1980-10-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Terry Fox, through his "Marathon of Hope", has joined the ranks of our oustanding Canadian heroes in the fight against cancer. To those people suffering from this dreaded disease in Canada and all over the world, it is Terry Fox who has given them hope through his courage and determination. Most of us have lost someone dear to cancer, just as I lost my dad. Terry Fox has given special pride to Canadians and has touched the hearts of us all.
In recognition of Terry Fox and the "Marathon of Hope" in the fight against cancer, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That this House extend to Terry Fox hearty congratulations and thanks on behalf of all Canadians, and furthermore, that the government strike a suitable stamp to commemorate Terry Fox and the "Marathon of Hope".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Government of Canada has lacked a functioning Minister of the Environment for several months now as the nominal incumbent devotes all his time to constitutional matters, I
move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this House urge the Prime Minister to appoint a new Minister of the Environment who can be counted on to deal full time with Canada's serious environmental problems, such as acid rain.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the authority of Standing Order 43. Whereas the people of Alberta are completely disgusted with the way the Canada Post Office is operating, if indeed it can be called an operation; whereas people are paying dearly for damaged parcels and lost letters totalling thousands of dollars; whereas it takes days, from nine to 17 days, for a letter to go from Edmonton to Strathmore, with most of that time being consumed in the Calgary regional post office, and 21 days for a letter to go from Humboldt, Saskatchewan to Strathmore, Alberta-it only takes eight hours to drive this distance; whereas large companies are completely disgusted with the postal service and are using alternative methods of mail delivery, which hurts the smaller post offices which are doing a good job locally and denies the Post Office badly needed revenue; and whereas the postal service is now viewed by many Canadians as an inept, bungling department of national disgrace; therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Kushner):
That the House of Commons urge the government to conduct a full scale inquiry for the purpose of pinpointing the reasons for the poor postal service in Canada, ascertaining who or what is responsible for the damaged parcels and thefts, and recommending the changes necessary to restore to Canada reasonable postal service.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 7, 1980
3320___________________________________
[ Translation]



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a motion relating to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Given the fact that the government has refused to negotiate in good faith with the translators and interpreters working for the federal public service by rejecting the recommendations of the conciliation board, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That the House request the government to accept as soon as possible the recommendations of the conciliation board, including the principles of indexation and maternity leave.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



FINANCE


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Because of its excess borrowing the Government of Canada is now paying 11.5 per cent on 90-day treasury bills and in excess of 12.25 per cent on 180-day treasury bills. The government's excess demand for money will continue to push interest rates in Canada higher and higher. The government has pegged the Canada Savings Bonds rate this year at 10.5 per cent.
In view of the fact Canada Savings Bonds are sold as having a good rate of return, as being an investment in Canada, and marketed as top quality securities to the ordinary people of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman):
That this House do direct the Minister of Finance to pay to those holding Canada Savings Bonds an interest rate at least equal to the 90-day treasury rate paid to the big boys in the marketplace.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact the Canadian government inland elevator at Moose Jaw has been delisted as a delivery point for rapeseed futures contracts; in view of the fact that this delisting would indicate an intention on the part of the government to shut down the facilities if the elevator is not sold, despite the fact the elevator has been operating at a profit; and in view of the fact that a shutdown of the facilities would affect approximately 50 employees and their families, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That the Minister of Agriculture seriously consider relisting the elevator as a delivery point for rapeseed futures contracts and spending the necessary funds to rehabilitate the electrical system, in order that the elevator may continue to play an important part in the grain handling system in western Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the lay-offs of working men and women at a rate of 1,000 per day makes a mockery of the fundamental principle that labour is not a commodity, and whereas the basic economic rights, living standards and futures of hundreds of thousands of Canadians are threatened by runaway employers and government neglect, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That this government be condemned for its indifference to the plight of Canada's unemployed, for economic and social policies that promote unemployment and offer no protection to those laid off, and for failing to promote policies of full employment, decent pensions and employer obligation to Canada's employees.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
October 7, 1980



GOVERNMENT OF CANADA


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas an eminent Canadian, the Honourable Sterling Lyon, the Premier of Manitoba, last evening appeared on a CBC public affairs program, "The Watson Report", and whereas notwithstanding the barrage of questions this same Canadian was able to plead eloquently for a strong federal government, endowed with the necessary tools to deal with unemployment and inflation, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail):
That this House applauds the Honourable Sterling Lyon, Premier of Manitoba, for his tardy but welcome endorsement for a vigorous federal government.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, this is a matter which, of course, allows debate in the House of Commons under Standing Order 43. While I would not want to delay unduly the proceedings of the House, I think 1 can say with absolute confidence and certainty, knowing the views of the Premier of Manitoba and sharing his confidence, that the Premier of Manitoba would not only want the Government of Canada to have the tools to deal with unemployment and inflation; he would want, as we on this side of the House of Commons want, this government to begin to use those tools to deal with inflation and to deal with unemployment in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Indeed, Madam Speaker, we are convinced that the Premier of Manitoba, like the great majority of Canadians, is shocked and chagrined that to this point, some seven months into their mandate, the Government of Canada has not yet even introduced a budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member is right, this motion is debatable, but I am afraid that, in accordance with our Standing Orders, I must interrupt the debate at 2.15 for oral questions.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question will be to the Prime Minister and it touches on the strike activity that is now rampant in the country, with airports closed down, some reopening, and the Post Office disrupted. 1 note that the Public Service Alliance of Canada has asked that their workers designated essential to the safety and security of the country to return to work to perform the full scope of their duties. Would the Prime Minister indicate whether, with this welcome news as it is, any assurance was given to the Public Service Alliance of Canada that there would be no repercussions with respect to those that have acted illegally so far as a result of the various strike activities which have been taking place?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the answer with respect to the current negotiations, as I understand it, is that the matter is presently under discussion. No such assurance has been given.


INQUIRY WHETHER DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN AGAINST FIREFIGHTERS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am sorry to hear that something as significant as that is still being left as a matter of discussion. Madam Speaker. Let me direct my next question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that eight firefighters at Malton and two or three firefighters at certain other airports have been able to shut down their respective airports, and in view of the fact that on September 30 the President of the Treasury Board indicated that departments had been instructed to take firm and consistent disciplinary action in the case of any employees engaging in illegal strike activity, would the Minister of Transport indicate what disciplinary action his department has taken against these firefighters who now claim they were only on a two-day coffee break?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, we have taken this disciplinary action. We have tried to take a moderate approach so as not to aggravate the situation unnecessarily, but it has not been very fruitful. 1 am the first one to recognize that fact. The difficulty, as my friend knows from previous experience, is due to the number of issues at hand. When it is not reclassification, it is higher wages; and when it is not higher wages, it is a greater number of controllers and so on.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: You are negotiating with your feet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

October 7, 1980
Oral Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: We have taken disciplinary action and we will continue to do so. If we have to do more than what we have done, then we will do that also.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, would the Minister of Transport indicate specifically, though, what action he has taken?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, obviously, we deprive the controllers of their pay for the day on which they leave their jobs. We penalize them by imposing another day of suspension, we add a letter of reprimand to their file and that sort of thing. If they repeat the offence we escalate the combination.


Mr. Crosbie:: You will take away their coffee.


Jean-Luc Pepin: If they repeat the action the suspension goes from one day to three days. That is the normal practice.


INQUIRY AS TO STEPS TAKEN TO PROTECT NATIONAL INTEREST
Hon. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. This morning a judge of the Federal Court described the situation by saying: "The existing situation is perilously close to anarchy".
There have been outbreaks of violence on the picket lines this morning both in St. John's, Newfoundland and in Ottawa. There are indications that the situation is growing more militant every day. My question to the Prime Minister-and I pose it in the aftermath of the bungling of the President of the Treasury Board-is: What steps is he taking on behalf of the government to protect the national interest and to ensure that Canadians have access to essential services?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister just answered a moment ago, the negotiations are presently going on and 1 would not want to intervene in them.


INQUIRY AS TO STEPS TAKEN TO DELIVER PENSION CHEQUES
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question in light of a statement made by the President of the Treasury Board in which he indicated that departments have been asked to prepare their own plans to ensure the maintenance of the highest level of service to the public. Given the chance that there will be a disruption in postal services, and there is already an indication that this is happening across the country, what steps is she taking presently or what contingency plan does she have to ensure that essential social service payments will get to the recipients in this country?
[ Translation]


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, 1 am pleased to assure all Canadians that so far we have every reason to believe that they will
receive their cheques on time at home. Several families will receive their family allowances cheques about one week before the usual date which is in the third week of the month. The usual date is between the 18 and 21 of each month. The cheques for the Canada Pension Plan have almost been completely written. The cheques for the old age security pension as well as most adjustments are also under control. The mechanism for the delivery of the cheques is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services; to date we have no reason to alarm Canadians, and I think that as usual we shall have the co-operation of all people concerned.


CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR DELIVERY OF UIC CHEQUES
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I pose a similar question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who is responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission. In light of the present situation and the potential it has for disruption of mail services, what contingency plans has the minister taken to ensure that unemployment insurance cheques will be sent out to their recipients?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, in most parts of the country there is a complete and continuing operation of the unemployment insurance program. There are some regions, however, where there have been disruptions in service which were primarily due to the absence of clerks who were designated to stay on and perform their duties. We certainly believe that the measures taken by the government will have a corrective influence on that situation. We hope to maintain as much of the service as possible, so long as those people who are supposed to work do their work.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Former Justice Hall has rightly observed in the recently released "Health Services Review" that extra billing by doctors, if allowed to continue, will eventually destroy medicare and result in a two tier-system of health care in Canada.
Can the minister tell the House at this time when she intends to bring in legislation outlawing extra billing by doctors by revising the Medical Care Act to provide that extra billing by physicians inhibits reasonable access to services and is contrary to the intent and purpose of the Medical Care Act?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I am tabling the Hall report later
October 7, 1980

today in the House; it was made public a month ago. Since that time we have had the federal-provincial meeting of health ministers at which 1 confirmed, and 1 would like to repeat it today, that I will explore that recommendation made by Mr. Justice Hall to the federal government. However, that recommendation includes also the concept of binding arbitration. Would the New Democratic Party make it clear if they are ready to accept, and is the government of Saskatchewan, for instance, ready to accept, binding arbitration as well as the ban on extra billing? That is only one of the problems with which we are faced today.
The purpose and objective that has always been ours is the strengthening of the medicare system of Canada for all Canadians. Right now I have chosen the route of consultation with all interested parties, because it is surely essential if we want to put together the very conflicting interests of the key health professionals as well as the provincial governments, who on that subject have totally diverse opinions.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, may I say that I am not here as a spokesman for the government of Saskatchewan, but I can say that I know that province is interested in the outlawing of extra billing.
The minister says that she wants to consult more. For a government obsessed with timetables, the timetable for saving medicare seems to be pretty loose. Can the minister say why she is breaking her campaign promises to the Canadian people by not acting swiftly to stem the erosion of medicare now that she has the Hall report to support her?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, the report was made public upon its receipt on September 3. I immediately invited my counterparts to a meeting on the September 15 and 16. They thought that was too fast and the meeting finally took place at their request on September 29, I think it was, in Winnipeg. That was a week ago Monday. The ten provinces told me that they reject binding arbitration.
The morning after, I received the Canadian Medical Association for a long meeting, the first of a series of meetings. They reject extra billing. So the two parties are in total opposition. If the hon. member read the Hall report in depth he will know that it is very well said that the two must go together, that there is, on the one hand, a mechanism to make sure that the doctors get fair process of negotiation and, at the same time, that Canadians will not see their medicare system eroded by breach of the agreement, namely extra billing.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is to ask the minister again when she is going to start some initiative by the federal government and when she is going to take the responsibility that is rightly hers for the health care system in Canada and stop being intimidated by the medical associations in the provinces. When is she going to take some action and live up to some of the promises that she has been so accustomed to making over the last few years?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, it may well be that there are players in the medicare system who want to feed and nurture a
Oral Questions
confrontation between the parties. For a few months now we have been repeating and repeating that sooner or later the parties must come together and settle it. Mr. Hall himself said very clearly-and we are left with that dilemma and all members of the House have to take a stand on that-that, for example, the interruption of block funding by withholding the monthly payment-in other words, by applying the act the way it was passed by this Parliament-is disruptive to services. On the other hand, he also recommends that provinces ban extra billing and adopt binding arbitration as the mechanism to give fair process to the doctors and to us to amend the Medical Care Act. I cannot change our act and impose binding arbitration if the ten provinces reject it. We will have other consultations in order to come to an agreement. My next meeting of ministers is in February.


INQUIRY WHETHER ALTERNATIVE TO COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OFFERED
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare which concerns the same matter. The report from Mr. Justice Hall indicated that there ought to be compulsory arbitration. My understanding is that the minister has publicly rejected that as a recommendation. It seems to me that she has a responsibility to put something in its place. What has she offered?


Monique Bégin: I am very pleased, Madam Speaker, to have an opportunity to correct the statement made by my colleague. At the Winnipeg conference, in a very short statement at the end of the meeting to my counterparts as well as to the press, I said that I had accepted that recommendation of Mr. Justice Hall; that I would explore the timing and the way it could be done; that I would not implement it unless full consultations had taken place with all interested parties. I still have to see representatives of the nurses of Canada, of the hospital administrators, of the coalition for health, etc.
I would not propose an amendment, because I am not in a position to do so, including the addition of the words "binding arbitration". The objective described by Mr. Justice Hall, namely that there would be a mechanism giving fair process of negotiations to the doctors, would be used instead of the words "binding arbitration".


