that harmony which is indispensable to people who need to live side by side with respect and honour.
I want to indicate sincerely that although it is true that all members of the Social Credit Party of Canada now sitting in this House come from Quebec and have been for over a decade the official opposition from that province in Ottawa, the fact still remains that the opposition motion I have the honour to move today is based first and foremost on economic concerns.
Indeed, in the present state of affairs nobody will deny that it is more difficult to introduce economic legislation in Canada than in any other country and that is so because of our two-tier system of government. The problem stems from the fact that

successive federal governments in the past have refused to face reality, and reality is that duality and regionalism have become the predominant features of our Canadian political and economic systems.
Besides, I believe that these past few years all Canadians have been able to witness the omnipresence of those features in federal-provincial conferences. The last one-and it was a typical one in that respect-only resulted in the concurrence in two of the four points on the agenda, namely the questions of family rights and of the monarchy-two minor subjects on which both levels of government had agreed long before the conference. Indeed, the importance of recognizing Canada's duality and regionalism was raised by the Task Force on Canadian Unity in its report entitled A Future Together in the following terms which appear on page 115 of the Pepin-Robarts report and I quote:
Consensus on constitutional patriation and amendment plus a limited number of matters unrelated to Canadian duality and regionalism would not, in our judgment, be a sufficient response to the constitutional implications of the present crisis.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. members that this was not said by the Parti Quebecois or by myself, but rather by a study group which was set up by this federal government and which worked for more than 17 months at the cost of $3.5 million to the Canadian taxpayer.
It is unfortunate to have to say this, but it is a fact that every time constitutional issues are discussed, the government can only suggest minor amendments. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this ad hoc approach cannot bring about any longterm solutions. For instance, at the recent federal-provincial conference, the federal government seemed willing to relinquish certain of its powers to the provinces in the field of communications, more particularly as concerns the issuance of permits to cable companies, but the Prime Minister is well aware that what the provinces have been requesting for many years is to be allowed to control program contents since each province has its own special needs. I sincerely believe, Mr. Speaker, that by continuously sticking to such a stand, the government is making this whole country dance on quicksand.
We of the Social Credit Party of Canada believe that the time has come to replace the British North America Act with a new constitution, the first one that the Canadian provinces would establish for themselves, which would include economic rights for all citizens, would be submitted to the approval of the population of each province and would therefore better correspond to the present situation. Indeed, this is what we want to explain today in this House, first of all by proving that the British North America Act is not an obstacle to the enactment of a truly Canadian constitution because this act can be repudiated today by Canada for the same reasons that it should have been in 1867 if we had been more careful. Secondly, we will clearly demonstrate the central government's
February 9, 1979

persistent invading of provincial jurisdictions and its marked tendency to invoke the British North America Act to justify its misbehaviour, that is its obstinate refusal to exercise the specific authority provided for in this act. Once the need for a new constitution will have been shown, we are going to explain the basic elements of it and, finally, the need for that constitution to be approved by all citizens of the ten provinces by way of provincial and not federal referenda.
With regard to the British North America Act, I would say, Mr. Speaker, that as far as we are concerned, we consider it as an act passed by the British Parliament in London. But that is not where the problem is. Actually, all the hon. members in this House know quite well that the statement of reasons is an important part of any bill since it is useful for the understanding of the legislation, but when it comes to a private bill, it is essential that all allegations in the statement of reasons must be confirmed by reliable witnesses. The British North America Act was a private bill with reference to the parliament which adopted it because that Act did not concern the whole of the British Empire but only the three colonies named in the Act, Canada which included two provinces, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. That act was also of a restricted nature because it applied only to North America.
Mr. Speaker, we believe that the statement of reasons or preamble of any bill is very important because the terms of that preamble must be logical, and in accordance with the facts and any bill can be rejected if it can be established that such conditions have not been fulfilled. We have dealt with that aspect of the bill before the committee on the constitution during the summer recess.
Let us consider now the first condition with respect to the preamble. The language used in the preamble is quite illogical. And before going any further, I would like to read the first two paragraphs of the preamble of the British North America Act, and I quote:
An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for Purposes connected therewith.
Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom.
I am puzzled when I read "with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom" given the fact that we have been told in committee that the United Kingdom has never had a written constitution. The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution! I therefore asked how Canada could have a written constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom and 1 received no answer and I am still waiting for one. Do we actually have a written constitution?
Before going any further, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to define two expressions: One is "federally united" and the other is "into one dominion". Are these expressions synonymous or are they the antithesis of one another? In his legal dictionary,
Canadian Constitution
Bouvier says that the expression "federal government" means the creation of a union or a confederation of sovereign states by virtue of a treaty or by mutual acceptance of a federative constitution. However, Mr. Speaker, this definition clearly establishes that sovereignty must precede the creation of the confederation and that the federal union is possible only with the consent of the states cosignatary to that constitution.
Let us get back now to the expression "into one dominion". Regarding this matter, I would like to point out that section 18(3) of the Interpretation Act of 1889 states that the word colony means any one of the dominions of His Majesty. It therefore appears that a dominion was no more than a colony. Mr. Speaker, could it be that these definitions indicate that a federal union and a dominion are opposed in principle and that one is the contrary of the other? How then could the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick federate themselves into one dominion? Is there not an obvious contradiction at this point? We are then wondering whether the terms employed in the outline of the stated purposes are in conformity with the facts.
In other words, have the provinces really expressed the wish to form a dominion according to the federal principle? Apparently not. And proof of this is this statement of Sir John Bourinot appearing in Chapter VIII, page 125, of his book "Canada Under British Rule", and I quote:
It is interesting to note that in the original bill, the United Provinces were called the Kingdom of Canada, but in the bill brought before parliament subsequently, they were called the Dominion of Canada.
And Sir John A. Macdonald himself said to the author that this amendment did not originate with colonial delegates but with the imperial minister. It is therefore obvious that the British North America Act reduced our country to the status of a colony. Canada did not become a federal union of a confederation but a colony under the name of Dominion.
It now seems obvious that the terms dominion and colony were similar, that in order to have a federal union, an agreement was required among the provinces, that no pact or agreement was entered into by them. It was said that a federal union or dominion was impossible, that the provinces did not express the wish to become a dominion within a federal union. Following all those inconsistencies, I wonder how the appropriateness of the BNA Act preamble can be demonstrated. Furthermore, if it cannot be demonstrated today, how could it have been possible in 1867? Therefore, the bill should have been rejected.
In that case, we, of the Social Credit Party of Canada, contend that the British North America Act is invalid. And it is not the first time we make this statement in the House as, in 1938, the Social Credit member for Jasper-Edson, in Alberta, Mr. Walter F. Kuhl, raised the same arguments which were never seriously refuted. He reached the same conclusions as we

February 9, 1979
Canadian Constitution
did. It is perhaps time the representatives of all Canadian provinces listened to those who are in no way responsible for the disastrous situation facing us today.
To conclude this part of my speech concerning the British North America Act, I should like to quote the evidence given in 1935 by Beauchesne, a clerk the Flouse of Commons, before a special committee on the British North America Act, as reported on page 131.
It is true that if we apply to the British North America Act the same principles that apply to ordinary laws, it must be said that this act does not constitute a pact between the provinces. This act was passed by parliament and does not contain even the substance of every resolution adopted in Canada or in London before it was passed by the British parliament which added to it some sections that the Canadian provinces had not asked for.
And further:
According to me, the Assembly should not sit in Ottawa . ..
-Outside of Ottawa-
... so that the federal authority will not appear to control or influence it...
The Assembly might also ask itself if it would be appropriate to change the Dominion into a Kingdom ...
Since 1867, provincial rights have given rise to much controversy. When a new constitution is drafted, it will be necessary, it seems, to amend the distribution of powers between the Dominion and the provinces.
As one can see, Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago such sensible men as Messrs. Beauchesne and Kuhl had found a solution to our problem. What devilish force could prevent the nations making up our country from developing along the lines of that solution? It is high time we asked ourselves some questions. At this stage, I would like, if I may, to ask the hon. members to give me a few more minutes of their attention, because I am coming to the gist of my argument.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I have demonstrated earlier that sovereignty was the requirement of those provinces willing to enter into a confederative pact or a federal union. But what is the meaning of that sovereignty? Here again, I will refer to the second volume published by the task force on Canadian unity, because, if I am not mistaken, it is much more for us than for any other that the task force has clearly defined the terms of the debate. If this dictionary is not used by the legislators who sponsored it, I sincerely wonder who will use it? So, on page 14 of the book Coming to Terms The Words of the Debate, we find the following definition of the term sovereignty:
Sovereignty came to mean the right of the government of a state to decide in the final recourse, internally and externally, on the direction to give to its own collective actions, a right generally considered to be absolute in legal terms.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress that according to this definition sovereignty is an absolute right. Therefore, sovereignty admits of no restriction or quantification. A province cannot be more or less sovereign. It is either sovereign or it is not. Similarly, if sovereignty already legally recognized has to be negotiated, something is wrong, Mr. Speaker. First, let us see if the sovereignty of the provinces has already been legally recognized.

In fact, provincial sovereignty is a vested right since 1867 and was recognized by all governments even up to 1942. In support of this, I will refer to the 1942 agreements entered into by the then minister of finance in the Mackenzie King government, when Quebec agreed to waive for the duration of the war its direct taxation fields which were its exclusive right. It says here, and I quote:
Whereas in order to allow for a maximum war effort on the part of Canada it is necessary that the federal parliament alone have the authority to levy directly personal and corporate income taxes... Whereas the Canadian government recognizes that the province, by entering into this agreement, relinquishes or waives no part of its sovereignty nor any of its constitutional rights, powers or privileges...
Mr. Speaker, I would emphasize this is a most important document in our wartime national history and especially in provincial history thereafter, and it specifies that the province of Quebec relinquished no part of its sovereignty. This therefore is evidence enough that such an absolute right was formally recognized to the provinces. In addition to supporting my suggestions that sovereignty has been a recognized right of provinces since the very inception of confederation, that section I of the 1942 agreements also explains why federal-provincial conferences have been increasingly less productive since 1942. The reason is the high robbery type of action by the federal government in refusing to give back the direct taxation fields borrowed from provinces for the duration of the war. And further, it took advantage of those new tax fields to get involved in matters of provincial jurisdiction such as education, health, agriculture and so on. Deprived of their main source of revenues, the provinces had no choice. They had to join the famous shared-cost programs where Ottawa was remitting one third only of the tax money it was collecting in the provinces, because it was either that or nothing. And what is Ottawa doing now? It is gradually stepping out of those shared-cost programs, leaving provinces with all the responsibility without giving them back the total fiscal points that go with it, those fiscal points that were borrowed in 1942.
Therefore, from that one third they were getting, the provinces' share is now reduced to nothing. Only yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we witnessed one such atrocity when Bill C-2 passed. The federal government got out of that two years before due date; it stopped helping the construction of a medical research centre, without any indication it was giving back to the provinces the funds needed to finance the whole of these programs. There are also measures such as Bill C-14, under which the names of 250,000 jobless Canadians were struck from unemployment insurance lists, and abandoned to the care of provinces-


Mr. Lachance:: We are paying for that!


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: No, you no longer pay. These unemployed are not on the lists anymore. The provinces must take care of them.
February 9, 1979


Claude-André Lachance: We pay 50 per cent.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: You save 50 per cent and you do not give any tax point in return.


An hon. Member:: No.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Actually, you pay 50 per cent but you charge 100 per cent-either through social welfare or through another form of provincial assistance. Here again the federal government has not given a penny back on the sums it received. The government is trying to convince the public it is a good father and there are even some French-Canadians in Quebec who believe that, they really do. How stupid! The federal government constantly robs the provinces and undermines their sovereignty. As a matter of fact, what is the use of having individual, linguistic, cultural or any other kind of rights if you cannot invoke them? That is the present situation in the provinces, Mr. Speaker. In general, the constitutional issue may sound more like empty words than anything else but in fact it is quite another thing. You can believe me because I am speaking from experience. As I have just shown it is primarily a money matter. I will not go any further on that subject since one of my colleagues intends to speak about that this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes remaining of my time, I would like to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has elapsed. However he may go on with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) may proceed.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank all hon. members for allowing me to conclude my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I hope hon. members will finally understand why we of the Social Credit Party of Canada have tried so hard for 15 years even more to defend the provinces against the federal government's invasion. We have done that under all governments; we are not putting the heat on this one for the sake of it, we have done it with all governments. We did so for Quebec first since we represented that province. However, it should be recalled that the Social Credit members from other provinces who sat in the House in the past, used to speak the way we do today.


Mr. Dawson:: They have been defeated!