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I had assumed that the minister had rejected compulsory arbitration. She now seems to be not saying that. Would the minister confirm to the House whether or not she accepts or rejects the principle of compulsory arbitration for professional medical fees, as outlined in the recommendation of Emmett Hall?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I wish I could find the exact words of the recommendation, which sets out what we should be doing. Mr. Justice Hall recommends to the federal government an amendment to the Medical Care Act in order to ban extra billing. Mr. Justice Hall recommends the provinces ban

October 7, 1980
Oral Questions
extra billing and provide for binding arbitration. Who are we to impose on the provinces who will be bound by binding arbitration?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Just like the constitution.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the Quebec government has decided to give humanitarian aid to the Palestine Liberation Organization, according to recent press reports, and in view of the fact that aid from a provincial government to one of the antagonists in the mid-East conflict could be construed as support for one side over the other, thereby prejudicing the international position of the Canadian government, will the acting minister advise the Secretary of State for External Affairs to conduct an investigation into this matter and, if necessary, to stop this aid or have the federal government see that both sides receive equal amounts of assistance?
[ Translation]


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the federal government is not aware that the government of Quebec has committed itself to provide humanitarian aid to the Palestine Liberation Organization. But we are going to check those facts. However, I can tell the House that the federal government does not intend to provide any humanitarian aid to the PLO. Our humanitarian assistance to the people of Palestine is transferred through the Relief and Works Agency of the United Nations for Palestine Refugees, an agency to which Canada is one of the main contributors. Madam Speaker, our contribution to that agency was roughly $5 million last year and it will amount to $5.7 million for the current year.


INQUIRY AS TO HOW GOVERNMENT WILL RECOVER COST OF OIL IMPORTS
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. On August 1 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is going to share budget night, we understand, with the Minister of Finance-there is going to be a joint presentation, the "Mutt and Jeff show"-


Mr. Malone:: The "Marc and Allan show".


John Carnell Crosbie: -said this: "At the retail level, we believe it is only fair that consumers bear the costs now borne by the taxpayer to subsidize imported oil while we are still importing oil." Since the cost of that subsidy this year is about $4 billion, and since the cost of gasoline since March 1-since this government took office-has risen 15 cents a gallon-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not know what that is in litres, but it is quite a bit even in litres-will the Minister of Finance tell us how the government proposes to pass on this $4 billion cost to the Canadian consumer, and how many cents a gallon or a litre will that come to for the Canadian consumer when it is passed on this year as this principle of the minister of energy is carried out?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 think the hon. member knows that we do have in place an oil import compensation program that has the effect of assisting consumers of imported oil. When that program is changed it will be announced in the House and the hon. member will be assisted by all of us in reaching whatever calculations he requires at that time.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I just gave the quotation where the policy was changed on August 1 by the minister in this very detailed statement. It is just the mere details we do not know yet, namely, how the $4 billion is going to be collected from the public.
The Prime Minister on January 12, in Toronto, before he was Prime Minister-in his interlude-said that he was going to make the tax system more equitable. In order to make it more equitable, will the minister explain to the House how he is going to pass on this $4 billion to the consumer? Will it be by deindexing the personal income tax, or by a tax at the refinery gate level that will increase the price of gasoline, transportation fuels, heating fuels, petrochemical products, and all the rest of the products made from oil, or will he eliminate the sales tax and put it up another 3 per cent and reverse what happened in November, 1978? How is he going to carry out this equitable tax principle of the Prime Minister's and pass on this $4 billion?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am a bit surprised at the series of questions which the hon. member is asking this afternoon; whether we intend to deindex; whether we intend to have a refinery tax; whether we intend to increase the sales tax.


Walter David Baker: Surprise us with an answer.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I just ask him to wait and he will find out the answers in one shot before the end of the month.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Some shot!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 7, 1980


SURVEY RESPECTING RESULTS FROM FAILURE TO REACH OIL PRICING AGREEMENT AND THREATENED IMPOSITION OF TAXES
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, the question is: Will we survive the shot?
I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. According to a survey by the Canadian Association of Oil Drilling Contractors, the failure of this government to reach an oil pricing agreement and the continuing threats to impose gas export and other taxes have led Canadian oil companies to reduce their planned exploration budgets for next year by about one-third, or $2 billion, and to divert this money to the U.S. Is the minister aware of this situation; is he concerned about it; has he expressed his concern to his cabinet colleagues; has he planned some action, or is he prepared to believe the propaganda in his energy advertising that the energy future is secure regardless of government action or inaction?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I was reading very recently a submission by Dome Petroleum to a board of investigation in British Columbia which indicated that in spite of the fact there was no agreement on pricing this year, drilling in western Canada has increased by between 15 and 19 per cent over the year when the Tories were in office.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: 1 look at what has happened in the course of this current year and 1 am confident that when our decisions are announced, companies in the oil and gas field in Canada, particularly Canadian companies, will be very happy with what we are going to produce.


Harvie Andre: I gather that means you are not aware of what is happening. My supplementary deals with the government's proposed gas export tax which, in addition to being discriminatory, represents in the case of British Columbia a direct tax on the B.C. treasury and, in the case of Alberta, a tax on the industry which will drive many junior Canadian gas producers, if not into bankruptcy, at least into forced sales.
Is the minister concerned about the consequences of this proposed export tax? Has he expressed his concerns to his colleague the Minister of Finance, who is preparing this shot for Canada, or has he simply adopted the view that his main responsibility is energy revenues, and the health of the industry and future exploration is not something he really has to be concerned about?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I want to reassure the hon. member that the Minister of Finance is only thinking of introducing fair taxes. This is the view of this government as well.
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


MASSEY-FERGUSON-INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL ASSIST IN REFINANCING
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The minister indicated in his statement on October 3 that it is his government's view that, given an adequate refinancing plan, Massey-Ferguson will continue to play a strong role in the farm implement sector of the Canadian economy. Is the minister prepared, should the private sector fail to refinance Massey-Ferguson, to participate in an equity program with the government, the employees and the dealers buying shares and holding positions on the Massey-Ferguson board of directors recently vacated by Argus Corporation, to ensure that jobs and Canadian productivity are given highest priority?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, we will be working actively with Massey and the Bank of Commerce to assist them to put together an adequate refinancing plan to achieve the kinds of objectives which the hon. member stated and which are, as he confirmed, very much those of this government. I do not think it would be helpful in reaching that objective to speculate at this time on what the final package may be and what the resulting role of the government may turn out to be.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: My supplementary is to the same minister. I hope the minister appreciates the urgency of this in view of the fact that some of Massey's very heavy debt load comes due on a short-term basis at the end of October. Can the minister assure this House that adequate guarantees have been obtained from the creditors and suppliers of Massey-Ferguson Limited so that the loans coming due at the end of this month will not cause the conipany to go bankrupt before a refinancing plan can be put in place?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, in my statement of October 3 I said that in the circumstances outlined in that statement the government expects the companies, lenders and suppliers to maintain their existing arrangements with the company to allow time for the Bank of Commerce and the company to put a refinancing plan in place. 1 have no information as yet that the lenders and suppliers will not be responding positively to this statement.


NATIONAL GAS EXPORTS FROM B.C.-INQUIRY AS TO POSITION OF LIBERAL PARTY
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell the House, and in particular his own party colleagues, just exactly what the promise was to British Columbians during the last election with respect to Liberal policies on the imposi-

October 7, 1980
Oral Questions
tion of a tax on the export of natural gas from British Columbia.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I made no promise in that regard. I understand that yesterday the hon. member quoted some statement made by one of our candidates. I am not aware of that, but I am looking into it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: I hope Madam Speaker will excuse me if I point out that the candidate was formerly a member of the Prime Minister's staff, three times a Liberal candidate in B.C., and leader of the Liberal party in the legislative assembly. His name is Gordon Gibson. He put this in writing, and-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member ask his question. I do not think that is actually a question.


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, the truth is sometimes hard to get at around here; it takes a few words. Mr. Gibson said this in writing on February 13-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 ask the hon. member to co-operate by going immediately to the question and not quoting. I do not think that is necessary. The statement is probably known by the Prime Minister and he can answer. Will the hon. member now ask his question?


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, keeping in mind your admonition, which could be a matter of some debate later-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


John Allen Fraser: May I ask the Prime Minister this. Does the Prime Minister consider himself bound by solemn commitments made by Gordon Gibson as the leading Liberal candidate to the effect that there would be no tax on the export of natural gas from British Columbia, that that was the policy of the Liberal party and the policy of the energy critic, the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, as expressed in writing in a newspaper in the province of British Columbia? It is no use looking to the energy minister because he will not answer the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member and perhaps his party will be interested to know that at the beginning of the last election campaign we put together a platform committee composed of 20 members appointed by caucus, 20 members appointed by the federation from among members of the party and people across the land. This platform was put together and approved by the Deputy Prime Minister and by myself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thought perhaps the opposition could learn how to put a program together.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The point, Madam Speaker, is that we put this platform together, we published it and made it public. The item referred to by the hon. member was not in that platform. It is true that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Listen and learn.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That's right. I cannot say it; I hope you heard
it.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. This is really going on too long. I would ask hon. members to please stop shouting so that this question can be dealt with efficiently.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is a politician. He knows that in an election campaign many people who stand for election undertake to make their best efforts to obtain certain things if they are elected. I cannot, nor could any party leader, monitor the statements.


John Allen Fraser: Give an answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the loudmouth would please be quiet, Madam Speaker, then I might be able to give him the answer that he is asking for.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is further to that asked by the hon. member for Brant in connection with Massey-Ferguson and is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The minister is being a somewhat reluctant bridegroom in his pursuit of the negotiations with Massey-Ferguson. He is much more aggressive in the negotiations with Chrysler Corporation. Will the minister inform the House in what way Massey-Ferguson is different from Chrysler Corporation, apart from the fact that many workers of Chrysler Corporation live in the ridings of Windsor where there are three Liberal ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, there is a great similarity between the Massey and Chrysler cases. With regard to the Chrysler case, there were some eight months of negotiations before a final decision was arrived at. If I am not mistaken, discussions with the previous Conservative government began in August, 1979, and there had not been a conclusion at the time the government changed. This went on for some months further
October 7, 1980

before a decision was reached which was in the best interests of the employees of the company, the suppliers, the dealers and the Canadian economy as a whole. I think I am following a sound precedent in making sure that in working on this matter we do come up with the best solution for the company, its workers, suppliers and dealers, and the economy as a whole. I hope my hon. friend will not disagree with that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. In view of the reluctance the government has shown in providing any support to Massey-Ferguson because that support might be perceived as being support for or a bail-out of the Argus Corporation, what impact on the negotiations has there been as the result of the donation of Argus's shares in Massey-Fer-guson to the Massey-Ferguson pension fund?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we pointed out in the statement I issued on behalf of the government on October 3 that we have decided to work closely with Massey, the Bank of Commerce and other interested principals in order to assist them in putting together an adequate plan for the refinancing of the company. We had been pressing the company, the banker and other principals to come forward with an adequate refinancing plan, and when they failed to agree among themselves on the details of such a plan we decided to take this further initiative in the interests of the workers, the company itself, the dealers and the many farmers across the country with Massey equipment, in a way which would respect and bear in mind the best interests of Canadian taxpayers and the economy as a whole.
In this instance our position is no less forthcoming than that of the government of Ontario, which has certainly been no more ready to provide immediate assistance than the federal government. I notice that my hon. friend has not said a word about that.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and it relates to recent developments involving two of our major newspaper chains.
Given that the present director of the combines investigation branch feels that present legislation provides "periodic licence to engage in illegalities", which certainly identifies the lack of teeth in that legislation, given the fact that the legislation is very weak regarding advance notice of transactions and, of course, weak in providing any encouragement for the Attorney General to take action, and given the fact that it takes up to four years for an investigation and three years for a prosecution, will the minister tell this House when he plans to bring the former bill C-13 to counteract this, and why has he not brought it in before this date?
Oral Questions


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, obviously, an inquiry being under way, it becomes difficult to make any observations on the matter brought up by the hon. member.
On the other hand, the question of the hon. member allows me to confirm to the House the intention of the government to table, in the near future, the amendments to the competition legislation in order to strengthen the section dealing with mergers. I trust that, when this bill comes up for study in the House, I shall get the support not only of the hon. member who put the question to me, but as well that of all other hon. members.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My supplementary question, Madam Speaker, refers to the action or, perhaps, inaction on the part of the minister some weeks back when he failed to initiate an inquiry. 1 should like to ask why he gave the Canadian people the impression that he was initiating an inquiry when in fact it was the result of the efforts of six individuals?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I deny the allegations of the hon. member. Quite the opposite is true: immediately after the merger was annouced, I asked my officials to make a preliminary study to determine whether in fact a formal inquiry was warranted. As we know, the law provides various ways of setting up a formal inquiry. At the time when those officials were in the process of formulating their recommendations with regard to holding a formal inquiry, a number of consumers requested one, which was set up immediately under the act.


FINANCE
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the present trend toward higher interest rates and the disastrous effects they have on the fragile economies of the Atlantic provinces, with which the minister is familiar, is the minister going to be taking any measures to either hold the line on interest rates or cushion their effects on the Atlantic provinces?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 have under consideration at the present time a number of possible options that might be used not only in the Atlantic provinces but elsewhere, but I am not sure at this stage what the final decision will be.


J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his answer and ask whether he will implement the December last budget proposals to stimulate the shipbuilding
3328
Oral Questions
industry, to provide tax incentives for regional development, and possibly help lower income families through an energy tax credit system?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has mentioned the shipbuilding industry and probably has reference to a proposal that had been made by a former minister in respect of Atlantic fishing vessels. 1 found that proposal to have certain flaws in it, but it is still under consideration.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. There have been some foolish suggestions by some provincial politicians that the constitutional package being proposed by our government has all kinds of hidden powers which will do the provinces in. The Leader of the Opposition last night clearly went as far as to suggest that the "bogey man" was hidden there.


An hon. Member:: Make your speech later.


Brian Vincent Tobin: For the public record, Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Justice assure this House that the constitutional package proposed by this government does not address itself to the question of offshore resource jurisdiction, or the question of resource sharing?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that we were very careful in drafting that document not to begin to change the balance of powers between federal and provincial governments. That is why we are not making changes in terms of resources or anything at this moment. We wanted to avoid completely touching the sharing of powers. We wanted to patriate the constitution and provide a bill of rights for Canadians so all Canadians will have their rights protected forever in the constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL RENOUNCE PLAN TO IMPOSE TAX ON EXPORTS OF NATURAL GAS OR HYDROELECTRIC POWER FROM B.C.
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, in light of the remarkable statement just made by the Minister of Justice, which absolutely contradicts something he said on the weekend relative to the imposition of a natural gas export tax, and in view of the government's implied plans to plunder western provinces by levying a discriminatory export
October 7, 1980
tax on natural gas, a measure which is equivalent to imposing a supplementary income tax of $500 on every resident of British Columbia, and recognizing that thousands of British Columbians are declaring their absolute rejection of an excise tax on natural gas and hydroelectric power throughout B.C., will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicate whether the government will now honour its election commitment quoted by my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver South, and promise to the people of British Columbia, as promised last February as well, that it will renounce any plan to impose a federal excise tax on the export of natural gas or hydroelectric power from British Columbia?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member can avoid dying of apoplexy between now and the budget 1 think he will have his answer, but we will have to wait and see.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, this is not a matter of dying of apoplexy; it is a matter involving the death of this country, which is what is at stake.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: 1 would suggest that if that proposal to impose an export tax was contained-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his question, please.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister why he does not show courage here and now by admitting to the people of western Canada at this time that the government intends to proceed with an export tax on natural gas? Admit it!


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. We on this side certainly agree about the importance of the report presented by Mr. Justice Hall, and we have observed the apparent difficulty in its utilization. The minister has shown us her uncertainty about what course to follow.


An hon. Member:: Let's have your question.


T.A. Bud Bradley: In view of the importance of proper, affordable medical care for Canadians and a just return for physicians, will the minister refer the Hall report to committee so that Justice Hall and other witnesses may be examined and we can assist in developing a method of solving this difficulty?

October 7, 1980


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I find the idea interesting. However, the hon. member should remember that the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs of the House of Commons has a very heavy workload. In particular, there are several subcommittees set up right now. 1 will, however, explore that and look at it as a mechanism which may help strengthen medicare.
The hon. member says that I am not sure, or some such expression. He said I did not know what 1 was saying. I would like to call his attention to page 28 of the report where very precisely Justice Hall tells us the following:
Nor is it within the constitutional authority of the federal government to legislate the way in which a province and the physicians ... enter into an agreement.
He goes on very clearly to say that it is none of my darned business to reject binding arbitration, but it is up to the provinces to do so; so I hope the hon. member will correct his way of speaking on the issue of medicare and recognize that we know where we stand. We want to save medicare.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Madam Speaker, I am aware of the report and what it holds. 1 am wondering if, in pointing out that the workload of the committee is very heavy, the minister is aware, which I am sure she is, of the anxiety that Canadians are going through today in switching from family physicians they have had for many years in order to find physicians who have opted into medicare. I wonder if she is aware of the erosion of faith and trust in our physicians and our medical system today. 1 wonder if she is aware that we are forcing physicians-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a question which is a supplementary question?


T.A. Bud Bradley: In view of the fact that we are forcing physicians to take action they do not want to take, will the minister please review the committee's workload and ensure that there is a spot for consideration of the Hall report?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, 1 think the time for action has come, and if the hon. member wants one more study, as 1 said earlier, I will look into that possibility, but when he appears as an angel and suddenly realizes that medicare is in some danger, he is saying and confirming what many people in different provinces of the country do not acknowledge. He is saying, "Yes, premiums have caused damages," as Justice Hall says; "Yes, extra billing was popping up here and there in the country; yes, some provinces were having new user fees or increasing their user fees". That is what we said a year and a half ago when nobody else was acknowledging it. We said that that was a problem.


John Edward Broadbent: Do something about it.


Monique Bégin: Justice Hall confirmed it. We are trying to solve that problem, and we will continue to do so until medicare is back to normal.
Point of Order-Mr. Epp
[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHETHER SUFFICIENT SUPPLY OF HEATING FUEL THIS WINTER
Mr. Michel Veillette (Champlain):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the continuing situation in Iran and Iraq, could the minister assure the House that Canadians throughout the country will not experience a shortage of heating fuel this winter?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for this very important question. I would like to reassure Canadians that despite the current conflict in the Middle East, oil supplies are at such a level in Canada this year that we have every reason to believe there will not be any shortage of oil and heating fuel in particular during winter, contrary to the situation that occurred last fall when there was much worrying and the previous government had neglected to take appropriate action to prevent such a development.


POINTS OF ORDER
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek clarification from the Chair in terms of how we are to conduct our business for the next few days.
Today the hon. member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) asked a question of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) regarding a clarification of the draft resolution which is on the order paper and which will be the order of business today. The Minister of Justice was given permission to answer that question. That question was directly related to the draft resolution before us, so I ask Your Honour whether that was a different question from questions which can be asked relating to constitutional renewal. The question was very specific as it related to the motion which is before this House at this time and which will be called in a few minutes. As I heard it, the question was not only specific but was also clearly meant to undermine the ability of the opposition to debate the issue. As the government is having difficulty in clarifying its position, the question period is being used for those specific clarifications. That should be done in debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If clarifications are necessary, it is incumbent upon members of the cabinet to rise in debate and to give those clarifications and not to use the question period, unless the rules pertaining to the question period and the orders have changed. If that is the case, I would like a clarification. If it is the case, then obviously we can ask questions during the

October 7, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Crombie
question period on specifics regarding the draft resolution, and 1 suggest that the question period would become a shambles. In view of what has happened today in the House, I ask for clarification.


Madam Speaker:: I shall take that point of order under consideration. It is true that questions in the question period should not relate to the order of the day. I do not know in advance what the question is going to be; therefore I just have to allow questions to be asked. It is not clear to me whether this point of order is justified at this point. I will have to go back and check the record. I shall do just that, and I thank the hon. member for raising the point.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Madam Speaker:: I am not sure that I can entertain more discussion on this point. I did say that I would take it under advisement. Unless the hon. member wants to give me some supplementary information which I cannot get through reading Hansard, I think I have to tell the hon. member that I will not recognize him on this point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I just want to-


Mr. Nowlan:: Come on. What kind of stable are we running here?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If I do not recognize the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) because I do not feel I need any supplementary information, naturally I do not think I would allow it either from the hon. member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


MR. CROMBIE-ANSWER GIVEN BY MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE DURING QUESTION PERIOD
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to a response made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to a question from the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley). I think the minister inadvertently misled the House in her response, and I think this point is important for the purposes of the record. She referred to page 28 of the Hall report, and I will quote the sentence she quoted as follows;
Nor is it within the constitutional authority of the federal government to legislate the way in which a province and the physicians practising within its boundaries enter into an agreement.
That is where the minister stopped, but she neglected to read the remainder of the paragraph which says, and I quote:
However, the federal government does have a responsibility to set objectives which will reaffirm the national character of Canada's medical care program. The Medical Care Actwhich is the minister's responsibility
-should be revised to provide:
(1)	That extra billing by physicians inhibits reasonable access to services and is contrary to the intent and purpose of the act.
(2)	That the provinces should develop a mechanism to ensure reasonable compensation to physicians.
To make sure the record is clear I merely suggest that that is a recommendation placed by Justice Hall as a responsibility of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. That is found at pages 28 and 29.


Monique Bégin: On this same point of order, Madam Speaker. [English]
I would like simply to make it very clear that in the exchange this afternoon at different moments in the question period, members opposite asked me if I had a stand on binding arbitration, specifically if I would include the words "binding arbitration" in the Medical Care Act, and I answered them that that was not the recommendation of Mr. Justice Hall, that I would follow the objective of Mr. Justice Hall, which is a fair process of negotiation with the doctors. That is exactly what my predecessor has just read from pages 28 and 29, that the provinces should develop such a mechanism. I hope this is made very clear. That is what I said, that if we come to the conclusion that we are ready to implement that part of the report, it is not the words "binding arbitration" nor that specific technique that I, as the federal minister, can include, because it is not within the jurisdiction of the federal government to do so.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, this is on another point.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I will not entertain any further discussion on this particular point of order because it is quite obvious to me that this is simply a debate. The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) feels that the answer the minister gave him during the question period was not complete. That is an opinion which he is allowed to hold. The minister tried to explain what she meant by the statement in the House of Commons. I think there will be other opportunities for clarification to be made of this matter which occurred during the question period, and therefore I will not allow further debate on this point of order.


MR. NIELSEN-TABLING OF DOCUMENT
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, now that we have waited a day, I wonder if the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) will table the letter, about which I inquired yesterday, which he appears willing to do.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will do so at the appropriate time.
October 7, 1980


Madam Speaker:: 1 did not hear what the minister said, but at the appropriate time I intend to advise the House that I have checked into the records and that indeed the minister was not quoting from a letter but was referring to a letter. I understand that when tabling of documents is called, the minister will have something to say about the point of order which had been raised yesterday by the hon. member.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, 1 do not intend to pursue the matter today, but may I say that the question, as well as turning around the point of a quotation from a document-I believe it is under rule 327 of Beauchesne-also specifically refers to members who refer to a document, and when reference is made to a document it must be tabled. However, I will not pursue that point today since the minister has indicated that he is willing to table the document, and we look forward to that.


Madam Speaker:: I think the hon. member forgot to mention the fact that when a member refers to a state document, an official document, it has to be tabled. However, this is a different kind of document. It is a private letter to the minister from a correspondent. Therefore, when a minister quotes from it, he is not necessarily obliged to table it. In yesterday's case, the minister referred to a letter which he had received from someone. As I said earlier, I think we will find a resolution to this problem later on during the course of government business.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, once again let me say that I do not intend to pursue this question of order at any length. However, I think that if you, Madam Speaker, consulted your advisers in more depth, you will find in all likelihood that any reference made to a document during a debate makes it become a public document, not a private document.


MR. STEVENS-QUESTION CONCERNING POSTAL SERVICE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a different point of order. During the question period, in view of the fact that the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) was not in attendance, nor was the Acting Postmaster General, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan), or the second acting minister, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), I wonder whether the Postmaster General, now that he is in the House, could indicate if he will be making a statement later today concerning the situation with respect to the close downs relating to certain operations of the Post Office in view of the fact that they seem to be clearly illegal and we have been given to understand that the government has a contingency plan to ensure that such services will not be disrupted.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, we have always had the courtesy, when a minister intends to make a statement, of giving prior notice to the opposition parties; as we have not given this notice today, we will not take up the time of the House.
Introduction of Bills



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, without going into the discussion as to whether or not I was quoting or referring to a letter 1 received, I would like to table a copy of the correspondence I exchanged with Dr. Hugh Horner, the Grain Transportation Co-ordinator.


CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-614, to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).


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

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: for leave to introduce Bill C-615, to amend the Criminal Code (pornography).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Madam Speaker:: The hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare on a point or order.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, with your leave and that of the House, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to table the Hall report, because it seems that I failed to do so a few seconds ago?


Madam Speaker:: Indeed the hon. minister had given me notice of her intention, so I know she wanted to table a document. That is why I repeated twice "tabling of documents". The minister must have been thinking of something else. Is there unanimous consent to revert to tabling of documents, so that the minister may table her document.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Having been the one who had distracted the minister's attention, I will be glad to give unanimous consent on behalf of my party.

October 7, 1980
Order Paper Questions


HEALTH CARE
Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I am grateful for your indulgence as well as that of all my hon. colleagues in the House. Pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table in both official languages a report entitled "Canada's National-Provincial Health Program for the 1980s", also known as the Hall report.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 560, 1,032, 1,280 and 1,360.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the complete public service employment history of Mr. Robert Nelson presently with the Department of Employment and Immigration?
2.	(a) Is he serving as acting manager of the Canada Employment Centre in Brockville, Ontario, in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville (b) did he have any experience at managing such an office in the past and. if not, for what reason was he appointed?
3.	(a) Was there a board arranged for April I I and 14, 1980, to interview applicants for the position of student summer replacement officer at the Brockville office (b) did Mr. Nelson refuse to hold an interview, in order to accommodate a student writing examinations during the period in question on the morning of the 15 and, if so, was such a refusal over-ruled by his superiors (c) for what reason did Mr. Nelson not use his own initiative in taking such action in the first place?


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. Mr. Nelson was hired as an industrial training consultant (PM-4) in 1973. He has served in Thunder Bay district, Ottawa district and Belleville district. He is currently at the PM-4 level.
2.	(a) Yes.
(b) No. The reason he was appointed was career development as the incumbent is on extended sick leave, but, since Mr. Nelson is already at the level of the position and working in the same area, he is considered to be qualified.
3.	(a) Yes.
(b)	Yes. Mr. Nelson decided to interview the applicant after discussions with the director, employment and insurance, Belleville district.
(c)	The delay in taking the initiative to interview the applicant was due to the acting manager's concern for operational requirements.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Mr. Robert Nelson acting manager of the Canada Manpower Centre in Brockville, Ontario, until May 30, 1980?
2.	Did he at any time since the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville placed question No. 850 on the order paper call a meeting of all members of his office staff and did he read the question to the staff and, if so (a) for what reason (b) did he criticize the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville or make derogatory remarks about the member's right to question the operation of his office (i) at the meeting (ii) to certain employees after the meeting?
3.	Was Mr. Nelson transferred from Brockville on May 30, 1980, at the close of business and, if so, what is his present position and location?
4.	Was Mr. James Parsons appointed acting manager of the Canada Manpower Centre at Brockville and, if so, what are the details of his public service career?


Lloyd Axworthy: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
(a)	The purpose of presenting question No. 850 to the Brockville CEC staff, raised by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville, was to make them aware of external concerns regarding services being provided to clients.
(b)	(i) No; (ii) No.
3.	Mr. Nelson's career development assignment terminated May 30, 1980, as previously planned. His regular and present position is industrial training consultant in Belleville.
4.	Yes. Mr. Parsons joined the UIC in 1965 as a claims officer in Belleville, Ontario, transferring to Oshawa in the same capacity in 1967. He returned to Belleville in 1970 where he held positions of: insurance officer, PM-1, regional claims and benefits officer, PM-2, and in May, 1974, he was appointed to the position of regional claims services officer, PM-3. During the period August, 1977, to January, 1978, Mr. Parsons acted as district manager, Pembroke, PM-4, and in March, 1980, he became a participant in the management assignment program.