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I am told they have been defeated. They were not defeated by the people but by the financiers. These provinces like Alberta had no debt at all at that time and now they have record deficits.
Canadian Constitution
In fact, any time we defended something we hoped to be able to convince members in the House that they represented above all the interests of citizens of their riding and of the province in Ottawa and not the interests of their political party. Obviously, despite all our good will, we are not in a position to overcome barriers such as partisan politics which have prevailed since the beginning of confederation. I believe that this was done to the prejudice of Canadians who today are faced with a crisis which gradually built up and that was hidden from them by their Ottawa representatives over the years. I could quote hundreds of examples, Mr. Speaker. I shall give but one or two:
I can recall the way we fought when Bill C-l 10 on students loans was introduced. I would like to quote an article by Mr. Paul Sauriol published in Le Devoir of July 15, 1964. As you can see, that was some time ago.
On Monday the House of Commons was nearly unanimous in moving first reading of a bill on student loans; in fact, the resolution was adopted on division because the Social Credit Party is against that new federal interference in provincial jurisdiction.
There again they should have given back to the province the tax points they had borrowed, but they use it directly on students, for education purposes.
... three of the four opposition groups joined the Liberals to approve that measure. This vote makes it possible to give a better interpretation to some recent speeches on co-operative federalism.
It is now clear that if all opposition parties had then voted against this and other similar legislation, the provinces would not have such a long way to go to reestablish their sovereignty. In 1966, another ultra vires legislation was adopted by the House, namely Bill C-227, to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services. That is still another area in which they have interfered. They said at the time that they would contribute 50 per cent, but they are taxing at 100 per cent. Another interference which prompted me in the House to make a prediction which unfortunately came true in the following years. This took place in 1966, and my prediction is coming true 12 years later. Here is the statement which I made in the House on October 17, 1966:
Mr. Speaker, I feel that as far as the Canadian community is concerned, its days are numbered unless we revert to a more honest dialogue. Federal-provincial conferences were invented in an attempt to dialogue, but one soon realizes that the federal delegates flaunt an obvious lack of good will. Whereas several provinces have voiced serious objections to the present bill, the government proceeds as if nothing had happened.
Just like today, exactly like today! Mr. Speaker, that is the prediction I made then, and those hon. members who are honest will have to recognize that this is still the case even today. Mr. Speaker, later on things went from bad to worse. As a matter of fact, the era of centralization was followed by an era of supercentralization under this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). From then on, that is from 1968 on, Ottawa has not only been robbing the provinces of their wealth, it has been

February 9, 1979
Canadian Constitution
harassing them and trying to provoke confrontations by all means.
To begin with, in 1973, this government launched an official language policy which was sound in principle but which was implemented in such an inconsistent and incompetent way, especially in the Public Service, that it sowed discord throughout Canada and pitted English-speaking Canadians against French-speaking Canadians. Besides, this strategy is being phased out in the sense that we have now reached the ultimate stage with the lay-off of 600 language teachers five years before the anticipated date under the pretence that there is no longer any demand for courses and that the Public Service is now completely bilingual. This matter has been settled! Let's see! Once more, the Social Credit Party of Canada is the only one to fight openly for these teachers and above all for the rights of our French-speaking Canadians.
So, after having launched this stategy in 1973, the Prime Minister entered the second stage and began treating the provincial premiers as minus habentes at federal-provincial conferences.
In 1976 particularly, this same Prime Minister began playing with the idea of repatriating the constitution, one thing he knew Canadians of both British and French origins would never agree upon. This created confusion, Mr. Speaker. Only a small spark was necessary to set up a conflagration. And what could have best suited the purpose than chastising the people of Quebec by insulting their premier publicly, saying he was a hot-dog freak? How can you explain otherwise that seemingly irrational gesture of a strategist of the present Prime Minister's stamp? Furthermore, this increased his prestige among the English-speaking elements of the country who saw in him the man capable of subduing the Quebeckers. This way, he killed two birds with one stone.
Once again sensing the great danger that was threatening provincial sovereignty, we, of the Social Credit party, in conformity with our action in previous years, took the following position which was to become the basis for the constitutional policy of our party afterwards, and which I stated clearly in this House on April 9, 1976 in the following terms, and I quote:
We, especially Quebeckers, demand power of veto for our provincial government. We want it to demand not only constitutional guarantees in education, that is French language and culture, but also territorial and every other guarantee... Indeed, Quebec will accept only one right that is its right of veto on anything affecting the interior of Quebec and the unanimous consent of all provinces for anything that concerns Canada.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, might I say that is still what we, of the Social Credit Party of Canada, are asking today for Quebec and all the provinces of Canada.


Hon. John M. Reid (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, it is about five minutes before

one o'clock. Perhaps the House would call it one o'clock and we could begin again at two o'clock.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Then I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 12.55 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) with great interest, hoping that he would throw more light on his proposals. But I listened in vain. He made a long speech on our constitutional history and matters of sovereignty without, however, saying much about the motion he put before the House.
The elements of his speech are indeed worthy of a long debate, and doubtless there will be one some day. However, I am sure he will forgive me if I limit myself today to speaking to the motion. Mr. Speaker, what does that motion say? [English]
I think I should read the motion into the record of the House since the hon. member was not interested in doing so. Let me read what we are debating today:
That, in the opinion of this House, the federal government having taken advantage of the weakness of the British North America Act (BNA Act) to infringe on provincial jurisdictions and undermine the sovereignty of the provinces, has failed:
-to leave the initiative of constitutional negotiations to the provinces, in accordance with the spirit of confederation, by giving them the final say in the decision-making process;
-to discuss the introduction of economic rights for all citizens in a new constitution;
-as well to recognize that new constitutional arrangements may be ratified only by the population of the provinces through referendums held in the respective provinces.
At the outset I would like to indicate there are a number of things in the resolution with which the government has no quarrel and with which it is in agreement. Also there are a number of items with which the government is not in agreement.
Let me take the last proposition first, the question of a referendum as a means of ensuring that the population has the ability to decide whether constitutional amendments are accepted. This is not a proposition to which the government takes objection at this point in time. We have no position on whether a referendum should be used as a means of indicating the popular support for a series of constitutional amendments.
February 9, 1979

The position taken by the governments that constitutional negotiations are well under way, that the traditional method of finding a solution to our constitutional problems should be followed, and whether a referendum is required or indeed necessary by the 11 governments of Canada is a question on which we have an open mind.
As hon. members know, the Flouse of Commons recently gave second reading to Bill C-9, which is the federal government's proposition on a constitutional referendum. On that basis of fact, we are satisfied we will have that kind of weapon in our armament. We have not closed the door to the use of it for this kind of purpose, and indeed perhaps it could be used for this kind of purpose. But at the present time we have not made any determination. We believe the means of developing an amending formula would be a question of negotiations between the provinces and the federal government. At this time we feel it would be unseemly for the federal government to insist upon a particular formula for amending the contitu-tion and thereby imposing it on the provinces. In fact, what has been going on in the constitutional discussions held with the provinces has been a precise and detailed exploration of possible formulae for amending the Canadian constitution.
As hon. members are well aware, at the present time the legal situation is that if the House of Commons and the Senate pass an address praying that the British parliament pass amendments to the British North America Act, in fact the British parliament will do that and the British parliament will not look behind the address to ensure the provinces of Canada have agreed to such an address. Their position is that the power to make constitutional amendments affecting the division of powers is that of the federal government. That is the constitutional provision as it exists today in the British North America Act.
We have proposed a number of formulae to the provinces as methods of amending our act. I suppose the most famous is the Victoria formula which would provide for agreement among a certain percentage of the population and certain agreements by provinces in particular regions. As the formula works out, it would require the assent of two provinces in the maritimes, two out of the four provinces in the west, and the assent of Quebec and Ontario, mainly because of the manner in which the Canadian population is spread from coast to coast.
If one takes a look at the manner in which the population is spread from coast to coast, one comes up with an unenviable situation: approximately 30 per cent is found in Ontario; approximately 25 per cent is found in Quebec; approximately 10.8 per cent is found in British Columbia; approximately 8 per cent is found in Alberta; Manitoba and Saskatchewan each have approximately 5 per cent of the population; Prince Edward Island has .1 per cent of the total Canadian population; and the populations of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick range between 2 per cent and 3 per cent. When one attempts to find an amending formula which will be just to all components of the country, one will discover there is no easy formula.
Canadian Constitution
One of the formulae developed in the recent constitutional talks is what we have dubbed the "Toronto consensus" because it emerged out of our constitutional discussions there. The formula provided for a factor of 85 per cent of the Canadian population represented by two-thirds of the provinces. Also it involved two lists: a precise list where there must be unanimity when dealing with the question of natural resources and the amending formula itself; and a second list on which the second formula would apply.
We have had great experience in Canada with formulae to amend the Canadian constitution. What is the current status in terms of the recent constitutional conference? The current status is that the premiers came into this conference bound by the rule of unanimity. In other words, they would not agree on anything unless there was unanimity among the provinces. The federal government feels that on balance this is a policy which is an extraordinarily restrictive formula for amending the Canadian constitution.


Léonel Beaudoin: That is the puzzle.


John Mercer Reid: I agree that unanimity requires perfection. We are human beings, we are not perfect. In some ways the hon. member is fortunate enough to come from a small caucus. He knows how difficult it is, even within his own caucus, to reach unanimity on many subjects. We on this side of the House know how difficult it is for us to reach unanimity on many subjects. None the less the premiers have bound themselves by the rule of unanimity. They have said in fact to Canadians that unless they can reach unanimity on all these subjects, they are not prepared to move.
I believe that if hon. members had looked at the results of the last conference of first ministers held on Monday and Tuesday of this week, they would have discovered that on almost all items we were dealing with a consensus of eight or nine provinces and the federal government. This is a significant level of agreement, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker. When you have eight or nine out of 11 governments agreeing on a series of propositions, that is significant agreement in principle.
I would go further and point out that had we adopted the Victoria formula, had we adopted the Toronto consensus, or had we adopted the American formula of three quarters of the states agreeing, people would have said this conference was a fantastic success because we would have had agreement on almost every item that was under discussion by the first ministers. In point of fact, because the provinces have bound themselves by the rule of unanimity, having said that all 11 governments must be unanimous before they will proceed the conference was seen as only a half success.
As a result of this rule of unanimity we must have more meetings of first minutes and further meetings of the continuing committee of ministers on the constitution. There will have to be a further meeting of first ministers, I would expect some time within the next eight months. At what time and at what

February 9, 1979
Canadian Constitution
place I cannot say, but I would think that the continuing committee of ministers on the constitution, which met three times, at Mont St. Marie, at Toronto and at Vancouver, plus an extra meeting of officials in Ottawa, will have-


An hon. Member:: Why don't you meet in Quebec City?


John Mercer Reid: I would think Quebec City would be an ideal spot.


An hon. Member:: And Roberval.


John Mercer Reid: Roberval, perhaps, but Quebec City attracts me. To get back to the point, we will require further meetings and discussions to see if we can refine the proposals we have made down to the point where we can deal with them all in a unanimous spirit. I want to point out to the House that this is not going to be an easy task since there are provincial governments which disagree with the propositions that have been advanced because they do not go far enough, or because they go too far.
1 would point out to hon. members that the federal government on almost all items was part of the general consensus, and there was a feeling that the federal government, which had been considered to be too rigid in its approach to constitutional changes, had become much more open and much more receptive to the need for constitutional change.
The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) mentioned quite explicitly the Pepin-Robarts report. I take seriously the comments he made in terms of Pepin-Robarts. I used the lunch hour to go back over the propositions that had been suggested by Pepin-Robarts and to compare them with propositions that had been dealt with by the first ministers at their conference. I am prepared to say to hon. members that if they will look at what was discussed and at the texts they will find that in many cases the negotiations which had taken place on the part of governments before the Pepin-Robarts report came out were right along the same lines advocated by Pepin-Robarts.
For example, in respect of the Supreme Court, we had already come to the conclusion that the proposal advanced by the federal government in Bill C-60 was not appropriate and, that the proposition advanced by Pepin-Robarts was also not appropriate. Therefore, we are out of synchronization on that. But there were a number of other propositions, such as the one on natural resources, where we have gone far further through transfer of power from the federal government to the province than Pepin-Robarts advances. I think if you looked at all of these proposals, Mr. Speaker, and if you were to weigh them on the balance scale, you would propably find that we are, indeed, going along the same line as Pepin-Robarts.
I want to make it clear to members of the House that these actions were taken prior to the Pepin-Robarts report coming out. Furthermore, I think I should offer the opinion that, in terms of the over-all thrust of Pepin-Robarts, I feel that if Canadians could accept the analysis and diagnosis of Pepin-Robarts-not the recommendations but the analysis and the diagnosis-as a starting place for our discussions on national
[Mr. Reid.|
unity, and as a starting place for our discussions on constitutional change, we would for the first time in Canadian history have an opportunity, on the part of 11 governments and all people from coast to coast, to begin discussions on a very common basis in fact.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: Having been involved in these discussions for the last three months, that to me would be a significant improvement in the way in which Canadians have approached this very thorny problem
The second opinion I want to offer on the Pepin-Robarts report is that, on balance, I feel I could personally accept the prescriptions advanced by Pepin-Robarts. My interpretation of their recommendations is that involved is a transfer of power from the federal government to the provincial governments in certain areas, but also an equal transfer of power from provincial governments to the federal government in certain spheres, that what Pepin-Robarts was seeking was a new balance in confederation. Consequently, looked at from that point of view-


An hon. Member:: What have you to say about the statut particulier?


John Mercer Reid: I want to deal with that in a minute. If we accept that kind of idea of transfer, as I say, I would be inclined to go along with Pepin-Robarts, if the provincial governments were prepared to do so. I think the concept is ideal, and I would be prepared to buy the total package because I believe on balance it would leave the provinces stronger in those areas where they want to be stronger. We would also have a stronger federal government in areas where I believe the federal government ought to be stronger.
I want to deal with the statut particulier, and I want to deal with it in terms of Pepin-Robarts as well. I do not see where Pepin-Robarts recommended a statut particulier for the province of Quebec or, indeed, for any other province. What they did say was that any government is free to exercise powers coming under its jurisdiction or not exercise them, and the fact that it may not exercise such powers is not a reason for any other government either to move into that sphere or not exercise its powers. In other words, governments are perfectly able and free to accept or to reject the opportunity the constitution obliges. For that purpose, if you look at areas of jurisdiction that are under provincial control, including education and welfare, you will see that each province has developed its own idea as to how to cope with these specific jurisdictions, and that is all to the good.
I think it is unfair for people to say that Pepin-Robarts recommended a statut particulier, in my judgment they did not. What they indicated was that certain areas of jurisdiction should be turned over to the provinces, particularly in the cultural field, and if the provinces chose to exercise that jurisdiction or not exercise it, or to transfer it to another body, that was perfectly within their powers. I accept that as the reality of the Canadian constitution today.
February 9, 1979

For example, we have that relationship between the federal government and Quebec at this time, and I would give two examples. The first example is that in terms of income tax, the federal government collects taxes for nine provinces and remits that taxation to the provincial governments. However, in the case of Quebec, it has chosen to collect its own provincial income tax, which it has a perfect right to do. The second area in which I think there is a difference is in the realm of family allowances, which again is perfectly natural and acceptable under our constitution. There is no reason why any other provincial government should not avail itself of such opportunities as well. 1 reject the suggestion that Pepin-Robarts has indicated a statut particulier for Quebec.
I want to deal with the question of language rights for minorities. This is a very important subject. I am one of those who believes that this is a guarantee to the Francophones of Canada that their particular linguistic rights and right to survive as a cultural entity would be preserved across Canada. I believe that it would be a disaster for this country if we did not have those linguistic rights protected outside of Quebec, because it would force all Francophones into a fortress Quebec, which would be disastrous for the future of Canada. The Pepin-Robarts report states, quite emphatically, that the ideal solution would be to have those linguistic rights embedded in the constitution, a proposal which the current government has made in its Bill C-60 and with which we have no quarrel.
But in a burst of what one may call real politics, the Pepin-Robarts group decided that that was unlikely to happen and, therefore, second best-not First best, but second best- would be to have the provincial governments pass language legislation. 1 want to point out a number of things to hon. members in that regard. The first point is that the only province at this time which is bound by the constitution to provide second language rights is the province of Quebec. The second point I want to make is that there was an attempt in the province of Ontario to proceed with a statute dealing in general with language rights, but it was not accepted.
1 think that one can argue reasons for that which are understandable to people who are active in Ontario politics, but the point is that there is only one province that is bound by this obligation. It seems to me that there is no way that I as a federal politician can travel around this country and say that it is all right for Quebec to be bound by these services but that the Francophone minorities in other provinces should not have the same rights as the people who speak my language in other parts of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I disagree violently with the position taken by the Pepin-Robarts report. I think that they would have been wiser and would have done us all a greater service if they had stuck to their original proposition, which to me is the only valid one. It seems to me that in
Canadian Constitution
discussing constitutional renewal and the question of providing assurances to minority linguistic groups, we must as part of the majority not only be seen to be fair, but must make it clear that we are prepared to go overboard to be fair. Because all minority groups, wherever they are and under whatever circumstances they may be, have this fear that at any point in time the majority can turn against them. What we want to do is ensure that these people have their rights embedded as deeply as possible in the constitution, so that their rights are totally protected. 1 think that is the one area of substantive disagreement which I have with the Pepin-Robarts report.
I have one further point to make, Mr. Speaker, and that is to discuss the workload that the first ministers have undertaken. As hon. members know, when the conference broke up there was substantive agreement on almost every other item but there was not unanimity. At some point members of this House will have to face the question of what the rule of unanimity means and whether or not we are going to be able to move forward with substantive constitutional reform. For as long as one province has the power to block all others; then it seems to me that, while this may be convenient for the provinces concerned, it can have a deleterious effect on the country as a whole.
We as national politicians must think at all times of the welfare of our country as a whole. Those items which were discussed in the constitutional conference by the first ministers and not resolved will form part of the agenda of the continuing committee of ministers on the constitution.
In addition to that, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated that the second list which was announced by my predecessor at the constitutional conference of first ministers in October would also be put on the table. I would like to run through that list to give hon. members an indication of the kinds of things that the federal government is proposing be discussed. It is important to remember that the first list which we went through on the division of powers was a list proposed by the premiers at Regina. The federal government accepted that list and also agreed to have intensive consultation, through the same process with the premiers, on the items in Bill C-60 with which they had some disagreement. That obligation has been discharged.
I would now like to read the second list presented by the federal government. I will read it out seriatim and then say a few words on each item. The first item deals with powers in the economic field to fight inflation, unemployment and regional disparity and to protect the dollar. The second item is the question of non-tariff barriers to interprovincial and international trade and investment. Third is the question of interprovincial and international movement of goods and services, including the right of passage of electricity, oil, gas and other minerals. Fourth is the question of barriers to the movement of persons for employment. Fifth is the regulation of competition. Sixth is the regulation of the Canadian securities market. Seventh is the question of marketing boards. Eighth is the problem of jurisdiction over minimum wages. Ninth is foreign relations and the role of provinces. Tenth is the question of the
3080

February 9, 1979
Canadian Constitution
appointment of superior court judges and of the setting up of federal courts for the administration of federal laws. Lastly, Canada's native people and the constitution.
These are the items that the federal government has put on the agenda for the next round of discussions, in addition, as I said before, to the items that were not resolved in the previous discussions which have come to a conclusion.
I think that it is clear to anybody who has studied the Pepin-Robarts report that this list published by the federal government back in October, 1978, is virtually identical in the economic powers that it wants discussed to those items enumerated by the Pepin-Robarts report as to where the federal government should have an overriding authority in the matter of better government and better control of our economic union. It is interesting to note that the policies that have been followed by the federal government and the provinces in these negotiations have fitted in reasonably well with the proposals and the general spirit of discussion which the Pepin-Robarts report recommends.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the constitutional discussions which began last fall have to be regarded as a significant step forward since we have had a significant amount of agreement amongst the provinces; and, further, that we accept basically the general propositions advanced by the Pepin-Robarts report in terms of its analysis and diagnosis of the problems which Canada is facing today. Even the Pepin-Robarts report said that while it could indicate general approaches, by and large it would be the government entering into negotiations that would determine how division of powers would be made.
1 would like to say to my friends in the Ralliement des Creditistes that I think they have proposed an interesting idea in that we should think in terms of using Bill C-9, the referendum bill, as a means of seeking the support of Canadians in the process of constitutional reform. This is a proposition which the government, up until now, has not considered. But I can assure them that it will be considered by the government, and I hope that it will also be considered by the justice committee which is dealing with Bill C-9 as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Will the minister permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) wishes to ask a question.


John Mercer Reid: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a question which is in the interest of historical accuracy. In other words, I wonder if the minister would agree that a correction ought to be made to something which he said in the very early part of his remarks. I believe that I am correct that he said that under the present system, when Canada wants an amendment to the British North America Act, we send a resolution from both Houses of our parliament to the British parliament. If the
(Mr. Reid.]
minister checks the record, I think that he will find that what we do is send a resolution from both Houses of Parliament to Her Majesty the Queen-in other words, the Queen of Canada-asking her to place a measure before the British parliament. It may seem a minor difference, but there is a difference between our addressing the parliament of another country and our addressing our own sovereign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is correct. I am pleased he has made this correction now and I thank him for it.


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) says that the Queen is part of the British parliament. I should just like to remind him that the Queen is also part of the Canadian parliament.
I can hear the jokes about Her Majesty the Queen from the other side. I hardly consider that to be a proper thing to do in this House or in this country.


Mr. Breau:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The record will show that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) mentioned my riding name. I hope she will permit me to make clear that 1 did not make any joke about the monarch.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I accept that, certainly, from the hon. member for Gloucester.
I listened with some very real interest to the remarks of the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Reid). While I was pleased to hear his speech I also considered it to be one of the telling factors about this government and the way in which their relations with the parliament of Canada are carried out.
While we had a very important first minister's conference this week which was held just across the street from this parliament, the chairman of that conference, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), did not see fit at the end of the conference to come into this chamber and make a statement on motions reporting what went on to the body to which he is responsible and accountable. Not once did he feel it necessary to get to his feet and report the findings of that conference to this chamber, or the work or the non-advance of that conference. What really interests me is that some time later in the week a junior minister is detailed to give the report that the chairman of the conference did not see fit to bring to parliament.
I was interested also in his remarks about patriation of the constitution and the fact that the premiers of the various provinces had insisted on unanimity. One of the interesting things that the Prime Minister said at that conference was-I paraphrase him because, of course, I do not have the exact words-that "we"-meaning all of the eleven first ministers there, "were in the bizarre position of having to produce
February 9, 1979

unanimity one last time in order to achieve a less flexible approach in our constitution".
So I do not think that the minister should try to pass it off that only the premiers were making that claim to unanimity. That, indeed, was the position of the Prime Minister. That, indeed, would have to be the position of anyone involved .in seeking amendments to the constitution, amendments which, of course, affect both levels of government. The hon. member for Gloucester questions that, but 1 trust he is not suggesting that a new amending formula could be arrived at in this country by the unilateral decision of the federal government. Would the member from Gloucester like to rise and say that that is the position he is putting forward?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I find it difficult to accept the procedure suggested by the hon. member.


Herb Breau: The answer is no.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The member for Gloucester, even though he has perhaps intimated otherwise before, has now verified the position and has said no.
Sir, 1 would like to address some remarks to the motion which has been put forward today by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier). I may say that the motion as put forward by the member for Roberval is one which we in this party reject, because the suggestion in that motion really runs counter to our system of federalism. If it was carried to its logical conclusion, it could emasculate the central government and, indeed, the parliament of Canada, by leaving the final decision-making power in all things up to the provinces. Quite frankly, I was not elected to parliament to participate in its demise, and neither do I think were the members of the party that introduced this motion.
This motion does not call merely for changes to our present system of federalism in order to improve it. Rather, it suggests such drastic changes to our system of interrelated governments that we would end up little more than a very loose alliance of more or less autonomous units strung out across the country.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I agree that the federal government acted too often in provincial areas of jurisdiction. That complaint was well expressed by the provinces themselves in the past and it should be of interest to anyone concerned with the political situation in Canada. However, the solution to those problems is not to lower the central government position to one of janitor in the present confederation. 1 think that would be going too far in the other direction.