Mr. Lambert: 1.	(a) Was the space requirement review completed of the federal requirements in the city of Edmonton as instituted by the former administration late in 1979 and, if so, what was the conclusion of the review (b) in the event that there has been a positive answer to space requirements, is it the intention to resume negotiations at an early date with the city of Edmonton regarding the acquisition of land in the 97th Street area, south of 102nd Avenue?
2.	(a) On what date is it anticipated that a firm decision will be made to go ahead with the establishment of a new federal centre in Edmonton in the location decided upon over two years ago (b) if there is a decision to proceed, on what date would it be anticipated that plans could be completed and that the project would actually be under way?
October 7, 1980


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	(a) The cost-benefit study of federal office accommodation requirements for Edmonton was completed in June of this year. Its principal conclusions were that the lowest cost accommodation alternative is the status quo, at least in the shortterm (two to three years). In the long run, however, Crown ownership is the preferable alternative.
(b) The resumption of negotiations with the city of Edmonton to acquire a site in the 97th Street and 102nd Avenue vicinity is still an option available to the government at present. Should a decision be made in this direction, my officials would commence such negotiations as soon as the required departmental and Treasury Board approvals were obtained.
2.	(a) At this time, no definite date has been established to
proceed with development of a Government of Canada building in the aforementioned (southeast civic centre) location.
(b) If a decision is made to proceed with such a facility, it is established that planning, negotiations, approvals, and tendering would take approximately two years with construction under way after that time.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	(a) What is the total amount anticipated to be paid during 1980 to annuitants who hold Canadian annuities (b) are such payments computerized?
2.	(a) Has the annuities branch contemplated arranging with recipients' bank accounts for the direct transfer to the bank account without the necessity of processing a cheque (b) has a study been made in this regard?
3.	What is the anticipated cost of postage for mailing annuity cheques to individual annuitants for 1980?


Lloyd Axworthy: 1. (a) $95 million;
(b) Yes.
2. (a) No. Certain pilot studies have, however, been carried out by the Department of Supply and Services to evaluate the appropriateness of such a method of funds transfer for government payments generally. These studies have not advanced to the point at which government-wide policies or guidelines can be announced. Should such policies or guidelines be produced, the annuities program is only one of many similar payment programs which would be governed by them.
(b) See (2a) above.
3.	Approximately 1.4 million cheques are sent to annuitants annually; at present postal rates, the expenditures are approximately $238,000.
The Constitution



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday October 6, 1980, consideration of the motion of the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien):
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report upon the document entitled "Proposed Resolution for a Joint Address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada" published by the government on October 2, 1980, and to recommend in their report whether or not such an address, with such amendments as the committee considers necessary, should be presented by both Houses of Parliament to Her Majesty the Queen;
That 15 members of the House of Commons to be designated no later than three sitting days after the adoption of this motion be members on the part of this House of the Special Joint Committee;
That the committee have power to appoint from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable and necessary and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
That the committee submit their report not later than Decemer 9, 1980;
That the quorum of the committee be 12 members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented and that the joint chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, when 6 members are present so long as both Houses are represented; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it to be advisable, members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.
Mr. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: At ten o'clock last night, when we adjourned the debate, 1 was questioning the judgment of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) who says that the people who voted No in the referendum are disappointed by this resolution. I recognize that his ideas about the province of Quebec are as accurate today as they were at the time of the last federal election when he hoped to have 15 Progressive Conservative members elected in my province. On that same matter I also wish to give a warning to some provincial politicans who are making aggressive and passionate statements against that resolution. These laments, as they often are, stem from spurious, improvised and opportunistic nationalism and have already been translated into lost elections for those who try to have it both ways.
I say to those men and particularly those women who pretend that we are proceeding too fast with those changes that I question the sincerity of their argument. By reading between the lines you can see their frustration at not having been heard. I would go further and say that I am convinced

October 7, 1980
The Constitution
that not only do we meet the expectations of those who voted No but that many Quebeckers who voted Yes only to break the constitutional yoke are satisfied with what we are doing.
Consequently if the threats of legal action do materialize, I urge the government not to change its approach at all and proceed diligently with the changes. Let us not be impressed by dilatory measures which are only aimed at gaining political advantages at our expense.
1 now, Madam Speaker, go to the measure itself, to the main feature which seems to please everyone and which 1 would nearly call virtue and motherhood-the patriation of the constitution.
I believe the Leader of the Opposition as well as the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) agree with our move to patriate the constitution and feel the urgency to do so. I am convinced several of us would have liked to have seen that action taken a lot sooner. The determination of the government heartens us, and I believe we will all be able to proceed with that first part as soon as possible.
Many people worry about the amending formula. Certain offended virgins said we were taking something away from the provinces. We always have to remember that, in order to be flexible, this government allowed for a period of two years during which the provinces will be able to arrive at a unanimous agreement; that is, to stop the changes by unanimous agreement. Consequently, that two-year period will allow the provinces and the federal government to arrive at a new formula. On the other hand, we know that past experience has shown how difficult it is to come up with that famous amending formula, and that is why we provided a mechanism that might allow us to submit the formula to Canadians by way of a referendum.
I listened last night to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) when he talked about the tyranny of the majority. The tyranny of the majority might apply in the case of his election. But I must confess that I have faith in Canadians, and when he said he is afraid of the propaganda or this or that, I think he is using it himself as well as his party for their thing about deindexing. 1 think that might be positive, and we are not afraid to use that kind of propaganda. 1 think a referendum might be the thing to do. It is not a formula welcomed by anyone. Personally, I lived through a referendum, and 1 must admit I am not very enthused over the idea of a second one. I think that most people were not enthused over that procedure. On the other hand, you need a means, and I think a referendum still is the height of democracy in a country like ours.
Certain provincial politicians are very worried when they hear talk about the Victoria formula. I want to reassure the people of Quebec, because that formula provides Quebec with the right of veto. Consequently, we have nothing to fear from that formula, and I am convinced our interests will be well protected.
I now come to the charter of rights and feedoms. I believe that the Progressive Conservatives are somewhat divided on this point because yesterday one of them said that he was in favour of such a charter and his leader, as usual, did not quite know what attitude to take. The hon. member for Provencher was opposed, so finally we do not know exactly where they stand on this subject. One thing is certain however, and this is that we believe that individual rights must prevail. If the Progressive Conservatives cannot decide where they stand, it is too bad for them because we shall go ahead in any case.
I am thinking about basic freedoms, and especially the Official Languages Act. This has not been brought up very often in the House since the beginning of the debate, but for my part, I believe that it is very important for Francophones to feel represented by their federal government. To illustrate, I would like to give an example which has always impressed me. My own grandfather, Charles Cormier, served Her Majesty for about 40 years as a lighthouse keeper. In the 1960s, he decided to retire and I still have a copy of the beautiful letter he received from the then minister, which was written completely in English. My grandfather was able to read it, but my grandmother was never able to read about all he had done. I believe that this type of situation used to frustrate Quebeckers and that we could give many other examples where the French language was completely forgotten. Incorporating the Official Languages Act within the constitution gives us a guarantee and it is a great step forward.
Yesterday, the Leader of the New Democratic Party said that this should not be overemphasized among English-speaking Canadians because we do not want to force French upon them. I hope that no one will try to play that card as was done on corn flakes boxes. And some say that there are divisive measures. I believe that this type of prejudiced attitude did nothing to help the Canadian cause. And I hope that the members who used that type of example to defeat our Liberal candidates realize the damage they have done to Canadian unity.
We also speak about democratic rights. I spoke to some of my friends in my constituency on this matter. They told me, "Come on, all that is protected."
Few Quebeckers-or people from any other province-know that a provincial statute enacted by a provincial legislative assembly could allow that body to sit for ten years. It could happen quite legally. This is why I feel it is essential that the constitution provide for elections at least every five years.
On the matter of mobility rights, it must be remembered that for many young Canadians the future is in mobility. Indeed, the government already has mobility programs to allow young Quebeckers to work in Ontario because they cannot go to Newfoundland. These programs allow people from other provinces to find well-paid jobs. Such a mobility
October 7, 1980

provision in the constitution would brighten in my view the future of many young Canadians whose horizons may be wider than their predecessors' who limited themselves to local employment. If one is to go ahead in this day and age, one may have to look farther away, and this kind of guarantee in the constitution will certainly be welcome.
On the matter of educational rights this is where I have the most painful conscience. It is my impression, after reading and rereading sections 23 and 24, that we have made a large step forward. And when I speak of a historic day, I have the feeling that Francophones in this country, with this resolution, have acquired rights perhaps many would never have hoped for in the past. There is just a minor aspect that hopefully can be amended, a lack of clarity concerning the case of immigrants to Quebec whose mother tongue is English. I am convinced that with all the goodwill of committee members, this minor matter can be clarified.
As far as legal rights are concerned, all those who fought the implementation of the War Measures Act, especially those who were the most vocal at that time, for the most part, of course, oppose the replacement of the charter of rights. The legislation will be amended through enshrinement. This week has been the celebration, so to speak, of the tenth anniversary of the October events, and I believe that abuses which took place at that time will never occur again in future. That is why I believe legal guarantees are essential.
As regards discrimination, women may have been those most affected in this regard and I do hope this constitutional resolution will bring about true equality. That is argued and assumed but there is still a long way to go. I heard a union worker say: "Equal work means equal pay". This is not provided for in the constitution but I do hope our policy will go along these lines.
Mr. Speaker, I listened yesterday to the Leader of the Opposition when he made his comments and surely he represents a loyal opposition because members of his party are always opposed to everything. I had the feeling of being back in the flag debate. At that time the Conservative party was on the wrong side and each time we are trying to make something Canadian, they find themselves on the wrong side. The attitude of the opposition leader does not surprise me at all. Although he knows the people do not support him, he is nevertheless assured of the support of all those who are opposed to changes.
Last night an hon. member was almost crying when he said that Canada would never be the same as before. I suggest that if his purpose is to have today's Canada as he always had it, he does not favour too much initiative. Mr. Speaker, I have entered politics to bring about some changes. In addition, I said during the electoral campaign that if we did not succeed in bringing about some change during my mandate, I would not run as a candidate because I would be too embarrassed to go back to my constituents after making such a firm commit-
The Constitution
ment. Given the commitment of our leader, I would be embarrassed to go back to them and say, "We shall try harder. It is too late to do that."
I think people are fed up. We must act and act as quickly as possible.
This is obviously only a starting point. I do not feel that we have done everything there was to be done. On the contrary, there is evident need to pursue negotiations toward future reforms once we have gotten rid of the present straitjacket. The new amending formula will make it possible to trade powers. As to communications, it seems to me several demands of the provinces are justified. As to the degree of economic union, there is still much room for progress.
What is exciting is that in future, when there will be agreements such as those we have had on family law and other matters, we will be able to entrench progress in the constitution. And when 1 talk about entrenching progress I am thinking about the representations that have been made by the New Democratic Party and, personally, I think we could go in the direction they propose provided the demands are not too greedy. I just hope that during the study in committee particular attention will be paid to their suggestions which, unlike those of the Conservatives, are constructive.
I listened to a Conservative member say that Canadians must be heard. I think Canadians have had ample opportunity to be heard and that they do not want to hear anything further from us on the subject. That is why I am confident the members of the committee will work quickly and efficiently, but as concerned parliamentarians.
About launching into country-wide travelling, that has been done by the Pepin-Robarts Commission. The recommendations they made were taken into consideration, and repeating the whole exercise would serve no useful purposes.
Finally I hope that many other persons, be they politicians or businessmen, will join us in support of our will and resolve to bring about change. I hope that maybe some Progressive Conservative members who are truly progressive will find it possible to join us when the time comes to vote in the House. My dream is certainly the symbolic and definitive proclamation on July 1, 1981, of the only true Canada Day because only at that time will that holiday be truly Canadian.
Mr. Speaker, all through this debate which is getting under way in this House 1 intend to watch very closely the arguments used by members opposite because they say they will fight us constantly throughout the country. I am eager to welcome them in Quebec and to all those who will want to fight with us on a constant basis in order to rally Quebeckers behind their stand, I extend an invitation to a debate any time in my riding. I am convinced that their proposal is out of touch as they say in English, and that their determination to block any change is not at all in the best interest of Canada.
3336

October 7, 1980
The Constitution
When the Leader of the Opposition says that our proposals are dangerous for the future of this country, my answer is that the very fact that he might have remained in power would have been dangerous for the future of this country. I am now convinced that all Canadians will be proud of the courageous move that we are making, in many cases against all provincial governments, and J hope that the matter will be solved as soon as possible and in the best spirit possible.