There is the problem. It is right to ask what we can do now to put it right; but the answers will not come without a proper analysis of where the problem lies, and that proper analysis is something we have not had, either from the government or, as this motion shows, from the Social Credit party today.
That analysis of where our problems actually exist must incorporate an understanding of the reasons for the friction
Canadian Constitution
and the tensions which have developed between the federal government and all the provincial governments, something that has been developing over many years and certainly escalating over the past 30 years.
Perhaps the easiest way to understand what I am talking about is to look at the Canada that we had 30 or 40 years ago as it emerged from the Second World War, because that war fundamentally changed our federal system, making the federal government more powerful than ever before. The government assumed sweeping powers to regulate our economy and nationalize our resources for the war and, perhaps more importantly, for the future of our federal system. The federal government took over the great bulk of the tax resources in order to finance the military effort and that, sir, indeed was appropriate during that period of time-during the war.
But in peacetime such a system was no longer adequate for Canada's needs. We came out of the war with a very centralized system. The federal government was big. It had developed a large bureaucracy. The federal government was rich; it controlled the bulk of our tax dollars. And the federal government was already becoming arrogant; it increasingly assumed that it knew best, that the provinces were children needing strict parental guidance, that Canada would be strong only if the federal government was bigger than anyone else.
This approach, appropriate in the war years, could not last. Why is that? The critical problems facing Canada in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s-the major areas in which Canadians were demanding action-fell within provincial jurisdiction, according to the BNA Act. There were better health and social services, enhanced education opportunities for our children, better housing and modern highways, planned urban growth and rapid transit, development of our natural resources and careful management of our environment. The list seemed endless.
These were the urgent problems of a mature and industrial society and they fell either exclusively or predominantly within provincial jurisdiction. As a result the Canadian federal system became increasingly out of balance. Big government was in Ottawa and most of the tax dollars were there, but the real problems were in the constitutional laps of the provinces. The result was perhaps inevitable; tension, frustration and anger.
Much of our troubled constitutional history of the last 20 years has been essentially a search for a new balance, a new equilibrium between federal and provincial governments. Because of its cultural distinctiveness, Quebec pushed forward more vigorously in this search. But many of the fundamental, underlying problems and frustrations are shared by all provinces.
The tensions as I have observed them have been particularly noticeable recently in two fields: health and social services, and natural resources. In the case of health and social services the federal government, perhaps unwittingly, helped to plant the seed of provincial challenge. In the 1950s and 1960s Ottawa

February 9, 1979
Canadian Constitution
used conditional grants to cajole and prod the provinces into big programs, such as hospitalization and medicare. As a consequence the provinces had developed the expertise, the administrative capability and the self-confidence with which to challenge the view that Ottawa knew what was best for them. Conflict followed, as night follows day. The new financial arrangements between the two levels of government in this area reflect one fundamental fact: the provinces are increasingly insisting on their right to determine their own priorities and policy.
I mentioned natural resources as a second area of tension. The worldwide explosive growth in demand for resources over the last decades, a growth dramatized by the energy crisis of the 1970s, has presented Canada with both challenges and opportunities. But given the very important powers over natural resources allocated to the provinces by the British North America Act, a critical aspect of Canada's well-being depends on the skill and wisdom with which provincial governments approach resources issues. The federal government can no longer presume to be the unchallenged guardian of our economic future. There must be joint co-operation.
Canada today is very different from the Canada of 1945. It is important that we understand the forces of change. The linguistic and cultural resurgence of French Canada is one central force, but the emergence of broader provincial responsibilities is another, which has too often been overlooked. [Translation]
One thing is certain, a strong and united Canada will have to find a new balance between the jurisdictions of both levels of government. We need to change our institutions at the federal level. Changes are also necessary in the distribution of powers, but it is also important to have a behavioural change in Ottawa. In the past, the relations between Ottawa and the other partners in confederation were too often marked by paternalistic and superior attitude. It is necessary to have those relations directed towards mutual respect in the future. [English]
What is necessary is a new balance, a new equilibrium between the federal and provincial governments. Mention has been made in this debate today of the recently released report of the Task Force on Canadian Unity. It has some very imaginative and workable proposals that would move in the direction of which I speak. Not all of the proposals in it can be or will be agreed to, but the emphasis that that report has placed on regional aspirations and power-sharing open up options that have long been closed in the mind of the current government. Many of the options that the task force speaks about were available a decade ago when relations between the federal government and the provinces were much less contentious. For instance, policies for opting out of federal-provincial agreements or for accommodating the distinct responsibilities of any province could have acted as safety valves in the growing federal-provincial conflict. But the valves were shut, the doors were closed and the country was directed down one corridor and one corridor only by a prime minister convinced,

in spite of the danger signals, that his way was the only way. The lack of these safety valves has resulted in compression of the tensions and resentment; compression to the point of explosion.
The Pepin-Robarts report suggests opening doors that long have been closed-the doors of regional expression, of more provincial input at the centre and less control of the regions. Above all, it reiterates the definitive characteristic of any federal system. They say that the definitive characteristic of any federal system is-and I hope all of us would agree with this-
-the equality of status, under the constitution, of the two orders of government-
This is a characteristic which precludes unilateral action by the federal government in matters that concern the provinces, something of which we have seen all too much in the past decade.
[ Translation]
The Pepin-Robarts task force stresses in its report the two distinctive features in this country: cultural dualism and regionalism. Those characteristics, which are often seen as negative realities, should and must be dealt with in a positive manner. As it is said in the report, we should learn to adapt ourselves better to them, to subscribe to them, to provide in Canada as a whole such opportunities for action that everyone will be able to take advantage of them.

I want to look particularly at the question of regionalism which the task force has identified as one of the major sources of tension in the country, but one with great potential for strengthening the country over-all. Regionalism is given two dimensions, and properly so. The two dimensions that are identified are the cultural dimension and the economic dimension of regionalism. The report recognizes that the powers necessary to reinforce the positive aspects of the cultural dimension can best be handled by the provinces. They make certain suggestions along that line. Similarly it recognizes that the powers necessary to reduce the negative aspects of economic dimensions are regionalism, that regional disparity can best be handled by the federal government, and it recommends a strengthening of that role. That, sir, is the kind of balance that we must be seeking in this country so that federalism does operate better.
However, the reconciliation of regional interests will only come about with a central government that is sensitive to regional needs: sensitive to the fact that restraint measures dreamed up in Ottawa and uniformly applied can cripple the weaker provinces; or that indiscriminate regulation of resource industries without regard to regulations in the provinces, where much of the responsibility truly falls, can regulate those industries right out of existence. The lack of such sensitivity in Ottawa is the root cause of many of the stresses and strains in our federal system. We will not have a strong Canada until that essential sensitivity is reintroduced.
February 9, 1979

To become more sensitive to the needs of the provinces is not to weaken the central government to the point where we give up the dream of a Canada of shared interests and mutual responsibilities. Rather, it is to build on those shared interests and responsibilities. It is to reconcile the dual impulses of a strong united Canada and strong, diverse regions within the institutions and processes of the central government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but her time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There seems to be a disposition to allow the hon. member to continue her remarks.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: 1 thank the House for its courtesy. This approach means remaking the central institutions to give them a new measure of legitimacy as genuine expressions of both regional and Canada-wide interests, in other words, to create a new equilibrium. I feel that has been the value of the Pepin-Robarts commission, to highlight the fact that this new equilibrium or balance, which for too long has been lacking, must be sought in order to hold this country together.
We are faced with very real problems in our federal system, problems which cry out for solution. But the problems must be analysed properly before any solutions can be reached. The facile suggestions in today's motion are not the answer. Nor is the government's referendum bill. That bill would create a new potential for federal-provincial relations. It would give the federal government the power to override provincial governments, any provincial government, and to go directly to the people on any constitutional matter that may be opposed to the wishes of a particular government. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated that when he said the other day that you could not assume that this bill would not be used against the province of New Brunswick. He singled it out particularly.


Herb Breau: Against the government, not the people.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is a very interesting debate. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) is now in a position of denying the right of the legitimate, democratically elected government of any province to create legislation for that province. In that case, he says it is the federal government in Ottawa that makes the laws for the provincial dimension of New Brunswick. That has been the attitude of this government all along. If they could, they would abolish all provincial governments.


Herb Breau: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, when I finish. This new tool that the government has devised for itself is a weapon to be used against the provinces. It smacks of arrogance and parternalism, which has been the difficulty over the past ten years. It is hardly a solution to a problem that has come about
Canadian Constitution
because of the government's protracted arrogance and parternalism. That is no solution at all.
1 have some very real reservations about the government's commitment either to federal-provincial relations or to the cultural duality of this nation when it can bring in a bill with such potential for division, and then when the minister comes before the committee and makes a statement he does not have the text available or translated into the other official language. Both of these events are symbolic of the government's clumsiness in the field of federal-provincial relations.
To return to the motion before us today, this country is made up of many parts. But its strength lies in the fact that these diverse parts are part of the larger whole. To retain and strengthen that whole, while remaining sensitive to the diversity of its parts, should be our goal. The motion before us today works against that goal and that is why we in this party cannot support it.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member indicated she would be glad to answer a question at this stage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is that agreed?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Herb Breau: In talking about the danger of a referendum against the province of New Brunswick, the hon. member came close to indicating that she thought a provincial legislature could not on occasion deal with this situation and constitutional questions and that the federal government or parliament should not in any way consult the people of that province. Does she realize that if she extends the logic of that argument she would be in agreement with Pierre Bourgault who says that the national assembly of Quebec could just, by a majority vote, decide the future of Quebec without any referendum, provincial or federal?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is inherent in the Prime Minister's threat against the province of New Brunswick, the fact that the federal government could move in to abolish the official languages legislation of the province of New Brunswick. That is what it means.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: The motion being debated today seems quite appropriate to me in this age of redefinition of the powers under our constitution. Given the present political instability and economic insecurity, there is no doubt that solving that problem could result in true national harmony which can still be achieved if we use the appropriate means.
Today I would like to draw the attention of the House to one of the priority aspects of the solution to the constitutional problem, an aspect that is unfortunately forgotten too often in the debate. To prevent errors of interpretation I will refer to

February 9, 1979
Canadian Constitution
the document entitled Coming to Terms released a few days ago by the Task Force on Canadian Unity.
Here are the terms used by the task force to define the word "constitution", and I quote:
(2)	the definition of the principal organs of government in all four branches- the legislative, the executive, the judicial and the administrative-their composition, functions, powers and limitations:
(3)	the distribution and the co-ordination of powers between the two orders of government if the form of government is a federal one;
(4)	the definition of relationship between the governors and the governed, particularly the rights of the latter.
The Task Force on Canadian Unity does say that a constitution includes in particular the rights of the governed, the rights of the citizens. That is quite obvious and logical since the human being is the most important creature in any society and any society is there to serve the interests of the people it includes. When you talk about basic human rights, everybody agrees about the following definition: A society must be organized so as to allow the enjoyment of such basic rights as the right to decent standards of living, health and most fundamental freedoms.
All this is included one way or another in the Bill of Rights and other statutes. For its part, the constitution does not mention these rights even though they are quite important. For too many people, these rights have remained theoretical because they had no access to them, and this is the main thrust of my intervention. The use of these rights and their accessibility cannot be fully recognized in practice if the people do not have the necessary financial means. In proof of this, one only has to look at the figures quoted by the Senate Committe on Poverty in December, 1978 which showed a disastrous financial situation for a large number of people in Canada, In 1977, 882,000 single persons, or 42.9 per cent of people in this category, were below the poverty line, 1,288,000 families of two or more, or 21.5 per cent of Canadian families, were living below the poverty line. If one considers that the average Canadian family has four members, this means that 6,034,000 people were living below the poverty line in Canada.
To live below the poverty line means that you are deprived of all the required health services, the necessary food products, decent housing, proper clothing, and numerous services which are essential to the exercise of basic freedoms and to happiness, which means that you are denied basic human rights in a normal and modern society. I want today to emphasize the fact that if the constitution must guarantee basic rights, it must also guarantee the possibility to exercise these rights. Any constitution will remain theoretical and lead to the present confrontation if it does not guarantee economic rights for individuals, rights which are clearly set forth in the provisions of the constitution so that no member of society, and especially no government, can dismiss their basic commitments.
When we talk about the basic human rights, that is food, housing, clothing, heating, health, and so on, we are talking

about things that are essential to life and about the production of goods and services, and therefore about costs, prices, purchasing power and income. We are therefore talking about money and finance. It is quite easy to understand that the possibility to exercise these basic human rights is dependent upon the effectiveness of the financial system.
Fet us see in this British North America Act which is considered as our constitution, how the financial system is dealt with regarding its functions as an enabling agent of the exercise of our basic rights. Section 53 deals with appropriation and tax bills. Section 91 deals with the Canadian parliament's responsibility over the public debt, the raising of money, the currency and the coinage, the banks and paper issue of money, and the interest on money. Section 92 deals with the provincial legislature's responsibility over direct taxation, the borrowing of money on the sole credit of the province. A great many sections deal with interests, provincial public debts, consolidated revenue funds, the transfer of the assets and the liabilities of the provinces, the responsibility of Canada over the debts of the provinces and the raising of taxes and so on. In this document which we consider as our constitution, no mention is made whatsoever of the rights of the citizens and, above all, the latter are not even guaranteed a single way of exercising such rights.
There is reference to the right of the government to borrow, to tax, to transfer debts and therefore the right of the governments to last and ensure their own subsistence, and finance their administration be it good or bad through the taxpayers. The future constitution of Canada which will have to emerge from the current debates will have to acknowledge the sound organization of the financial system from which depends the access to basic rights. This financial system will have to be recognized as the first essential public service, the one which provides access to all the others. The constitution will also have to spell out the responsibilities within that system and the limitation of its field of action.
Secondly, this new association which will emerge from a new constitution will have to establish its true sovereignty, namely the right of the people to their existence, to fundamental liberties as compared to other countries, to decent living conditions and these rights as well as those of the individuals will only be exercised if the financial system makes it possible.
The words "borrower" and "sovereign" are tantamount to an antithesis the elements of which are incompatible. A borrower loses part of his sovereignty which he surrenders to his creditors. He no longer is his own master. We have all seen what happened in the case of the cities of New York and Cleveland. When they suddenly are on the verge of bankruptcy, their creditors dictated their own terms.
We in Canada are heading for the same bankruptcy. Our governments are overmortgaged, a situation which is creating similar problems for the public.

February 9, 1979
I have before me a list of public debts. Public and private debts of Canadians in 1977
Federal debt:	$67 billion
Provincial debt: Consumer credit:
Credit to corporations: Residential mortgages: Total:
$16,000,825,000 $25 billion $31 billion $13 billion $152,000,825,000
It is to be noted that these figures do not include the debts of all municipalities in Canada. And we all know how deep in debt our municipalities are. The federal deficit alone increases by $822,000 every hour. This is ridiculous. Interest payable on total debt in 1978
Federal debt:
Provincial debt: Consumer credit: Corporations credit: Residential mortgages: Total:

This is where the present constitution has led us by giving us borrower status, debitor status, the status of seemingly prosperous people as in New York who owe the shirts they are wearing. Those figures show how much purchasing power deficiency our system generates relative to costs and obligations. The Canadian constitution should establish a Canadian financial system that would be responsible for the circulation of all the money and credit needed for sound economic performance. This implies that Canada must create a public financial service.
There is ample evidence of the current system's permanent divorce from current economic reality. Time has come to change that. And if an example were needed, we have the floating Canadian dollar. It is on a constant downslide.
I would now like to submit to the House proposals that should be included in the next constitution. A century and a half ago or even a century ago those proposals would have looked unreal. But modern times, our high degree of civilization, the high level of knowledge, the enormous productive potential, automation and cybernetics have brought us to the end of an old society concept and the eve of a new society. It has been proved that we now have the human and physical assets, the energy resources and productive capacity to enter into an age where the constant insecurity and poverty now rampant will be reduced to isolated cases rather than a system feature as is now the case.
The new constitution should include provisions for a national credit board responsible for determining the resources needed for the country to fulfil individual aspirations and for submitting from time to time reports on the efficient use of those resources. These reports would give an inventory of our society's assets and an evaluation of the percentage used. It is
Canadian Constitution
indeed important to know our potential, which can be made available to our citizens so that they can exercise their basic rights. And when we talk about public credit, we should really have a clear idea of its worth. Moreover, I think that the situation which makes Canadians run into debt with their government which is itself constantly borrowing from foreign capital should be reversed and that the Constitution should grant to every citizen the title of shareholder of this country. Therefore, in his quality as shareholder, every citizen would regularly receive dividends which would constitute an income supplement calculated on the basis of the net benefits of the economic association formed by Canada. This title and the privileges which would derive from it should be granted to every citizen simply because of his Canadian citizenship.
This provision would create a true economic democracy as the citizens would become owners of their share of the Canadian wealth and through the benefits they would realize, they would gain an ever-increasing ability to finance projects suited to their needs.
If this country belongs to its citizens and if this partnership is aimed at bettering the quality of life for everyone and providing more fundamental rights, it is only normal that every citizen benefit directly from this partnership. In the light of the foregoing, I should now like to make proposals which would enable us to achieve the goals pursued. The next constitution should provide that the primary role of a government is to guarantee by every possible means for every individual and family an adequate income so that they are reasonably well off.
The minimum income required to be reasonably well off could be determined on an annual basis. For instance, and this is one only example but a quite realistic one, it could be agreed in 1979 that the minimum "reasonably well off' income could be defined as the poverty line, as established by the Senate committee, plus 15 per cent. By the same token, the next constitution should provide that no person living below the "reasonably well off' line should pay any tax. However, it seems perfectly normal and in order. I cannot understand that the Income Tax Act should tax people earning $2,000 or $2,500 when they need at least $5,000 to $6,000 to live.
Those two proposals imply the setting up of an organization to set the minimum annual income required by single individuals and families to live decently and to exercise their basic rights. As a result of the present uncertainty, we have the opportunity of making our country the first modern nation with a constitution that really serves the interests of its citizens. Our country can lead the way for the whole world through a constitution based essentially on the respect of basic human rights and with very strict provisions defining the means likely to give access to those rights to everyone.
I would add that the new constitution should recognize that the government closer to the citizen can better serve him. In that spirit, with regard to equalization, a formula should be

February 9, 1979
Canadian Constitution
divised under which each entity (each province) would provide to the higher level of government on a voluntary basis the sums required for the administration of programs for which they have delegated the responsibility to the higher level of government for a period determined at their discretion.
The Canadian people can give themselves a constitution fashioned to human need. For hundreds of millions of people living in poverty and uncertainty throughout the world, we can become, by adopting an original constitution, a source of hope for a better future. Because of its international reputation, Canada is perfectly able to do this. In conclusion, I express the hope that all those who will participate at any level in the drafting of a new constitution will consider my remarks, because I am convinced, as well as my colleagues from the Social Credit party, that those proposals might prevent disputes and confrontations. It is our duty to prepare for our future Canada a system designed to ensure a standard of justice under which human beings will have precedence over financial interests. Then we might talk about a just society.
I am pretty sure that the procedure followed up to now with a view to drafting a new constitution could be improved. One only has to look at the result of federal-provincial conferences to be convinced.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. However, he could continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles-Eugène Dionne: I thank my colleagues, I shall be finished in a minute.
We should offer the Canadian people the advantage to participate through a referendum so that they have the right to decide whether one draft constitution or another is acceptable, no province being forced to accept the terms of a constitution on which it does not agree. However, if we proposed a model constitution which would guarantee everyone the "right to live", because it is an important right, there would be possible grounds for agreement in the best interests of the Canadian people.


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, we could have hoped or at least expected that with the departure of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) the Social Credit Party of Canada would have left the winding paths of ultranationalism and the sinister maze of cheap casuitry.
We must unfortunately admit that the member for Champlain, his hysterical and furious messianism notwithstanding, brought a minimum of consistency to the interventions of his party in constitutional matters. The fact is that the wording of

the motion now under consideration and standing in the name of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) is so confused and hermetic that I hate to try even to analyze its substance. It just may be that the member for Roberval himself agrees since not once in his intervention did he refer to it and neither did the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). I cannot say I blame her.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that today, which is an opposition day, we have a motion dealing with an extremely important matter reflecting one of our major concerns, namely the constitutional reform and the direction Canada intends to give in the future to the reform of its institutions.
I would like to congratulate the hon. Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Reid) for the wonderful speech he made earlier today, in which he frankly explained the problems facing us and reaffirmed our determination to succeed in this endeavour which means so much for the survival of this country and its institutions. I particularly appreciated his reference to the report of the Pepin-Robarts Commission, and the way he cleared up any misunderstandings that may have arisen from the presentation of that report and the unfavourable comments it attracted from the media and the politicians. Above all, I feel he deserves credit for emphasizing the outstanding job the commission has done in paving the way for a better understanding and identification of the Canadian problem.
Having said that, I should still like to speak to the motion before the House today if only in an attempt to see how some of the statements it contains can lead to confusion and in fact mislead Canadians. To my mind, the motion can be divided, at least at first glance that is what I gathered, into four parts. First, the introduction, where on the basis of the so-called weaknesses of our constitutional acts, and I suppose the British North America Act of 1867 is being referred to here, a denunciation is made of the outrageous intervention of the federal government in fields of provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, later on I shall endeavour to demonstrate that this assertion, on which the whole motion is based, is completely false and unsubstantiated. On the basis of that assertion, the Social Credit Party of Canada, and particularly the sponsor of the motion, denounces three government initiatives or actions which, according to him, justifies the presentation of a motion, though perhaps not of censure still asking the government to act otherwise.
First of all, the motion claims that the initiative of constitutional reform should be left to the provinces, should be taken by them in accordance with the constitutive elements of the Canadian federation. So, the first question that comes to my mind is this: does that mean, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian state, that the federal government, which is also legitimate by virtue of our constitutive acts, cannot take the initiative of a constitutional reform and, as a corollary, cannot even, I suppose, initiate arrangements in its own institutions, within its
February 9, 1979

own jurisdictions? To me, the answer is simple: the British North America Act gives the Government of Canada-the federal government-full jurisdiction to amend its Constitution and reform its institutions to give them greater flexibility.
The third aspect in this motion deals with the introduction of the economic rights of the people. I wonder what the mover of the motion means by that, Mr. Speaker. In my view, there are two possible interpretations: First-and this might be in line with the options which the Social Credit party has been advocating for years-writing in the constitution certain economic rights such as the guaranteed annual income thus making it mandatory for governments to provide for their people's basic economic requirements. But-as we shall see later-these are not the only rights. The right to work is also very important as well as the right to form collective associations and many others of that same type. The Socreds are certainly not the only ones who have made such proposals. Back in 1967, the then Minister of Justice who happened to be the right hon. Pierre Elliot Trudeau, released a document called the Canadian Charter of Human Rights, which dealt extensively with those economic rights.
By the way, there were many meetings leading eventually to the Victoria Conference, during which fundamental civil rights and freedoms, including economic rights, were thoroughly discussed by a sub-committee made up of the ministers of justice who finally decided that, in view of the present situation, more particularly the nature of our institutions and dual federal and provincial jurisdiction, economic rights could probably be better protected, and every participating minister agreed to that, if the constituent parties, more precisely the provinces, were allowed to legislate in this particular area because the enforcement of those rights requires positive government action and, that is why it seems more appropriate to let the provinces pass whatever legislation they deem necessary or are under pressure to adopt for the protection of such rights.
My fourth and final point, Mr. Speaker, is really current because it concerns referenda. The mover of this motion presumably supposes, that the provinces alone which make up the Canadian confederation, can, through public consultation accept or reject constitutional reforms. He also assumes that the federal government has no right to consult the people and hold such referenda. Again, I think that, despite the reservations expressed by certain parties in the House during the debate on Bill C-9 regarding the scope of the legislation, the types of questions to be put, the various areas of consultation which could lead to referenda, no one I think has suggested in this House, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government had no constitutional right to consult the people either at the national level, from coast to coast, or within a province, whether on an issue of general interest to Canadians or an issue relating to the specific interest of a given region.
Canadian Constitution
And once again, I do not think that the fourth point listed in the motion is hardly worth mentioning except to say that the constitutional basis for the following statement, and 1 quote from the motion, Mr. Speaker:
... new constitutional arrangements may be rati Tied only by the population of the provinces through referendums held in the respective provinces.
-ignores the true nature of our Canadian institutions.
But we are left with the preamble of the motion and I will read it again for the record:
That, in the opinion of this House, the federal government having taken advantage of the weaknesses of the British North America Act (BNA Act) to infringe on provincial jurisdictions .. .
Mr. Speaker, I seriously question the historic sources used by the research staff of the Social Credit Party of Canada as a basis for that statement. Whether they be French-speaking historians to refer to the new terminology used since 1977, or English-speaking, or even American historians as Mason Wade, or even people who have nothing to do with North America and especially European historians, but to my knowledge, nobody has ever suggested that under the British North America Act initially has given priority to provinces.
And in that context, I could quote Mason Wade but 1 do not have the book with me. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will refer to the report of the Senate committee session of 1939, when the government had asked the Senate to prepare an interpretation of the Privy Council judgment on sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act on joint powers. I got out some excerpts from the parliamentary debates of the Parliament of Canada before 1867, that is in 1864 and 1865, and at that time, Macdonald had this to say, Mr. Speaker, and I quote from page 144 of the document:
But in the proposed constitution, all matters of general interest, all that concerns the provinces as a whole, will be left exclusively to the federal Parliament while provincial legislatures will deal with local interests which although they do not concern the whole Confederation, are very significant at the local level.
Later he went on to say, Mr. Speaker, and I quote:
We have conferred upon the general parliament all the major legislative matters. Not only have we specifically and in detail conferred upon it any power inherent in sovereignty and nationality, but we have specifically stated that any area of general interest which is not assigned to local parliaments would fall under the jurisdiction of the federated government and that local matters would come under local governments. Thus we have given strength to the general government and parliament, and we have avoided this great source of weakness which has caused disruption among the United States.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the United States were then facing extremely serious internal difficulties following the secession war.
Does that mean, Mr. Speaker, from what was said by the father of confederation par excellence-and I add my own little touch of nationalism, by Cartier-does that mean, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Macdonald, soon to become the first Prime Minister of Canada, of the Canadian confederation, thought of
3088