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, 1 firmly believe that over the last few months there has been a carefully orchestrated attempt by the Government of Canada to change fundamentally the very essence of our federal form of government.
Two of the highlights have to be the exposure, for the first time, for most of us late yesterday afternoon, of the actual terms and details of the draft joint resolution which the government proposes sending to the Queen and British government so that this fundamental change will be made, and the other highlight, to my mind, is the widely reported public relations exercise by two members of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada in going to Britain to explain to Her Majesty and to British parliamentarians the purpose and method by which, at long last, the British can be rid of Canadian constitutional problems.
The reason I am speaking this afternoon is simply because all of my adult life I have been a student of constitutional matters. Through discussions in my party I helped, along with others, to advise a past federal minister of justice, the Hon. Davie Fulton, in a landmark series of proposals for constitutional change and patriation that nearly succeeded. As well, I took a leading part in the preparation of another series of intergovernmental meetings and moves as the attorney general of Ontario, which again almost succeeded, at Victoria in 1971, in devising a system for Canadian amendment and patriation of our constitution.
And, finally, 1 wanted to speak today as another Canadian member of the Queen's Privy Council in and for Canada. I will have a special request to make of the present government today.
Yesterday afternoon in one of the best and most forceful speeches I have ever heard in this House or elsewhere, this chamber was quite attentive to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) as he outlined what was wrong with the constitutional package being presented by the government.
Today 1 intend, as one who is not inexperienced in these matters, to attempt to give at least one person's opinion on what we as a Parliament should be doing and what the proper, correct, and acceptable alternative course of conduct of the government should be in light of the very difficult positions which have always existed and will always exist in this country if it is allowed to remain as a federation. Of necessity, I am afraid that my presentation will be legal in content, will be
based on this country's constitutional history, and will include some rather dry technical and legal details and precedents. I am sorry that it will not be an entertaining, political or partisan speech to the House. Believe me, though, it is intended to be helpful as we all grope and as we all must grope for the right way out of the recurring constitutional dilemma which has always been present in this nation.
May I start with an overly simplistic constitutional history. In any federal system there has to be a division of jurisdiction, a dividing of power between governments in that federal system. In a unitary system for a compact country such as, for instance, the United Kingdom, there is no need for a written constitution to contain a division of powers because the single, central government is all-powerful and paramount. But in a federation with a federal system, especially in a widely dispersed, regionalized, diverse nation such as Australia, the United States, or Canada, where a unitary, centralized government would simply not be workable, representative or responsive enough to the differing needs of our varying regions and peoples, there must be some founding, fundamental, basic statutory instrument which sets out the division of jurisdiction between those governments which make up the whole.
In this country that statute is the British North America Act which was drafted by Canadians for Canadians in the mid-1800s at conferences in Charlottetown, Quebec City, and London. Finally-and I think it is a point well worth emphasizing-only at the very end of those very complicated Canadian conferences of Canadians, which really must have required much tolerance, patience and understanding, was the British Colonial Office brought into the decisions so that the intended legislation could be passed by the United Kingdom parliament.
It was done that way because it was one of the very first peaceful births of a new country in modern time, because it was the easiest legally, and because it fitted in, obviously, with the prevailing public opinion in this country of that day. It was the easiest because, while the British North America Act outlined the limits of jurisdiction between the partners in the federation, the provinces, and the central or federal government, it was also a very handy method of fulfilling that other absolute necessity, that absolute necessity and requirement in a federated system, namely, that the constitutional document that sets out these divisions be beyond the reach of easy access or control or change in those important powers of any single one of the partners to the arrangement.
The reasons for this are obvious. If, in any of the many inevitable, ongoing disputes concerning whom has authority over what, one side or the other could unilaterally change the rules of the game, then no longer would there be a federation or a federal system. That one level of government that had the power to change the rules would be entirely paramount in all things. There would be no rein, no check on its power, and in the hands of an arrogant or intolerant or misunderstanding government or governments, the federal system would eventually evolve into a centralized, single government, all-powerful, unitary system.
October 7, 1980

So at the request of the Canadians themselves and as a safeguard and guarantee of fair play, and because it was the easiest method, the amending procedure was quite consciously left in the hands of the United Kingdom in 1867. There have been increasing tensions as time went on between Canada and the mother government at the colonial status of this, the senior dominion within the Commonwealth. Other dominions and other members of the British Empire, as it then was, in striving for a position of independence within what was evolving into the Commonwealth, not only devised their own constitutional acts but set up their own domestic amending procedures as well.
There was a logical and inevitable progression toward nationhood in the many different fields in international relationships and inter-Commonwealth relationships of the dominions. One of the most important declarations was the recognition by the imperial conference of 1926 that Canada was as equal and as independent, or should be, in both its domestic and international relationships as the United Kingdom itself.
In 1927, for the first time that 1 can discover, the then federal minister of justice had the question of a domestic, "in-Canada" amending procedure placed on the agenda of a dominion-provincial conference here in Canada. No decision was announced, no recommendation was made, and no action was taken. However, three years later in 1930 at another imperial conference, the United Kingdom and all of the named dominions of the day agreed that no constitutional statute of the British parliament, indeed, no United Kingdom statute affecting in any way the constitutional substance or procedures of any dominion, would in the future be amended by the United Kingdom unless the amendment was at the request and with the consent of that dominion. This constitutional milestone was formally enacted into British law the next year, 1931, by the Statute of Westminster, which in effect removed any remaining jurisdiction of the United Kingdom parliament in the constitutional provisions and problems in all of the named dominions in the British Commonwealth.
Canada was the leading and senior dominion, and successive Canadian governments, both Conservative and Liberal, had been the leading proponents in the discussions which led to that Statute of Westminster. But to the sorrow of the British who also desired to be rid of the problems of the dominions, the Canadian delegation insisted that an exception be made for the British North America Act so that Canadian amendments would continue to be made by the United Kingdom parliament. Canada could not, because of the lack of agreement among Canadians themselves, cut the colonial cord.
Section 7(1) of the Statute of Westminster still states today that nothing in that statute, which finally and irrevocably set the dominions free in a constitutional sense from the United Kingdom parliament, was to apply to the British North America Act or any regulation arising from it.
We ask why was Canada excepted? That is what that section was-an exception. It was simply because in contrast
The Constitution
to the rest of the dominions in the British Commonwealth which had or were about to work out their own special constitutional safeguards, the Canadians feared that, without recourse to the United Kingdom, the Canadian parliament and the provincial legislatures in Canada would have gained the power to alter the British North America Act by ordinary methods, by ordinary procedures, or by ordinary statute.
I repeat: a constitution in a federal system is no ordinary statute. That is the reason for section 7(1) of the Statute of Westminster.
Since that time, many dominion-provincial conferences have been held and they have all demonstrated the very great divisions and diversities that are at the same time the weakness and the strength of this country. However, we were making progress as time went on. Even the federal Liberal administrations started making progress.
Not too long ago, the 1965 white paper of the Government of Canada, under the imprint of the then Liberal federal minister of justice, the hon. Guy Favreau, asserted flatly and unequivocably a general principle of constitutional practice, as follows:
-the Canadian Parliament will not request an amendment directly affecting federal-provincial relationships without prior consultation and agreement with the provinces.
In a federal system, I submit to you that that type of consensus and agreement is a prerequisite. In a nation such as this, we have to have a federated system. It would be foolhardy, if not impossible, to have a centralized unitary form of government. Indeed, not only is the federal government considered remote from the peoples' problems in most parts of the country even under today's system, but some of our provinces are so large that the complaint is also made that some of them do not supply the intimacy of knowledge and the capability for quick action respecting our citizens' complaints that should be present in an efficient democracy.
Our problem is not an easy one to solve; indeed, there are many who say it is not even a problem-that the present system of amendment best suits the peculiar Canadian need.
I have to confess to you that I am not one of those. I have always believed, and have said before, that this country should have control over its own constitution. There is something lacking in ourselves, regardless of our immense debt to Great Britain for what it has done for us in the past, when, hat in hand, we have to interrupt the British parliament which has enough to do dealing with its own problems, and ask it to intervene at our request in our affairs. If nothing else, sir, it is not fair to the person of our Queen, it is not fair to the British government, and it is not fair to the United Kingdom parliamentarians.
An hon. Member; Nonsense!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: It is also a blow to our prestige-if not to Liberal members, it is at least to my own prestige and my own pride-that we have to do it. We should not have to do that.

October 7, 1980
The Constitution
What we have to do, then, is devise a new system of citizen control and supervision of all our Canadian governments; protect our people from abuse and erratic behaviour of the majority and the various levels of government, and ensure that some degree of flexibility for change remains in a rapidly changing world and nation.
I repeat that it is absolutely essential in a federal system that the country's constitution should be above and beyond the control of any single government or group of governments. It must be special, not changed easily, and be beyond the reach of a federal government only, or the provinces alone.
I believe as well, that our constitution should protect not only the human and civil rights of our citizens but should protect us also from the abuses of government.
Finally, to make it workable, it cannot be imposed on governments or groups or regions; the constitution must be the result of honest consensus and honest agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: That is the content, but there are other requirements as to method as well.
If we are honestly sincere in shucking off the last remnants of colonialism-and there have been emotional appeals made in certain sections of the country in that vein -then in all honesty it should be complete; there must be a severance. We should not have to go to the United Kingdom even once more and ask them to do something we are unwilling to do here ourselves. In actual fact, sir, we do not have to.
We should also bear in mind what the resolution we received only yesterday asks the Queen and the United Kingdom parliament to do. It not only requests the British government to patriate Canada's constitution, which, even though the concept in some quarters is controversial, the British, I believe, will be overjoyed to do in order to get Canada out of its hair, but in addition to that patriation we are asking the British, in a supplicant's mood to "please, kind sirs and madams, also add several important, controversial and, to some, deeply disturbing and divisive changes and additions to Canada's constitutional provisions?"
It is not my intention to argue today about the content or even the need for these provisions, the provisions respecting a charter of rights, the concept of financial equalization and redistribution of the taxed wealth of this country, or even an amending procedure that, for the first time, introduces a referendum concept into an amending procedure that many in this country have never even heard of before. This type of manoeuvre, to my knowledge, of adding detailed and specific new law, apart altogether from the other amendments, has never been requested by Canada before. Never, Mr. Speaker! We not only ask for amendments, we add substantial provisions which are new law-totally new detailed statutory provisions-which we could and should be enacting as Canadian statutes ourselves.
If this is the proper way of proceeding-and I say this particularly to my friend, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien)-with British North America Act amendments, then in 1940, for instance, when the federal government requested the unemployment insurance powers with the agreement of the provinces, why did it not add a schedule to that requested amendment adding the whole Unemployment Insurance Act as well? In 1951 and in 1964 when the federal government, again with provincial agreement, asked that the British North America Act be amended to provide for old age pensions, why was the whole statute respecting old age pensions not included in the schedule as these other extraneous schedules are added to the resolution we have been presented with just yesterday? The reason is obvious: while the amendments were required to give the power, and to change the division of jurisdiction, the actual new legislation itself should have been, and was, enacted here in Canada.
I am all for the patriation of our constitution. I have been in the past and I have worked very hard to bring it about in the past. I have also been on the record for years as stating that our Canadian-made and enacted "at home" constitution should protect not only the human and civil rights of our citizens and of our minorities, with protection, for instance from such moves as the Mackenzie King treatment of Japanese Canadians and manoeuvres such as the Trudeau-Bour-rassa use of the War Measures Act, but it should contain a check as well on abuses by government, and it should also contain limits on what any government, federal, provincial or municipal, in this country can do to or with its citizens.
Can we in all fairness now, in the belief that everyone should have the opportunity in Canada to be involved, and in the nagging doubt which some of us might have that perhaps the British parliament and British parliamentarians might not recognize the uniqueness and diversity of the Canadian scene, really be asking the British to enact, as Canadian law, important measures which are certainly inadequate, certainly incomplete, and are vigorously opposed by the great majority of the elected governments in this federated nation? As a matter of fact, I think there are only two exceptions in the twelve.
I suggest to you, sir, that the measure which the government has presented to us is ill considered. It is inadequate. For those of us who are proud of our Canadianism, it does not remove the element of colonialism and imperialism so decried in some sections of the country by government supporters. This resolution should simply not proceed until we, here in Canada, in this parliament and in our provincial legislatures, ourselves, or a preponderant majority of Canadian governments, have enacted, or agreed with, ourselves, a new Canadian constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: We should not have to go to Britain to ask the British to do it for us. We should be capable here. I believe we are capable here, in this House and in the provincial legislatures, of passing not a resolution but an act, the Canada constitution act of 1980-1981, in which we, not the British, cut
October 7, 1980

off our constitutional ties of amendment; in which we, not the British, lay out a division of powers; in which we, not the British, set down an amending procedure guaranteeing provincial and citizen involvement; in which we, not the British, safeguard civil and human rights in this country; in which we, not the British, limit the power of governments in Canada; in which we, not the British, provide for equalization and resource ownership, and other important matters neglected in this proposal; and finally so that we, here in Canada, as Canadians, for Canadians, provide for a constitutional convention representative of the governments of and in Canada, and also, sir, of non-political citizens who, 1 believe, should have the opportunity to be involved, to be represented and to make a meaningful contribution to something that deeply involves this nation's future.
This way the United Kingdom parliament would only have to repeal that single exception. It would only have to repeal section 7(1) of the Statute of Westminster-nothing more- once our Canadian constitution is ready to replace the BNA Act. This way Britain would no longer even have the opportunity, much less the obligation, to solve our Canadian problems. Again, there would be no fear, groundless though it may be at this moment, that a British enactment could still in the future change a wholly Canadian intention, because that avenue would still be open to a Canadian government or to a United Kingdom parliament to do just exactly that. This way, sir, we would be masters at long last, not in our own house but in our own houses, because there is more to governing the country of Canada than this chamber.
In conclusion, may 1 end up with my personal request to the government, which is to seek an audience with the Queen, to explain comprehensively the Canadian alternatives to the British government and to the United Kingdom parliamentarians. Even a member of the Queen's Canadian Privy Council, one who has had experience as a key member of a provincial executive council in legal, in political, and in constitutional affairs, should properly make the arrangements for such an audience and make the arrangements for such interviews through the government of the day, even though it may not strictly be necessary.
I quite sincerely make this request because there may be others in the House; there may be others in parliament; there may be others in the legislatures; there may be citizens as well, but certainly on my own behalf, 1 sincerely request the government to do this through Canada's High Commissioner in London. 1 am convinced these explanations and this advice have not been made available by those the government has already sent. 1 ask the government to make the necessary arrangements for me, perhaps for others, as a Canadian Privy Council member to have that audience and to request those interviews.
This government, in my mind, is imposing far too much on the Crown and on the United Kingdom parliament. We can, we should be doing the work ourselves here in Canada, and those in the United Kingdom government and those in the Mother of Parliaments should be so informed by other than
The Constitution
merely members of the present government. Sir, 1 will await the government's reply.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, there are times, in the life of any nation, when it is no longer sufficient to formulate ideals, to exercise one's normal duties and to assume routine responsibilities. Those times require an expression of courage and a spirit of decision which go well beyond the immediate necessities.
For Canada, that time has come. We are now at the crossroads. So long as we have the wisdom and the determination necessary to choose the right direction and to follow it without straying, 1 think nothing will be beyond the reach of our collective effort. On the other hand, if we hesitate to make a choice, our only legacy to our children and to our children's children will be a fragmented country. We will be held responsible for the failure of confederation. On what basis should we renew the Canadian Constitution, if indeed we want to maintain this country and truly renew the constitution as we promised all Canadians and, in particuliar, my fellow citizens from Quebec? In our view, and one which we have held since 1967, we must do this by giving priority to the rights of the individual over those of the government. Why? Because the interest that man has shown in his own rights goes back to the dawn of civilization. Once he had satisfied his basic needs of protection, shelter, and food he started to consider the problems relating to his human dignity. In antiquity and in the centuries that followed he was concerned mainly with so-called natural rights. Speaking of natural law, Cicero called it unchangeable and eternal, adding that it remained the same regardless of country or time. In the middle ages, Saint Thomas Aquinas gave natural law precedence over the laws of man, and consequently over sovereigns.
Progressively as the notion of social contract developed during the eighteenth century as a government theory, increasing stress was put on the rights of the individual. What if a government failed to respect natural rights? That, according to the writings of Locke and Rousseau, would justify disobedience and rebellion. Thus the notion of the rights of man, of human rights, was born.
Mankind proved so sensitive to that notion that the greatest social revolutions in the history of the western world broke out, one in America, the other in France, to guarantee the rights men claimed as being eternal. That wish, deeply rooted in every individual, that his dignity as a human being be recognized, is expressed in the memorable words of the American Declaration of Independance, which I quote:

October 7, 1980
The Constitution
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness-That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
In France, the Charter of Human and Citizens' Rights of 1789 sought to achieve similar results. It said that, and I quote:
Men are born and remain legally free and equal-
-and that, and i quote:
-the purpose of any political association is the conservation of natural and imprescriptible human rights. Those rights are freedom, ownership and resistance to oppression.
In both France and the United States as well as in all modern countries today it is recognized that a government has in fact only those powers which the citizens were willing to relinquish.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are the roots of the option we take, that the only powers that all our governments, all our legislatures have is that part of the sovereignty of the people that the people let us have for awhile, their inalienable and eternal rights, and we are starting the renewal of our constitution by recognizing forever those rights that no Parliament will ever be able to take away from them. You will look in vain among the Fathers of Confederation for a politician who was able, like a Thomas Jefferson in the United States, to express in those pithy formulas that are part of history the ideals that have continued to be the foundation of the Canadian political community. We have not stopped regretting it since 1867.
There are now in Canada no constitutional fundamental guarantees of those inalienable citizens' rights. No legislation, whether federal or provincial, is beyond legislation that could be passed by another majority. And we say that, if we really want to rebuild this country, we must start by recognizing the rights which belong to the people and which no jurisdiction can ever take away from them. Furthermore, since different levels of government can lay claim to Canada's internal sovereignty it is obvious that if we really want to protect the rights of citizens, all governments must surrender at the same time those rights over citizens. Of course, one might also say that the basic rights of the citizens have been upheld in Canada, it is true, but to go from that to the other extreme and think our purity of heart and our righteousness of living have been spotless, I think that those who know our history know this would be an exaggeration.
We could not protest our innocence and deny accusations of having passed laws that ordered the burning of books, that forbads reading, that took guaranteed rights away from linguistic minorities, that allowed expropriations that looked very much like confiscations, and we can still recall people being arrested in the night and secretly kept in prison for days. Do we or don't we want to put an end to the possibility that certain kinds of things that have happened in Canadian history
might happen again? If we really are sincere, if we really believe in the freedom of individuals, in these inalienable and eternal rights, then let us entrench in our constitution a fundamental act whereby all governments would forever relinquish these rights in favour of citizens.
We have no right to be complacent. How many Canadians know that Canadian law allows policemen to produce evidence during a criminal trial no matter how legal or illegal the means they used to get it? Our tribunals will receive compelling evidence without bothering to find out how it was obtained in the first place. It may have been obtained fraudulently, the police may have stolen it or taken it without a search warrant or after breaking and entering into a private residence. Are we really sincere when we say that these things should never happen again in Canada? If so, the only way to go about it, Mr. Speaker, is for all levels of government to renounce altogether and forever in favour of the citizen certain powers they exercise over him.
And what is more, let them not say that we are bent on increasing or reducing the powers of this or that level of government. In fact, if we look carefully into the charter of human rights for all Canadian citizens, we realize that the federal Parliament is indeed the biggest loser. But we are very glad of this, because each and every one of us is aware that the federal Parliament can exist and operate as an institution only because the sovereign people has delegated to us part of its sovereignty, and for a limited time only.
A new constitution must therefore begin with the recognition of inalienable rights for all our citizens. The second question we must answer deals with the purpose of life in society; in other words, what must be the goal and objectives of these men and women to whom the citizens have delegated for a while some powers to govern their country.
Mr. Speaker, there can be no other goal but justice. And that is why through that fundamental legislation, in section 31, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) inserted two new sections in the Constitution of Canada. Furthermore, where there was a consensus between the provinces, namely, that all governments must try to reduce regional disparities in their provinces, and that the federal government must give unconditional subsidies to the public finances of the provinces which are poorer than the others. Why? For a reason which is similar to the first one. If all Canadians do not have exactly the same fundamental rights, the will to live together would of course rapidly fade away. If all Canadians do not have exactly the same quality as far as essential services are concerned without being burdened with excessive taxation, their solidarity must be expressed through their central government which will have to tax the richest regions in order to help the poorest regions. Today there are still provinces where children belong to families which are considerably poorer than some others, where they live in houses which are more crowded than others, where they
October 7, 1980

have poorer medical services than in other provinces, where educational services are provided by teachers who are less competent than in other areas. And we say that it will be the responsibility of all Canadians to be solidary not only as far as rights are concerned but also as far as real equality is concerned. And this is the raison d'etre of the other section, to show how closely entangled fundamental rights and equality of opportunities are. What meaning can the section have we are inserting into the constitution to ensure mobility across the country, unless there is a duty for Parliament to help the various regions? Because there would then be a one-way rush to one area, the other way to the poorest ones being senseless.
And the federal government took that unqualified commitment, in consideration of which there is absolutely no commitment from the provinces, because history teaches that every province, every area, can at some point in history suffer poverty or hardships.
Our western provinces, now the richest, 50 years ago were going through the worst crisis in Canadian history. Who could have envisaged that the Atlantic provinces, among the most prosperous at the beginning of confederation, would later undergo a period of difficulties, that today the fishing industry or the maritime industry could once more put them in a better position than the centre, and that they would find oil and their financial resources could increase significantly? Who could have thought 40 years ago that the two central provinces, the backbone of all Canada, would today be soft spots that the two peripheral regions would have to help? All Canadian regions therefore in their histories went through changing circumstances, and the federal government is unconditionally committed to extending each one financial help, subsidies allowing them to give their citizens the same standard of essential services without excessive hardship.
Mr. Speaker, how come the provinces accepted outright that commitment from the Canadian government, while a number of them are somewhat more reluctant to grant rights to their own citizens?
This is, Mr. Speaker, the basic issue because it affects the very purpose of society on which is based the fellowship of all Canadians. Let us act in such a way that all Canadians do not enjoy the same basic rights and surely their willingness to live together will disappear. Let us act in such a way that equality of opportunities is not the same in all regions of Canada and there again, this willingness to live collectively will disappear.
I want to deal with another issue which is of great concern to me as it is to all French-speaking hon. members, this Achilles' heel of Canadian history, an issue which we are going to settle once and for all, namely, the history of the rights of the French minority in provinces other than Quebec.
This issue, Mr. Speaker, is at the roots of all our problems in this country. It is perhaps the saddest aspect in the whole
The Constitution
beautiful and praiseworthy history of this country. Canon Groulx who was the spiritual leader of all Quebec nationalists wrote a book about this entitled "French education in Canada-Minority Schools." And we can read in this book what each of us knows about the endless battles that French-speaking Canadians have been fighting since 1867 throughout territories which have become provinces, in the maritimes or in Ontario, battles which have been mostly frustrating and useless, especially during the last century and at the beginning of this century.
It is pot by accident indeed that during the referendum campaign that argument was by far the most often talked about in the province of Quebec-those injustices that were committed during the last century and also during this century.
When you look at those sad events which everyone knows about and which have been the Achilles' heel of our whole history, we cannot refrain from saying it is time to put an end to it. It is time French Canadians in other provinces stopped fighting to get French language schools.
The injustice done to Riel in 1885, the Manitoba legislation of 1890, the legislation of 1891 concerning the Northwest Territories, the legislation of 1905 of Alberta and Saskatchewan which became provinces at that time and where Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself could not break down the stubbornness of Anglophones refusing to accept French in the new provinces, the famous regulation 17 passed in 1913 in Ontario, without forgetting what happened in the Acadian provinces in the earlier part of the century, those are the arguments that were talked about during the referendum, and now that the federal government is finally saying it is time for those fights to stop, to give French Canadians what they are fully entitled to, some of their own fellow citizens are turning their heads away and saying that fight does not interest them.
When you consider, Mr. Speaker, that in the last census, 926,000 French Canadians outside Quebec gave French as their mother tongue and nearly 700,000 identified it as their everyday language, some would like to turn their heads away and say that their lot does not interest them.
1 only have to quote again in that respect our great thinker, Canon Lionel Groulx, who in his book Les ecoles des minorites fran(aises says, and I quote:
That French minorities are advance guards-
-talking about Quebec-
-its first fortifications, has been repeated time and time again in Quebec to no great effect, it would seem. However, one of these days-
-Quebec-
-will have to reflect on the possibility of a withdrawal of French masses from the east and the west toward the borders-
-the French borders.

October 7, 1980
The Constitution
When I think about what we French Canadians owe to our fellow citizens of the other provinces, I cannot shirk my responsibilities. On this point, 1 have only to quote what the French Canadians of the other provinces told us recently in their report entitled The Heirs of Lord Durham, and 1 quote:
Nowhere in Canada except in Quebec does the Francophone community have inalienable education rights. In two provinces, British Columbia and Newfoundland, French has no standing as a teaching language. In four other provinces,.. . access to French education is subject to a series of discretionary powers. In not one of these provinces is the survival of French schools ensured by regulations.
And now that we would like once and for all to answer this appeal for help from Francophones outside Quebec, some people would ask us to isolate ourselves from them. No, Mr. Speaker!
Rather than listening to those who tell us that we are betraying them, I prefer to listen to Canon Groulx who said, on page 251 of his work on the history of French minorities in Canada, that it is the role of the federal government-
-purveyor of the common good-
-to ensure this protection to French minorities.
The French culture is a part of the collective treasure of the Canadian nation, and not only does the state-
-the federal state-
-have no right to weaken or undermine this treasure, but, on the contrary, it has the strict obligation to protect and increase it for the good of its citizens.
And how did the government of Quebec get out of this one, since only two years ago it had recognized that the French minorities living in other provinces the right to have their own schools? By what pirouette? Let me quote from the working paper tabled by the Quebec government on July 8, 1980, four months ago, in Montreal, where this sophism can be found:
If language rights were written in the constitution, they would be frozen forever.
"Being protected forever" becomes "frozen forever". Mr. Speaker, very seldom have 1 been witness to such a betrayal. As we are enshrining in the constitution inalienable rights for French Canadians living in other provinces, for them this move has the disadvantage of "freezing the rights". What we want is to protect those rights forever, for as long as this country exists. Mr. Speaker, that is the solution dictated to us by our conscience. And I tell myself that this betrayal has been committed by a government which pretends to be the protector and the spokesman for Quebec traditional positions. Needless to say, the leader of the Liberal party in Quebec has stood by the position of that province which, he insists, is the home, the cornerstone, the very foundation of the French Canadian people; it has always acknowledged its responsibility.
Ask Jean Lesage about it! Fie recognized that the Frenchspeaking Canadians in the other provinces also had those rights. He did not wash his hands of the matter. That is why I was particularly happy when the leader of the Liberal party in
Quebec said recently that he agreed that those rights should be recognized for the two linguistic majorities in Canada.


Mr. La Salle:: But not by going about it that way.


Pierre De Bané: Now, if we are going to talk about ways of doing it, may I be allowed to tell my hon. colleague that I, too, am sorry it was not done on the basis of unanimity. But for 50 years now we have tried to follow the ideal way which the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) suggests and which many others have tried to follow before him.
I would remind him that his own former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister, Mr. Diefenbaker, Mr. Pearson, the present Prime Minister for 12 years now, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) who was Prime Minister accidentally as a result of popular aberration, all of them tried to do so. We have all tried and if I am asked to express regrets, I will say that these are my regrets.
For 50 years now, we have tried to achieve the ideal goal through the ideal means. It took some time to realize that each and every one of the 11 governments to which that right of veto was given has used it to exercise its tyranny over all the others. To my mind, in a democratic country, the inalienable rights of the French Canadians cannot be negotiated; the inalienable rights of all the citizens of this country cannot be exchanged, swapped for rights over fisheries or long distance telephone rates.
If my hon. colleague wants me to continue expressing my regrets, 1 shall be specific about a few more. At the constitutional conference held a few weeks ago, when the Ontario Premier told his Quebec counterpart, Rene Levesque, that he was against section 133 of the constitution applying to Ontario, the Quebec premier did not insist in the least. In so doing, he destroyed all hope of those rights being recognized for Franco-Ontarians. If the hon. member for Joliette wants me to express my regrets I shall tell him that this proposal is an enormous step forward in the renewal of the Canadian Constitution but, unfortunately, it represents less compared with what the federal government had obtained in 1971 in Victoria where seven provinces had accepted that the debates in their legislatures should take place in both official languages. As well, three provinces had accepted that their statutes be published in both official languages. If he would like me to go on expressing my regrets, I would tell him that I was deeply saddened when the Prime Minister offered the provinces, two weeks ago, to create a new constitutional court which would exemplify the dualism of Canada-not only the legal system which is dualistic, but all other dualistic aspects- when he offered them a new dualistic constitutional court and, as you are aware, they could not reach agreement between them. If the hon. member wants me to go on expressing my regrets, 1 will tell him that I was overcome by a boundless sadness when the offers concerning a second chamber, which would have been a chamber of regions, was rejected. While
October 7, 1980

senators are now exclusively appointed by the federal government, it was offered to the provinces that they be involved in the appointment of their representatives here, and these offers were rejected. No, if I were asked to express regrets, I would do so, but rather I am asked today to look at the paths that we will cover with this resolution. And I recall to the hon. member the solemn commitment made by every member from Quebec to their fellow countrymen from this province during the referendum campaign. We will start the revision right away, without delay, and we will not stop until the task is finished.
And we are saying: is there a better way to undertake this revision than by basing it on the people, by acknowledging as all governments should that it is to the people that we owe part of the sovereignty? Is there a better way to start than by saying: the central government is going to give unconditional subsidies to all provinces in order to enable them to provide essential public services to their citizens. Is there a better way to start than for the federal government to undertake as a new commitment in the constitution the provision of equal chances to all Canadians? Is there a better way to undertake this revision than by saying that from now on all French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians will have the fundamental right to their schools and that nobody will ever be able to take that from them and that they will no longer have to fight for them as has been the case for 100 years? A party tried to use these facts in our recent history to justify a certain option 100 years later and today, as we are intent on solving these problems, they do like Pontius Pilate and say, "We do not feel responsible for the fate of the other Francophones of Canada."
So, Mr. Speaker, what we have tried to do in this bill is to state on what bases this country is going to stand, and for us there are only two, freedom and dignity.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona on a point of order.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question on his speech?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. minister accept a question?