February 9, 1979
Canadian Constitution
something that was rather like a confederal institution, as it is understood today, or rather was it not straightforwardly meant that what was intended was almost a legislative union, and I use the word legislative advisedly, Mr. Speaker, because Macdonald himself wanted a legislative union, because he considered that it would allow better policy co-ordination in the interest of all the colonies in the British North America of that time, and in particular the opening of the west, the abolition of tariff barriers, the building of a railroad; finally, he did not see the necessity to give local institutions much more than a role of local regionalism befitting glorified municipalities, as they put it at the time.
Cartier could not accept, of course, as a Francophone, and as he wanted to protect the interests of Lower Canada, he said to Macdonald: Since we have to get rid of the Union because it is not working, that is the Union of Upper and Lower Canada, but since we have to try to keep the British colonies in North America together, let us do it but let us make sure that the institutions will respect the rights of the Francophones-and he was thinking specifically of the rights of the Francophones in Lower Canada. So, in spite of Macdonald's reservations, the principle of a federal union was accepted. But a federal union extremely centralized at the time, a federal union which in the mind of its designers, including Cartier, was to give the central government practically absolute preponderance. And it was only later, Mr. Speaker, with the pleas put to the Privy Council that that first concept of the Canadian confederation was gradually watered down to finally arrive at a federalism which resembles that which we have now because in its very essence it has not changed that much since the last decisions of the Privy Council despite a back and forth movement of the preponderance of the central government.
And in that sense, I would like to remind hon. members of the Social Credit Party that we are now, according to all serious analysts of the Canadian political situation, in a period where the pendulum is moving toward a preponderance of the provinces. For example, at present, if you compare the budgets of the federal government with those of the provinces, including those of the municipalities, which come under the responsibility of the provinces, you have a ratio of 1/3 to 2/3. Is that the sign of an extremely centralized federation where the central government only controls a third of governmental and "perigovernmental" budgets. I do not think so. Indeed, I think it is a very healthy development. I am not one of those who advocate, particularly in the Canadian context, an overcentralization of all powers. That would be contrary to the spirit of the BN A Act of 1867. That would go against the Canadian social and cultural reality, and it goes even against the Canadian economic reality which is based on regionalisms rather than true complementarity.
Speaking of complementarity, Mr. Speaker, if there is any direction we should try to give our efforts towards "re-confederating", it should be to take us back to the spirit that

prevailed during the discussions leading to the Quebec and London conferences. At the time a whole series of factors existed which made our political men feel the need to unite. Some of those factors were political, and strictly political. For instance, the union of Lower and Upper Canada was in a political deadlock since 1840, with a whole series of governments falling one after the other.
Naturally that state of affairs interfered with the solution of the serious economic problems facing the colony at the time, including the development of the west, the need for considerable resources to build a railway, the laying down of the substructure of a maritime transport system to compete with the ones that were attracting both goods and their transportation towards the south, the United States. Another consideration was perceived at the time, namely the danger of the United States taking over, because of their power, their numbers, the various colonies located to the north. But one felt the need to unite for another reason. For many years already, privileges granted to the colony by the mother country had been reduced to the bare minimum, with the repeal of Corn Laws and others, so that Canada had to turn to the United States to carry on the majority of its trade and establish its own tariff barriers. Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are many more reasons, but most of them are mainly economic reasons and one must say that the Canadian federation such as it was conceived by its authors did manage to fulfil the economic aspirations of the Fathers of Confederation. The confederation or the British North America Act such as it is has led Canada to its present economic development. It has allowed it beyond all hopes. Laurier's big dream was that the end of the twentieth century would belong to Canada. Already he had visions of promises out west. These promises have been fulfilled, Mr. Speaker, not only in the west but all across Canada. And now, even in the poorer provinces, we had hoped-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is unanimous consent.


Claude-André Lachance: I will conclude in a few moments. In the Maritimes, which for many v/ere poor provinces, one sees the first signs of a rapid development, specially in Newfoundland, in New Brunswick, with the tidal energy of the Bay of Fundy. Mr. Speaker, this country is full of promises. We have problems but they are not really economic problems. Let us try to put an end to our social, linguistic and cultural problems. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that federalism-and that is why I am sitting here as a member of parliament-is flexible enough to accommodate the social changes that have been taking place already for the last 110 years in Canada and helped in
February 9, 1979

particular the fulfilment of Quebeckers since 1960. But we will have to go back to the mentality which prevailed in 1867 and we will have to find again what made us unite and the motives behind this union instead of looking for motives to divide. Let us therefore set aside our differences if possible, and I think that was the aim pursued by the Task Force on National Unity, and rather concentrate on what basically unites us. Then we could have true consultation, we could truly complete one another because in my view this is the answer to the current Canadian dilemma, and it cannot be achieved without first considering economic factors.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and great enthusiasm that I rise today to dicuss this government's performance in constitutional matters. Before getting on with my remarks, I would like to thank this House for this opportunity to resume the debate opened last week on national harmony. We, of the Social Credit Party of Canada have put forward a motion which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the federal government having taken advantage of the weaknesses of the British North America Act (BNA Act) to infringe on provincial jurisdictions and undermine the sovereignty of the provinces, has failed:
-to leave the initiative of constitutional negotiations to the provinces, in accordance with the spirit of confederation, by giving them the final say in the decision-making process;
-to discuss the introduction of economic rights for all citizens in a new constitution;
-as well as to recognize that new constitutional arrangements may be ratified only by the population of the provinces through referendums held in the respective provinces.
I do not agree entirely with what the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) just said, namely that he does not understand the motion; he may not understand some paragraphs but generally speaking, after hearing his speech I think he agreed that there should be discussion to improve the new constitution we all want, including the English provinces, I think. It is certainly a great progress because, like everybody, I followed the latest conference held in Ottawa, and I think considerable progress was made towards consensus. I would not say towards unity because some people there, and I mean some of the provincial premiers, skated outside the rink but those who wanted to stick to the subject, demonstrated at least a lot of hope for the next discussions.
What concerns me today about this question of a new direction or a new constitution is that the federal government has gone one step ahead of the provinces by saying that it would hold a referendum through Bill C-9, but that it would reject outright any decision reached by those provinces which might have their own referenda. At this point I am referring to the Quebec referendum, to the provincial legislation providing for referendums in the province of Quebec. The minister stated yesterday before the committee on justice and legal affairs that the federal referendum legislation is meant to be a
Canadian Constitution
reflection of the provincial referendum, that is of the Quebec legislation on referendums.
I suggest that if we want Bill C-9 to be a reflection of the Quebec referendum, then we are on the wrong track. Firstly, our referendum provides that the decision of the electors is not binding in any way on the government to act on a majority decision. This means that it is not worth holding a referendum if it is so vague that the government is not bound by the majority decision. On the other hand, the provincial referendum legislation, which I know by heart, having read it maybe ten times, provides that when the majority decides on a given question to compel the government to take action, it clearly states that the government is then bound by its own act to take action. There is a whole world of difference here. The provincial government did not leave itself much of a choice, but it has reserved the choice of the question, mark you. I totally disagree on that because the question should have been stipulated in the provincial referendum act. That is the way I believe things should have been done. I for one, had I been a member of the Quebec National Assembly, would have voted against the referendum bill because I think the question should have been included in the act, because the legislation related primarily to the people's decision on provincial independence, because when you read and understand the act the way it should be read and understood, you can see that such is its intent.
Generally, however, I think the provincial bill was more complete and more specific than Bill C-9 now before the House. First of all, the federal-provincial constitutional conference of prime ministers has just been held. Generally speaking, the main matters in dispute remain unsolved because nobody wants to yield. It is certainly not easy to come out of a hundred-year deadlock between French-speaking and Englishspeaking Canadians, Mr. Speaker. Many have come up against a blank wall. I am thinking more particularly of men like Maxime Raymond, Jean-Franqois Pouliot, Lionel Groulx and Chaloult.
All these people wanted nothing more than equality for Quebec. I would like to quote now a few sentences by Lionel Groulx which I read this morning and which show what it all means. Lionel Groulx said about French-Canadians and about the province of Quebec:
We do not want to take anything from anyone. However, we do not intend anything to be taken away from us either. We are not preventing anyone from living their own life, but we also want to live our own.
Everyone was enthusiastic when they read these fine words, but nothing much has happened since. Canon Groulx died at the age of 87, 88 or 89. He had been fighting since the age of 26, 27 or 28 for the equality of Quebec with the rest of the Canadian provinces, but not very successfully because he died before this equality that every one of us wants could be achieved.

February 9, 1979
Canadian Constitution
I believe that we must now discuss the means of achieving national harmony, and it is precisely in expressing and recognizing the linguistic, religious, ethnic and cultural mosaic of the whole Canadian people.
Later on, the House of Commons should report or amend the referendum legislation, which has now been referred to the committee on justice and legal affairs, in order to expand and clarify it. In its present form, this legislation bothers our minorities, especially in Quebec and certain other provinces.
One of my colleagues described today quite eloquently the tendency of the federal government in the last 15 years to interfere increasingly with matters of provincial jurisdiction. Indeed, in all federal-provincial relations during this period, the central government has kept interfering in provincial affairs. The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) referred to the circumstances which led him to defend provincial interests at the federal level during his 17 years in the House of Commons. As he said so well, the federal government has consistently taken over the taxation fields which are the most profitable. It has gotten directly involved in financing education and taken the initiative to implement our first health insurance plan while knowing, of course, that the provinces did not have the financial means to make the first steps in this field. To my mind, that is outdated and the government should have withdrawn from those fields long ago.
In the past, a federal government had succeeded in monopolizing the field of direct taxation during the Second World War. Direct taxation was then the main source of revenue for the provinces who had gradually, come to rely on it. The constitution had provided them with the power of taxation at the time of the negotiations in 1867, this was the least important source of government revenue.
So, the federal government took advantage of a difficult situation to rob the provinces of their only important source of income. Having grabbed those taxation powers for itself, the federal government proceeded to use its dominant financial position to infringe upon some fields previously under provincial jurisdiction. Those encroachments account to a great extent, for the present constitutional crisis and now we can see a dynamic move from provincial governments to repatriate within their jurisdictions those administrative powers that the central government took away from them in 1867.
This brief review of federal government action leaves me to discuss a new legislation which seems intended to make the tense relations between Canada and Quebec even worse. According to the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations, Bill C-9 respecting the public referendum on questions relating to constitutional matters should allow all Canadians to participate in the renewal process of the Canadian pact.
I think it is true, as the minister told us when he introduced Bill C-9, that the provinces will get involved in the referendum

as well as Canadians in every province, and that after such a federal referendum there will be a certain measure of justice.
By the way, I would like to tell you about an incident that occurred yesterday. I know that the minister is probably not fully responsible, but a small mistake was made. And I want to say that sometimes English comes more naturally. In the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, yesterday morning, the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations made a statement in English. A member of the House, a Conservative member, asked if he had French copies of it. Quite honestly, the minister told him: I have no French copy, only English copies. So we adjourned the meeting since we did not have French copies. We realize that it is considered normal procedure to always work in English, and for the last eight years the government has shown an extraordinary openness as regards bilingualism in Canada. This has been going on for eight years!


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


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont on a point of order.


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but you know as well as I do that Mr. Speaker took the matter under advisement until the minister had the opportunity of answering a question of privilege that would have been raised by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle). I am sure that the hon. member might prefer to take part in this debate on the question of privilege when the minister is in the House and is able to answer.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, and there was no malice intended, but I merely wanted to show how hard it is to change 100-year old habits.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the remarks of the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations when he said that only the province of Quebec guarantees under a provincial act equal treatment to its minority. Why is it that the other provinces have not done likewise? It is only natural for them, that is why. I do not want to irritate or upset anybody but it is a fact that for them, of course, English comes first, and then we get the translations. I wish to congratulate my English-speaking colleagues who are helping us get equal rights for the French language, those who have helped us in the past in this House and who are helping us in committee in order to have the right to speak in French.
For a long time, Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit Party of Canada has been asking for the holding of referendums in order to seek the opinion of the Canadian people on major issues of special concern to individuals. We have asked several times, for instance, for a referendum on capital punishment. All our requests to that effect have been flatly turned down in the past by the government. We have also shown initiative on
February 9, 1979

constitutional matters by proposing a negotiation formula likely to foster understanding and public input. We have proposed the implementation of the required mechanism for the drafting of a Canadian constitution in the following order: first, every province would allow its population to express its opinion on the subject and would draft a master project stemming from this public expression of opinion which would then be submitted for public approval through a referendum. I am still talking about interprovincial relations. With a clear mandate, the provinces would then initiate interprovincial negotiations and submit the joint project for public approval a second time through a referendum. The federal government should stay completely out of these public consultations while reserving the right to discuss the final decision. At this stage, I would like to point out that if every time there is a provincial referendum, the federal government holds its own national referendum, we will then end up with a stalemate and nobody will ever make anything out of it.
Mr. Speaker, the federal legislation on referenda disregards provincial rights. This is mainly due to the fact that the government wants to get working tools similar to those of the province of Quebec with a view to ultimately thwarting the objectives of the Quebec government. The referendum would become the ideal instrument for federal intervention, enabling the government to impose its views to the provinces through the electorate. This policy would simply contest the sovereignty of the provinces. And yet the Pepin-Robarts Task Force on Canadian Unity in its report tabled in the Elouse last week recognizes that a confederation would represent, and 1 quote:
-an association in which sovereign states are joined together by a pact or treaty of international law, or a constitution, in which they delegate specific limited authority, especially in matters of foreign affairs (defence and diplomacy), to a central agency.
According to the definition given by dictionaries, this means a union between sovereign provinces. Today one is not even allowed to talk about sovereignty and to say that provinces can be sovereign, without being labelled a separatist because from what I understand, and I said so earlier and again I repeat, that when one quietly belongs to a majority, why bother to recognize a minority, why bother to recognize its rights? Again, why recognize the rights of a minority?
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is up to the citizens of the province involved to chart their constitutional future. Right now Quebec is the only province which has a law on referenda and it alone should decide its future. The residents of the other Canadian provinces should not be called upon to decide whether Quebec should stay within confederation. Of course they can try to convince Quebeckers to remain within confederation, but it is up to them to negotiate the conditions of participation for each and every province within this union so that every Canadian may feel that he can develop freely, and is given the same opportunities. So the federal
Canadian Constitution
government has no right to force the provinces to accept its own views on what Canada should be, especially through the technicalities of a referendum which might deny citizens-as I said before-a free political choice which they might have made with an overwhelming majority.
Counteracting the threat of a referendum by another referendum will certainly not enhance the quality of the debate on the constitution, obvious as it is that Canada would never allow the province of Quebec to sever its constitutional links with the rest of the country on the outcome of a referendum. Judging from all the speeches of hon. members, it is obvious that the referendum is designed as a reply to a specific threat. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae) made this point very clear a few days ago.
Most political parties in the House have tried to convince us through statements they have made here over the last few weeks that the referendum will stimulate popular thinking and the development of viable constitutional options. It would be very easy to hold a referendum on the issue of capital punishment. The choices would be easy enough to make and the voters would be more or less free to choose. But in a referendum to change the Canadian constitution, it would be a lot more sophisticated and very difficult to reply for some individuals.
We must therefore devise a means of consultation which would be much more sophisticated and much more careful, which could allow people not only to vote yes or no on issues explained in advance, but also to take an active part in the process of formulating the options to be negotiated. In its previous contributions to the debate on this opposition day, the Social Credit Party has suggested the use of a better method of public consultation. This method should apply first of all at the provincial level, and later on, when the provinces have agreed on the change they demand, the federal government could decide. The bill on referenda reserves-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please! I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. He could continue, however, with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Léonel Beaudoin: The bill on public referendums gives the federal government the right to hold such a referendum within one or several provinces or throughout Canada. This is, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, quite dangerous, because if the federal government is entitled to hold a referendum within a province, the Northwest Territories or elsewhere and since the cabinet is empowered to define the extent of the vote, it would be possible for the government to take advantage of the antagonistic interregional feelings now prevailing in this country to obtain the desired verdict.

Canadian Constitution
The present wording of the legislation would enable, through devious procedures, the government to remove the right of a province to take part in a referendum if a very serious opposition was expected. This matter may be raised since there is no reference in the bill to the criteria used by the government to organize a provincial or national referendum. This is why the referendum, as a result of the reactionary haste based on the Quebec referendum formula, could become a political instrument through which the federal government could substantially distort the wishes of Canadians or Quebeckers.
One of the arguments that was most often heard in the oratory battle undertaken within the House of Commons on the referendum issue suggests that the House of Commons could always protect the public interest during the debate period reserved for members by section 3 of the bill. This section 3, Mr. Speaker, provides for 40 hours of debate, if there is no general agreement on a given referendum question. I think it has been said here by some members that these 40 hours would be enough. That would justify setting aside this matter of the referendum intended by the federal government. Those in favour of this formula were saying that there might be a consensus of the parties in this House on a given question. Here, I refer, for instance, to page 2045 of Hansard of December 12, 1978, where a member was saying, and I quote:
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 agree on this point. But the hon. member is much too optimistic, I think, when he says that some day we might agree on a given question. We know the differences that exist between the objectives of the various parties in the House of Commons, and I believe that is a good thing, it is a beautiful mosaic, and that is what democracy is all about, but to simply suggest that we might all agree, one morning, on a given question, about which the government would like to hold a referendum, I believe that is mere wishful thinking.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I would say that the Canadian experience shows that plebiscites were never in the interest of French Canadians nor of the province of Quebec. The 1942 exercise demonstrates effectively the vulnerability of this province against the rest of Canada about problems differently affecting the French Canadian and English Canadian cultures. In 1942, the province of Quebec was vigorously opposed to the conscription for military service. The Mackenzie King Liberal government used popular consultation to squeeze himself out of a promise made during the preceding election. They held a plebiscite to stir up the sense of pride of the majority in the English-speaking provinces, knowing quite well that the oppos-

February 9, 1979
ing voice, which was concentrated in the province of Quebec, would be overwhelmed by the voice of the English-speaking Canadians living outside Quebec. That will still be a danger in the future, Mr. Speaker. I am referring to that instance, though technically speaking a plebiscite is quite different from a referendum, in order to urge hon. members and all Canadians to be cautious.
Language and cultural differences tending to polarize opinions within specific regions could considerably undermine the rights of the French-Canadian minority and persuade them to reconsider their partnership in the Canadian confederation. The implications of that federal legislation with respect to the whole Quebec community suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the rights of a linguistic minority might be ignored by the central government.
The Social Credit Party is therefore urging the people in the provinces to get involved in this constitutional debate. It is for them to decide upon the contents of a new association agreement between Canadians which would not allow the federal government to freeze, by means of spectacular statements, our constitutional institutions into their present state.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, among other benefits the motion now before us has given me the pleasure of hearing the explanations given by the Minister of State (Federal-Provincial Relations) (Mr. Reid) on the last conference on constitutional matters, and also on certain aspects of the report put forward by the Task Force on Canadian Unity. It has also given us an opportunity to hear the excellent analysis made by my learned colleague from Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) on the constitution and the current state of the national unity debate. I commend him for that.
This was the second or third time I had the privilege of listening to an analysis by my young colleague, and I must express my admiration for the method with which he presented his subject and his mastery of it. He deserves praise. I also received confirmation of a fact we are all aware of on this side of the House. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) supports the claim made by Mr. Pierre Bourgault that the province of Quebec and the Quebec Assembly have the power to unilaterally declare independence and withdraw from our Canadian confederation. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands refused to answer a question put by my colleague from Gloucester (Mr. Breau). This question was: "Do you agree with Mr. Bourgault that Quebec has that unilateral power?" According to the hon. member the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had suggested that a federal referendum might for instance deny a province unilateral action such as, for instance, New Brunswick proclaiming French or English the only official language.
I very much regret that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands did not see fit to remain in this House to clarify her
February 9, 1979

point. A good number of Canadians will not know what to think on this.
We also heard the other hon. member read his motion. 1 have no intention to delve into it myself, since my colleague from Lafontaine-Rosemont did so in his brilliant fashion. I submit the motion is inconsistent and unfounded and, as did my hon. colleague, 1 wonder who could have put such a thing together.
This motion also gave me the opportunity to hear the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) make some allegations on the referendum and other aspects of Canadian society. He started by asserting that among so many persons who have studied the difficulties and so-called inequities English-speaking Canadians are alleged to have caused French Canadians, the efforts, representations and battles some Canadians are said to have made, he mentioned Canon Lionel Groulx. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to attack the mystical Canon Groulx; however, I believe he had some responsibilities in the field of education, he should have accepted them, he should have won over my fellow countrymen and encouraged them to go into some fields that were practically unknown to French-speaking Canadians such as economics, engineering, geology and external affairs. He should have tried to convince them, especially the younger ones, to stop studying only for classical professions like law, medicine, priesthood, and look elsewhere. If that was the problem of French Canadians, I suggest it should have been pointed out, and Canon Groulx had the responsibility of selling his fellow countrymen the idea of taking up these careers. Still the hon. member for Richmond recognizes that the conference held in the last few days was a great step forward. Naturally there are so many differences of opinions, Mr. Speaker, that it would be illusory to think the minds will meet overnight and the heads of every province, jealous of the powers they received from their electors, will readily give up some of these powers in order to promote Canadian unity.
It is also an illusion to think that the leaders, those in charge of the federal administration, are also prepared to give up some of the powers which belong to the government of Canada. Therefore, this is why, and this is nevertheless an interesting evolution, Mr. Speaker, which gives us some hope, in the interest of the Canadian people as a whole, those in power, the leaders of that province will accept certain changes and mutations.
I come back to the point made by my colleague, the hon. member for Richmond, Mr. Speaker, and other hon. members, with regard to the population of the provinces. In fact they should talk about the population of the country because in fact the people in Quebec are Canadian people, as they are in the city of Montreal. Therefore they are somewhat distorting the picture of our Canadian society when they talk about the population of the provinces. The population of the provinces is the population of the country. I might take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to remind my colleagues, and particularly my
Canadian Constitution
colleagues in the Social Credit Party, of our responsibility as hon. members in the House of Commons. I think that the mover and the hon. member who spoke next are not aware of that. In my opinion, the function of a member of the House of Commons is, in the first place, to look after the federal interests of his fellow citizens. Just as provincial members have the exclusive responsibility and obligation to look after the provincial interests of their voters. The same goes for members of a city council or of a school board. And each of us, Mr. Speaker, may rightfully pretend to represent, speak on behalf of, take action and adopt measures in the best interests, of the people we represent.
I do not quite understand, Mr. Speaker, why the Social Credit Party members will criticize the federal government's position and power. What I do undertand clearly though is how passionately the Progressive Conservative party is bent on decentralizing and weakening the central power, as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has shown it. Mr. Speaker, we must see behind this an obvious scheme. Let us imagine for one moment that the central government is in a weak position, as some Conservative members would like to see it. It means that the whole equalization system would tumble down.
Of course, that is what the rich provinces could do, they would see advantages in not having to share their wealth with the have-not provinces. So as far as equalization payments are concerned, I want to warn the people in eastern Canada especially, including the people of Quebec, against falling into the trap laid by some Progressive Conservative members who are trying to convince and win people, and especially certain provinces, to move towards decentralization, which means the erosion or dilution of the central power and eventually the elimination of the equalization payment program which will result in low income Canadians being denied services either medicare or hospitalization of the quality which we are used to.
That is why I wish to remind the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands that one of the Confederation's advantages is to make available to all Canadians, from all parts of the country, the same health hospital care, and educational standards and equal opportunity for post-secondary, under graduate and post-graduate education.
As I have already indicated, Mr. Speaker, let us remember the equalization programs and, all the programs through which the federal government is helping the have-not provinces, this would jeopardize them. Another hypothesis that could be considered is the one I am proposing: What would have happened to consumers in eastern Canada, east of the Ottawa river, if the oil price compensation program could not have been implemented because of a rift in the central power!
The federal government managed to convince the government of Alberta to share with Canadians in the less fortunate provinces the surtax Americans were and still are being