Pierre De Bané: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister spoke of the lack of evidence provided by police in a legal matter, if I understood correctly. If so, can he tell me what section he was referring to?


Pierre De Bané: Certainly, section 8 which states:
Everyone has the right not to be subjected to search or seizure except on grounds, and in accordance with procedures, established by law.
The Constitution


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to affirm my belief in the federal system in this country and particularly in co-operative federalism which 1 think is so important for Canadians from one coast to the other. I believe that a number of principles are very important when we talk about Canada and its future.
First of all, we must have a strong central government which is strong enough to ensure equalization of income and other things for Canadians from one part of this country to the other. At the same time, I believe we should have strong provincial governments able to implement programs which respond to differing provincial and regional needs.
I also strongly believe that in this country we have two orders of power, two sets of jurisdiction, partners between federal and provincial powers. As Alan Blakeney, the premier of my province says, those powers are equals.
I also believe we have in this country a number of peoples. It has been said that this country has existed now 113 years, but many people have been here for much longer than that. 1 understand that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) can trace his family back 200 or 300 years perhaps, probably many years before confederation. I think of our Indian and Inuit people whose roots go back many hundreds of years in North America.

I am also thinking, Mr. Speaker, of the Canadian duality, a very important historic duality which is based on the distinctive character of Quebec society and of Francophones outside Quebec and also on a different legal system. The NDP believes in this principle. We recognize that Canada has two official languages, French and English. We supported the official languages bill tabled in 1969, we continue to endorse it and we strive to improve it so that federal institutions reflect a bilingual Canada.

It is in that context that I want to discuss in the next few minutes the resolution before the House today. In the debate yesterday my leader put the position of our party very eloquently. He spoke about the need for some action on the constitution. He spoke about the feeling in the country that we have to change things from coast to coast. He spoke about the need for the patriation of the constitution. He spoke about the position of our federal party and the course that our party had taken in September in endorsing the principle of a charter of rights. Indeed, I can refer back to the first bill of rights which, as the minister said yesterday, was introduced in this country in Saskatchewan in 1947 by Tommy Douglas when he was the premier of my province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I would like to refer also to the philosophy of equalization which our party has supported for many, many

October 7, 1980
The Constitution
years, and I will speak about that at greater length later on in my remarks.
I also want to spend some time this afternoon issuing a few warnings to the government. I want to pick up the lead of my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), when he spoke yesterday in the House so eloquently about the issue of resources which, I say to the government, is absolutely vital to the western part of this country and indeed, in my opinion, to every single province from one coast to the other.
Speaking for a moment as a westerner, I want to say to the government that we are serious when we say that resources are very important in my province, but in the package that is before the House today resources are forgotten. I remember that when 1 was growing up as a child I heard stories about homesteaders and pioneers, stories about the "dirty thirties" and the great depression, and of all our fears in western Canada that we were to supply our raw materials and food products to central Canada and that central Canada had the industry, the tariff protection, and the transportation policy to help itself. I want to say to the Minister of Justice that if he does not include something in the package on resources, then he will just be stirring up many of these old historic feelings in western Canada, and unfortunately in western Canada there is an increasing alienation from Ottawa and what "it stands for".
There will be increasing alienation from many institutions in central Canada, from the Liberal party and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself, unless we can make some serious changes in the package on resources in the proposal before the House. 1 need only mention that this extremism is growing, that we do have small separatist groups in the west, that we have a unionist party which wants to join our part of Canada to the United States, which is something that I and my colleagues will fight against as hard as we possibly can.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The point is that if we do not change some of the things in the resolution, what we will be doing as parliamentarians is spurring on that kind of sentiment, that kind of feeling, that kind of movement in western Canada.
1 want to say also that we must clarify the fact that the ownership of resources must belong to the provinces. We must have some concurrence with federal paramountcy of the provinces with the federal government when it comes to interprovincial trade. 1 think it is also important to consider the possibility, as our party has said in its council resolution of a few weeks ago, of provincial concurrence with federal paramountcy when it comes to international trade. In my province, for example, most resources are exported, resources such as heavy oil, potash and uranium, are exported to other parts of the world. I think it is imperative that we also include indirect taxation. This is important, not just in my province but to all the provinces in this country. I say to the minister who is in charge of the constitution, the Minister of Justice, that the federal government agreed to most of these items four weeks ago, down the street here in this city, and I appeal to him to
include these points in this package so as to make it more balanced for the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I do not have to speak again about the court cases we have had, such as the Cigol case and the central Canada potash case where provincial legislation in my province was struck down. I also want to refer to the fact that we should be treating off-shore resources the same as on-shore resources. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) will be saying something about that later on in the House, either this evening or tomorrow.
I would also like to spend a few moments picking up on what my leader said yesterday, that we must have some other changes in the resolution in the House today, and I want to elaborate on three of them. One of them is section 42, the other is equalization, and the third one is the whole question of the language of education where the numbers warrant it, and how that is defined. As I said, someone else will speak about off-shore resources, and the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) and the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) will speak about the native peoples of this country.
I want to begin with section 42 and I want to voice some grave concerns about the way section 42 is written in the resolution before us today. First of all, we have an amending formula which is the modified Victoria amending formula. Under that formula one must have two of the Atlantic provinces, Ontario and Quebec, and two of the western provinces representing at least half of the people, agreed upon a constitutional amendment.
I hope members will study section 42 very closely and will listen to my remarks very carefully. Under that section the federal government has the power to go over the heads of any legislature and conduct a national referendum by itself on any constitutional question whatsoever. It has the power to do that, and if they have a majority in Quebec, Ontario, two provinces in the Atlantic region of our country and two western provinces, representing at least half the people, then that constitutional amendment will carry. I think that is very dangerous in a federation where there are two powers, federal and provincial powers that are partners which should be sharing.
Looking even further at the consequences of section 42, one finds in section 46(1) that the referendum rules will be written exclusively by the Parliament of Canada. In reality it means that they will be written exclusively by the government of the day if it is a majority government. Section 46(1) reads in part as follows:
-Parliament may make laws respecting the rules applicable to the holding of a referendum under section 42.
I think that has very dire consequences because it means the government can control the timing of the question, which is very important. One can put his finger to the wind and take public opinion polls. If the timing is right, there is a referen-
October 7, 1980

dum. What would the results have been of a national referendum back in October, 1970, exactly ten years ago today, if the government of the day had put forth a constitutional amendment to retract civil liberties in the country? Because of the emotionalism of the day it would have carried and we would have lost, through a referendum, what we have in the Diefen-baker Bill of Rights or what we will have in an entrenched bill of rights in the constitution. What would happen to an amendment on capital punishment after the brutal killing of a policeman and the emotions it might cause? What would happen if there were a tremendous energy crisis, a conflict in the Middle East and a tremendous increase in the price of energy, if there were a national referendum to have more control of resources going to the federal government? That may even carry in two of the western provinces representing 50 per cent of Canadians. For example, it could isolate the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta which have the oil. It is dangerous to have the power which exists in sections 42 and 46 of the resolution.
Also 1 should like to refer to the money. The federal government can make the rules. I have been in politics long enough to know that money can manipulate public opinion. This summer I saw an advertising campaign launched by the federal government. They spent $6 million rewarding a lot of their friends in the advertising business, talking about Canada and the constitution. That advertising program will be increased. 1 understand the unity office is increasing its budget from S10 million to over $30 million. It is planning another major advertising program in the country. It is wrong, because they are advertising a simple proposal, not a government law or government program.
When this first happened this summer I spoke to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who has been in the House since 1942. I asked him what the precedents were for this. I think he went back to 1966 or 1967 when the Hon. Judy LaMarsh was secretary of state. At that time she was piloting the Canada Pension Plan through the House of Commons. After a long debate in the House there arose considerable opposition from certain reactionary forces in the country which I shall not name. A number of people went to her and said, "For the sake of Canadians, why do you not put on an advertising program saying why we need the Canada Pension Plan?'' Her response was that it would not be proper, that it was a government proposal which had not been passed by Parliament. She indicated that it was not the law of the land and therefore the government had no moral right to advertise a proposal, which in fact was a partisan proposal of the Government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 1 say to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Justice that, under sections 42 and 46(1), indeed the Government of Canada has the power to go against the wishes of all the legislatures and all provincial parties of this country and to appeal directly in a referendum where it controls the timing, the money, the funding proposals and the
The Constitution
wording of the question. It will write the question. In other words, it sets the rules. It is a loaded dice. That is not right; that is not proper. A right can be given through the amending formula in this resolution and then taken away through a manipulative referendum which denies the basic partnership and the basic essence of federalism.
My second concern is the whole question of equalization. We all endorse wholeheartedly the principle of equalization. I am very glad that it will be enshrined in the constitution of Canada because the very essence of a democratic socialist party is equality of condition. I think members should study very carefully section 31 of the resolution before us to see whether it will equalize conditions in Canada. I have read and reread that section, only to find out that it does not even mention equalization payments. There is no reference whatsoever to equalization payments in section 31. For example, the way this section is written, the government does not have to pay equalization payments. It can make direct grants to people in certain provinces where they qualify for equalization. In other words, it can pay moneys directly to people in Quebec and Newfoundland as citizens, despite the fact-


An hon. Member:: Even corporations.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Perhaps corporations, as my friend said. It can bypass the duly elected local governments which historically have received equalization payments. It can do it for no other reason than to buy votes in a partisan manner, which I would not put past the Liberal party because of its traditional program over the years. I have only to ask people in Newfoundland and Quebec. They will confirm that this practice has been only too common in those two provinces.
We are a federation. We are supposed to try to reach a consensus before doing things. As my leader said, before acting unilaterally we must try as much as possible to have the consensus of all provinces and the federal government. I looked at the equalization proposal and I followed the conference across the street. Only one province supported the proposal in section 31 whereas nine provinces supported a different proposal. I have a copy of it here, but time does not permit me to read it. That proposal refers to the fact that Parliament and the Government of Canada are committed to making equalization payments to ensure provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. It lists in more succinct detail the regulations that would govern the payment of equalization payments in the country. I say to the House, and through the media to the people of Canada, that we must take a look at section 31. It is not enough to endorse it in principle. Indeed we may be endorsing the Liberal party or any other government buying votes in provinces and going over the heads of the legislatures, instead of endorsing something on which all the provinces are agreed.
The third matter I should like to raise is an objection to sections 20 and 23 dealing with the official languages of our country. I Find a bit of a double standard. Section 20 refers to two languages in federal institutions and parliament. When we

October 7, 1980
The Constitution
get to determining whether or not numbers warrant, we find out that parliament will determine what the numbers are, whether numbers are warranted for bilingual services, whether numbers are warranted for French in the nine provinces that are predominantly English, whether numbers are warranted for English in Quebec.
Then we go on to section number 23. 1 support the fact wholeheartedly, as the Minister of Justice knows, of making sure that there are schools for Anglophones in Quebec and Francophones outside Quebec. We find out when we talk about where numbers are warranted, it is not the provinces, the provincial legislatures, or the people elected-and education is provincial-but it is left to the courts. 1 do not accept that double standard in federalism.
1 see, Mr. Speaker, you are signalling me to sit down. 1 see it is five o'clock and 1 did want to speak for five or six minutes more, if 1 could continue. With your permission, I will. If not, 1 will come back at eight o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, we did make an agreement yesterday to allow the hon. member's leader to continue until six o'clock. 1 think we should ask the consent of the House, especially that of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Sannich (Mr. Munro) who has seen this bill of his being passed over once in the summer, if he is willing. 1 think that we should not anticipate that every single day when we get to five o'clock we will intrude upon the business of private members' hour.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would agree to this request provided that the full hour is accorded to the debate on my bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Perhaps hon. members will excuse my own intervention. I think that if it is the will of the House to extend a few extra minutes to the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) we will do so, but I think the ordinary course of adjournment should be followed, that is to say, at six o'clock. If there is not unanimous agreement for the hon. member to continue, we will proceed to private members' hour immediately.
Is there unanimous agreement for the hon. member to continue for not more than five minutes?