February 9, 1979
Canadian Constitution
charged, which made it possible for Canadians in all provinces to pay the same price, for oil much below the international price. In the province of Quebec, premium gas sells for $1 a gallon, while in all western industrialized countries, and even Japan, it costs twice that price and even more.
The implementation of this oil price compensation program would have been absolutely impossible for Eastern Canadians had it not been for a central power which is exercized by the government of Canada and allows the redistribution of wealth in this country. I remind the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands that every Canada-Ontario, Canada-British Columbia or Canada-Quebec or Canada-New Brunswick general program was established with the help and co-operation of provincial governments. And the priority of everyone of those governments is to set their own priorities and determine which program they want to promote.
So those are examples of the way the confederation of Canada works now. Although it is 112 or 113 years old, it works very well even if a large number of Canadians like to disparage the constitution, the central government and their country. Around the world how many people are thinking of leaving their country to make a new life for themselves elsewhere. Canada is the favorite choice of those who want to leave their country. And imagine those people, those Europeans and even the people of Africa and elsewhere who want to come to Canada, reading in the papers and hearing those unfounded criticisms about our country-it is really unfair for a country like ours which offers so much.
And the climate of federalOK-provincial relations is also often decried. I ask my colleagues, in particular those from the province of Quebec to consider the kind of climate now prevailing in the relations between the provincial and the municipal governments, and between the provincial government and the Quebec school boards. They will see that the present government of the province of Quebec does not even bother to consult anyone in its handling of public affairs and imposes its own views at provincial-municipal meetings while the municipalities cannot make their voices heard or suggest ways to best serve the public interest. The party now in power in the province of Quebec must really be weak, Mr. Speaker, if it so readily abandons responsibility for protecting provincial rights to the Social Credit Party, and in the light of the arguments raised by those members, it seems to me that they do not have good counsels and that their cause is in bad hands.
I would like to go back to the arguments and remarks by the honorable member for Kingston and the Islands to the effect that the powers that are being held and used by the Canadian government date back, for the most part, to the years 1939, 1945, and 1946, that is the war years.
So, since she referred to that period in Canadian history, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind all Canadians that if they really look at what took place in Canada, the national economy had developed during those years while the central author-

ity had grown and could take action or decisions without having to go through the process of consultation which can be quite lengthy and which prevents in reality the quick implementation of any change in the Canadian Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, certain people, including the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin), took the liberty of quoting from the report of the Task Force on Canadian Unity, the Pepin-Robarts commission. Of course, each one of us has a tendency to refer mostly to those things in the report with which he agrees. For my part, Mr. Speaker, I have certain doubts about this consultative process and this report, and this is the first opportunity that I have had to express my views publicly. To me, this report does not give a true picture of the Canadian reality because when such a group travels throughout a country, whether it be in Canada or elsewhere, to hear comments or criticisms about the direction that should be given to the country, it hears only extremist opinions. The middle-of-the-road views that are held by the majority of the people have not been heard, and the report reflects quite well, and quite faithfully in fact, the representations of the various movements heard by the Task Force. This is why, Mr. Speaker, we must take into account this weakness in the consultation process and realize that this can only give a caricature with extremist overtones and can falsify the image of the social climate of the country.
Aside from the activities of the Pepin-Robarts commission, Mr. Speaker, all of us in the Canadian parliament have the opportunity to travel throughout the country. For my part, I have had this opportunity since I was 18, or since 1940 or 1941 when I joined the Canadian Air Force, and I was able to meet Canadians of all ages, in every walk of life and in all the regions of the country. The situation and the conditions described in this report have been exaggerated, in my opinion. We could give numerous examples to prove the excellent relationship between French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians.
I am in an excellent position to talk about it because I lived in several parts of the country when I was young, and I had the opportunity to see how Canadians in all parts of the country like Canadians from any social and ethnic group, and certainly, of course, French-speaking Canadians. That is why I view this report with reservations, Mr. Speaker, and I think, of course, that such an inquiry was not an exercise in futility, that it is an excellent way to know the extreme positions of our fellow citizens. However, I think it should not be considered as the absolute or exact truth on the situation of the Canadian mosaic.


Mr.   Wm. Andres@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to take part in this debate. My intervention will not be lengthy. The motion before us appears to imply that the
February 9, 1979

British North America Act has allowed the federal government to infringe on provincial jurisdiction and that the federal power should be decentralized to the extent that the initiative in constitutional negotiations would be left to the provinces. I cannot believe this is really the intent of the motion because who knows what can happen once we start tearing the country apart. We hear much of this outside the House but I could not believe initiatives would be taken within the House to fragment this country and to break up a strong central government.
The constitution is a flexible document, which is both advantageous and necessary. It also has, however, disadvantages for a country of this size and of this diversity. This country is made up of people from all parts of the globe. They have various needs and aspirations. The British North America Act and a strong central government have served this country well for over 100 years. Certainly changes are needed from time to time, and changes have been made to reflect the needs of people in various regions and provinces.
The constitution is more than just a written document. It involves a set of relationships between governments and between the federal government and its people. Over the past 111 years this country has grown and developed. In 1867 our constitution provided a centralized structure, but since then there has been a gradual erosion of federal power as that became desirable and necessary to the various provinces.
The pendulum has swung back and forth. The federal government has taken power to itself when required in the interest of national security, for example, during the Second World War. However, never has the central government abused its power.


Mr. Whittaker:: Oh!


Mr. Andres:: The power of the central government is in the hands of the Canadian people. The purpose of the central government is to serve the needs of the people. We will soon be going again to the people to seek their support and their decision. We will be wanting to know what their requirements are and what mandate there will be for governing the people of Canada. We will want to know their wishes regarding future generations and the future of this country.
The process of change is unpredictable. Flexibility is necessary to cope with unforeseen circumstances. This government has always reacted to circumstances in a flexible and open manner. In a country as large as Canada which has a scattered population there is always a tendency toward provincial and local adherences, and rightly so. Communities adhere. This is what has built this country and made it strong, but that happened under the large umbrella of the federal system. There is, therefore, a greater need for a strong central voice, a strong national voice, and this is what has kept this country together. This is what built this country, and to suggest now that there should be an erosion of this strength or a fracturing of this umbrella is beyond my comprehension. I cannot under-
Canadian Constitution
stand those in this chamber who would support that kind of move.
Canada is a land of diversity. There are various and conflicting interests, and the British North America Act embodies the hopes and aspirations of a growing country. Immigrants have come to this country in search of adventure, a home and peace. All of the aspirations of these people have been translated into the growth of this great country. This country has provided a home for people from all corners of the globe. This country is flexible enough to meet the aspirations of all people, no matter whether they be in the east, in the west, or in central Canada. The hopes and aspirations of all have been met. None have been disappointed except those whom some politicians would lead around by the nose telling them how bad things are.
This country has everything one would require. Many people want to come to this country. Because we can take in only so many at a time in order not to dilute the aspirations of the people, unfortunately certain restrictions have been put in place under our Immigration Act. I am pleased that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) is here this afternoon. He recognizes people's needs. He knows what this country has to offer and how many people can be accommodated at any one time. However, the Minister of Employment and Immigration recognizes the needs of people who find themselves in frustrating straits.
We have a refugee program and, as the son of a refugee who came to Canada many years ago and found a home here, I am proud to be standing in this House. This country has meant much to my family and to my children. That is why I support the minister and his refugee program. Canada has always been open to people who are needy, people who are persecuted, and people who are looking for a home and adventure.
Without a strong national voice there would be no co-ordination between the various regions. We need a strong national voice.
When the British North America Act was brought in 111 years ago it was visionary in its approach. It recognized the needs of the people, and it has served the people well for over 100 years. There have been changes, and changes are now required again because hopes, aspirations, and needs change. This act is flexible enough to accommodate all people who have come to this country and made it their home.
The constitution requires updating. Consequently we have before us a bill to strengthen this country, to reflect the needs of the regions and to serve the citizens of Canada. Constitutional amendments affect all Canadians, and I was very pleased to be able to take part in the debate just recently on the referendum bill which is before this House. From time to time dangers lurk. The unity of this country is in danger. Some want to fracture this great country, and 1 am pleased that we have a referendum bill before us so that we can consult the people and seek their advice on what they want for the future of this country by way of laws which will govern it.
Constitutional amendments should not be to the disadvantage of any one region. This was alluded to by a member of the

February 9, 1979
Canadian Constitution
Social Credit party previously. At no time in the history of this country have the provisions of the constitution been intended to disadvantage any group of people or any region. The intention has always been to provide equal opportunity in all parts of the country. Indeed, we have always been fair in what we have tried to do through regional disparity programs to assist those parts of the country which have been in more need than others.
I am pleased to have been able to take a small part in this discussion this afternoon.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak on this motion. In fact, I had no intention of doing so, and I see that it is 4:49 p.m. by the clock, but I wish to take this opportunity since no other member of the opposition wants to.
In fact, considering the number of members who took part in this debate and the concepts that were analyzed and put forward by the members of the Social Credit Party of Canada as well as by some members of the Liberal party, one finds that those concepts were very well documented. Unfortunately, except for one intervention from the Progressive Conservative party, from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), I do not think that anyone from the New Democratic Party dealt with that issue. There was no real constructive input.
I feel this is a very good indication of the interest shown by the Progressive Conservative party, the official opposition party, in the constitutional issue. I am not surprised that they did not participate in this debate because the Progressive Conservatives have had some trouble to grasp the constitutional concept of our country as a direct result of their ignorance of what Canada really is.
This is unfortunate because when you come to a national crossroad, when you consider issues that are essential to the survival and the very existence of our country, you find that the official opposition party does not have the time to deal with those basic issues and to make its position known. We listened to the comments of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, but she spoke on her own behalf and did not state the position of her leader or her party. Besides, the points she made were not too clear. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing a Francophone minority outside the province of Quebec.
My interest in constitutional matters goes back a long way, ever since my early childhood. I received my schooling in the Ontario French educational system which as you know, Mr. Speaker, since you were a graduate of those institutions, did not enjoy the benefits available to the Ontario or even Quebec English-speaking students.
I learned to survive as a French-Canadian outside the province of Quebec. To understand exactly what was my status

as a Canadian, I had to be aware of the constitutional rights and guarantees provided in our constitution. It is obvious that some members opposite did not have that opportunity, because for them the constitution is merely a document. That is not the way to live. But for you and me, Mr. Speaker, the constitution was not only a document, it was a guarantee for us, Frenchspeaking Canadians living in an English-speaking province. That is why we have given it a lot a thought and that I still look into it carefully, because all these constitutional amendments will greatly affect the guarantees of the French-speaking minorities living outside Quebec, as well as those of the English-speaking minority living inside Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, let us not make the mistake of thinking that these questions are incidental. On the contrary, they are very basic. The question of linguistic minority rights was of paramount importance to our predecessors, the Fathers of Confederation, and they entrenched these guarantees in section 93 and 133 of the BNA Act. What has happened, in fact, is that we have progressed. In those days, Canada was made up of only four provinces, while it is made up today of ten provinces which cover more than 3,200 kilometers from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
As a French-speaking Canadian, I want to see entrenched in the constitution the recognition of what I am, of what a French-speaking or English-speaking Canadian is. I should like the confidence felt by my forebears when they left the province of Quebec to move to Ontario, when they left Quebec as French-speaking Canadians to become part of Ontario and go on living there as French-speaking Canadians, I should like that confidence, which was based on the guarantees in the British North America Act, to also be that of my descendants who may want to move to Alberta or British Columbia; I should like them to have that same opportunity, of living there the way I live in Ontario as a Francophone. That is why the matter of the protection of the rights of the minorities is fundamental to our constitutional discussions.
I simply want to repeat that I cannot perceive the survival of our country if the constitution of the future does not guarantee the protection of the rights of the linguistic minorities, and that guarantee should not be left to the provinces; it must be entrenched in the constitution by requiring the provinces, by constitutional decree, to protect the linguistic rights of the minorities. That being so, another issue also becomes very fundamental as it relates to our attitudes towards linguistic minorities. I mean decentralization. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that some would have us believe that Canada must suffer even further decentralization.
It was quite accurate when speakers on the government side indicated that the initial British North America Act was a centralizing document. When one reads the text of the British North America Act, it becomes quite evident that the central
February 9, 1979

government was going to be the paramount power. Under section 91 the residual power was left in the central government. There was a declaratory power which was left in the central government. There was le droit de desaveu, the power to disallow provincial laws, left in the central government. It was the governor in council, in the right of Canada, who was empowered to appoint lieutenant governors. Indeed, it was the governor in council who appointed all superior court judges. It becomes quite evident that it was a centralizing government.
If one looks at the constitutional cases, right up until 1896 there was even a greater centralizing interpretation given to our constitution. In 1896 there was a reversal, and we tended toward greater and greater decentralization when the privy council in Great Britain started identifying the needs of Canada as being those of regions and trying to distribute more and more of the powers to the regions. There is a coincidence in terms of that tendency toward decentralization and the question of the Manitoba school matter. I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is present in the chamber. He will not recall first-hand the Laurier episode in 1896 which brought the Liberal government to power.
Canadian Constitution


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, I was not here then.


Jean-Jacques Blais: No, the hon. member was not here. In effect, it brought about a reduction in minority language rights in the province of Manitoba. If one reads any history books, one will see that at that time the country was in danger again of disaggregation because of minority language rights. As a matter of fact, if I recall correctly, the Tory government of the day was defeated because it had a bill on the order paper which would have disallowed the 1890 act reducing the rights of Francophones in the province of Manitoba. At that time there seems to have been a tendency toward greater decentralization. There was a tendency to afford to the provinces the rights relating to property, civil rights-
[Translation\


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), the debate on the motion is over. The House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, February 12, 1979