David Michael Collenette: We do not want to be difficult this early in the resumption of the session, and members on this side will certainly agree to allow the hon. member to continue for five to seven minutes. However, we do insist that private members' hour end at six o'clock, the allotted time, which seems to indicate that it would not be acceptable to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I can resolve this quickly. 1 am a very co-operative person. I will come back at eight o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before we move to private members' hour may I just deal with the adjournment debate which will take place later this evening.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro)-Airports-Victoria International-Absence of radar equipment; the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forre-stall)-Energy-Oil-Sources of supply for eastern Canada; the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly)- Consumer and Corporate Affairs-Inquiry into oil industry- Release of information gathered.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Donald W. Munro: that Bill C-215, to amend the criminal law (punishment of certain offences), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


David Michael Collenette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we would ask that all preceding bills remain on the order paper and be allowed to stand since, as I said earlier, the hon. member did give up his turn in July and we would not want all the hon. members below him on the order paper to lose their places.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I was not in possession of the information indicating that other bills or motions were on the order paper, and the consent of the House is sought that they be allowed to stand. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for your co-operation. I have no gratitude at all for the co-operation that is extended to me from the other side of the House. I was prepared to agree to the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) continuing and having that few minutes extended beyond six o'clock. I am very surprised that the government should say it is not going to be obstreper-
October 7, 1980

ous this early-this is day two of the resumed session. It is already being obstreperous by not allowing the extra few minutes to the discussion of a very important bill.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) has said, 1 did stand down on the day the House rose and I hoped, even then, that there would be some give on the government's side to introducing sane, sensible, meaningful proceedings in this House so that, as was promised by the government of the Thirty-first Parliament, all government members' bills would have two hours of debate and would be able to be voted upon-not talked on, but voted upon-as to whether they should go to committee. But I see that there has been no move to have the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization reconvened so that we can have meaningful debate on private members' bills. Therefore, 1 shall proceed with the discussion, my opening remarks on the second reading of this bill. I do hope it will not be talked out today. That is why I felt a failure of the Chair to see the clock at six for those few minutes might permit the government member to sit down-because 1 am sure one of them is planning to talk it out-so we could agree to have this matter go to committee for discussion, and come back to this House for a free vote. I mean a free vote, like one of those freedoms that this government claims to be putting into the charter of freedoms and rights.
Mr. Speaker, I am committed to the notion that man as a rational being is responsible for the acts he commits. The purpose of this bill, as will be seen on page 1A of the bill-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Will it be a free vote in your own party?


Donald W. Munro: Yes, there will be a free vote in this party, too. That is an undertaking given by the leader of this party a good many years ago, and he stands by it.
The purpose of this bill is to restore the death penalty for first degree murder and high treason while substituting a more humane mode of execution for hanging, because I abhor this notion that the television and press have of putting a noose on the screen and front pages to depict the sentence of death. The punishment for serious narcotic offences would also be stiffened to the point of the death penalty for persistent repeaters.
It may come as a surprise to some members of the House that the death penalty is on the statute books of Canada. Section 75 of the Criminal Code, which deals with piracy, indicates quite clearly that anyone who, in the commission of a piracy, for which offence he would be liable to imprisonment for life, murders or attempts to murder another person, or does any act that is likely to endanger the life of another person, shall be sentenced to death. That is the penalty. It is still on the statute books.
It is the purpose of the bill that if, under a certain set of circumstances, a rational being kills another, he has forfeited his right as a law-abiding citizen and the law should take its course. The course I propose is the death penalty. I say the murderer has demonstrated his unwillingness, or his unreadiness-it is a matter of degree-to live by the laws that others
Capital Punishment
are prepared to obey, for one reason or another. He may demonstrate this unwillingness by carrying a deadly weapon and by using it.
The decision in the first place to carry a death-dealing weapon, be it a knife or a gun, is in itself a rational act and a preparation for a commission, in certain circumstances, of a crime. Although it could be a poker game for which this individual is setting out, it is more likely that in such circumstances he is on serious business, either to rob a bank or to hold up someone. This person carries with him a death-inflicting weapon and seems prepared to use it. If the individual had no weapon but his body and hands and was prepared to use them in such a way as to extinguish the life of another, the consequences are the same and the full effect of the law should be applied. My bill says that that full effect is death.
It should be clear that the intent of my bill is not vengeance but deterrence. The argument over deterrence will be heard interminably. I insist that it is a matter of belief. Those who believe that there is no deterrence are entitled to their opinion, but I feel that they should allow those who believe that the death penalty is a deterrent the entitlement of their opinions, and I would like to see a free vote on that matter.
With regard to statistics, how can we compare known statistics on those who have not drawn back with those who have drawn back at that fatal moment? They are not going to admit that they have drawn back. They are ashamed, thoroughly ashamed, of what they did and they do not want it known that they drew back because of a deterrent, but they did. On a statistical plane, I insist that there is no real valid means of comparison. So I insist that it is a matter of faith or belief that there is a deterrent in the presence of a death penalty on the statute books.
There are those, of course, who use the argument that it is abhorrent to take life. I abhor those who would take life out of a whim, fear or desperation, and without a fair and impartial trial. They are the judges and they take the life. Those are the ones whom I abhor. My concern is for the innocent victim. I can think of the many police officers who have in the performance of their duty lost their lives. I can think of a particular case which occurred within the last two or three weeks in my part of the world, I regret to say, in which an officer suffered death in the performance of his duty. He was just behind the counter of the police station. He left not only his wife, but a child and another child yet unborn. These are the people whom the law should protect.
Has rehabilitation proven its case? I suggest that the death penalty has proven its case very simply because the murderer is not able to commit a second murder. There are those who say they do not, but they do if we are to believe the press. I have before me a press clipping from April which describes the incident of a man who was being held in a triple killing. They do repeat the offence. They may not have been caught the first time. What about that creature-and I cannot think of a better word-in Chicago who went around enticing women

October 7, 1980
Capital Punishment
into the bushes and murdering them out of hand? That man has forfeited any right he had to live in a civilized society. In another case a killer from Repentigny escaped on July 13, 1980, while he was being taken on a visit, presumably as a rehabilitation exercise, to Les Floralies in Montreal. He escaped, and stabbed a man.
What does this bill contain? Its provisions are broad and the crime is specific. There is provision for appeal and commutation. But once all recourse to a second or third look is exhausted, the sentence is final.
The bill speaks of treason. I do not think there should be any question in the world but that someone who has committed a treasonable act has forfeited the right to live in that society. Those who kill officers of the law and prison guards in the performance of their duties, such as in prison breaks, and those who kill fellow inmates should face the death penalty. If death occurs in the course of a highjacking, kidnapping or forcible confinement, rape, or attempt to commit rape or indecent assault, then the death penalty should be there to be used.
Finally, where there is a second offence of murder, once under the provisions of the current law and once under the provisions of this bill which might become law, the death penalty should be considered. I suggest that those who traffic in drugs in large quantities and who are apprehended committing that crime more than twice have forfeited their right to live in the society of this world, not just in the society in which that crime was committed.
This is a controversial bill and there is no question about it. But let us face the controversy and let the bill go to committee and emerge for a free vote.
1 suppose one should not really deal with polls and percentages, but they exist nonetheless. The Gallup poll shows that 82 per cent of the people are in favour of the death penalty. My own poll in my own riding shows that 85 per cent of the people there are in favour of the death penalty. 1 have here another poll which was taken rather hastily one day by a radio station. All of the people in that poll supported the idea of at least some categories of murder being subject to the death penalty. I have another clipping which tells of a retired official from the Solicitor General's office who left his duties because he found that the members of Parliament were not addressing the real problems of crime. That clipping was found in The Globe and Mail of July 5, 1980.
There are those who would rather stay in prison than die because there is a chance of getting out. That is true. Here is a recent account of a convict who was given the option of life in prison, or death. He chose death. So I suggest that we proceed with our debate. I urge members on all sides of this House to allow this matter to come to a vote so that it may go to committee and be discussed at greater length, so that the issues can be examined in depth and detail, and so that it can come back to this House for a free vote.


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) has presented his reasons for putting forward Bill C-215, in a very articulate and very reasoned manner. But many aspects of the bill trouble me. The title of this bill is the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1980. The explanatory note is far more serious, and it is the principle and assumptions upon which Bill C-215 is based that concern me.
The explanatory note reads as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to restore the death penalty for first degree murder and high treason, while substituting a more humane mode of execution for hanging. The punishment for serious narcotics offences would also be stiffened, to the point of the death sentence for persistent repeaters.
In discussing this bill it is necessary to cover some territory which has been explored many times in this House of Commons with regard to similar pieces of legislation. I believe this is because the suggestion of the hon. member is not new. At the same time, the arguments for and against capital punishment are not new and so I should like to spend a short time reviewing the recent history of capital punishment in Canada.
On July 14, 1976, by a free vote of 130 to 124, this House abolished the death penalty for all crimes under the Criminal Code. The then Bill C-84 culminated a trend toward abolition which began in common law countries such as Canada, over a century ago. The criminal law of England introduced the "Bloody Code" to Canada which, in 1763, called for death as the penalty for over 200 crimes. Later, between 1859 and 1865, the extent to which the death penalty applied in Canada was narrowed, so that capital punishment became applicable only for murder, treason, and rape.
By the late nineteenth century, reforms on the application of the death penalty were progressively introduced into Canadian law. Following World War II, Canada moved legislatively to narrow the crimes for which capital punishment could be applied-following the lead of the United Kingdom.
After a long process of review-including the joint parliamentary committee in 1953-which witnessed a trial ban which maintained the death penalty for murders of police and prison guards, the death penalty was abolished for all crimes.
Outside of Canada, the scope of application of the death penalty has been progressively restricted in law. As recently as April, 1980, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted, by a wide margin, a resolution and recommendation favouring the abolition of the death penalty in all 21 member states of the Council of Europe.
In Canada and elsewhere in the world, the death penalty has been increasingly de-emphasized as a judicial instrument. A 1962 United Nations report concluded as follows:
The abolition or suspension ... of the death penalty docs not have the immediate effect of appreciably increasing the incidence of crime.
This is an empirical judgment: one which the author of Bill C-215 has not disputed.
But let me ask, Mr. Speaker, what kind of evidence can be brought forward in support of Bill C-215? What sorts of arguments can be asserted at this time which would lead this House to reopen a debate on the merits of capital punishment?
October 7, 1980

Perhaps it would be that the rate of homicide has increased. If our post-abolition experience in Canada had shown a disproportionate rise in the murder rate, which could be ascribed to abolition, then I could understand hon. members wishing to embark on a renewed debate on capital punishment.
Let us look at the evidence, Mr. Speaker. Allow me to refer you to the August, 1979, Statistics Canada publication entitled, unfortunately, "Homicide Statistics". Tables 1 and II of that document detail the situation with respect to homicide for the past several years.
Table 1 deals with homicide "incidents" which are distinguished from homicide "offences", which are detailed in Table II.
"Incidents" are defined as every single event in which homicide is committed.
"Offences" are defined as the total number of homicide victims in a given year.
Using either of these definitions, the 1978 rates for homicide in Canada were the lowest since 1974. The 1978 figures, as we are all aware, are the latest available on this subject.
The total rate of homicide incidents in 1974 was 2.46 per 100,000 population in Canada. The rate in 1975 went up to 2.77. In 1976, the year of abolition, the rate dropped to 2.66. In 1977, it rose marginally to 2.72. Then, in 1978, it fell again to 2.62.
Exactly the same pattern existed in the case of homicide offences. The 1974 rate of 2.67 was followed by a rise to 3.07 in 1975. This dropped to 2.89 in 1976, marginally rose to 3.03 in 1977, and finally in 1978 dropped to 2.80.
The 1978 murder incident rate of 2.35 per 100,000 population was the lowest since 1974. Similarly, the 1978 murder offences rate of 2.51 was also the lowest since 1974.
The principal conclusion which I would suggest we can draw from this data is that there is absolutely no evidence that the abolition of the death penalty for Criminal Code offences in 1976 has led to a disproportionate increase in the murder rate in Canada. In fact, as I have demonstrated, there has been a levelling off of that rate. The issue of changing murder rates in Canada cannot lead us to reconsider the question of abolition in this House.
Another point that I should like to raise with regard to the deterrent effect of capital punishment refers to the most recent information that I have available to me, which is an article in today's Globe and Mail. This deals with a study done in the United States regarding the deterrent effect of capital punishment by a sociologist at the University of California, Mr. David Phillips. The article reads as follows:
Executions of convicted killers deter other murders for no longer than two weeks, says a new statistical study.
David Phillips concluded from a three-year research project that the homicide rate drops during the week of a highly publicized execution and during the following week.
But Mr. Phillips, a sociologist at the University of California at San Diego, found that the murder rate then begins rising. "Within five or six weeks of a publicized execution, the drop in homicides is cancelled by an equally large rise in homicides," he wrote.
Capital Punishment
So, Mr. Speaker, this new evidence, which is the latest evidence, takes into consideration all previous data that has been available. I do not know the statistical validity of this study, but if it is the latest information we have we will have to go with it until we can examine it more closely. Being the latest study, it indicates to me that there is no evidence that there is a permanent or long-lasting deterrent effect from capital punishment when it is used in a country as a means of punishment.
A second issue which concerns me is clause 6 of Bill C-215. This clause provides, in part, for the re-introduction of former Criminal Code provisions instructing a judge to seek the recommendations of a jury as to clemency.
The amendment to section 670 of the Criminal Code provides for a judge to put a question to a jury in the course of which jurors are told that if they make a specific recommendation with respect to commutation, such a recommendation will be drawn to the attention of the Solicitor General and will be given "due consideration by the Government of Canada".
If you read this part of clause 6 with the subsequent amendment to section 671 which states, "would allow commutation to life imprisonment only where a majority of the jury so recommends", major problems become apparent.
Under the wording of Bill C-215, it is entirely possible to foresee a situation in which five members of a jury recommended positively for commutation, while the other seven jurors made no recommendation at all. Under Bill C-215 the cabinet would be prevented from even considering commutation of such a death sentence, because the amendment to section 671 of the Criminal Code forbids such consideration except in cases where "a majority of the jurors who found the person guilty of the offence recommended in favour of commuting the sentence". Surely this outcome cannot be considered just or reasonable.
The wording in Bill C-215 is inadequate since it gives members of a jury no indication whatsoever that their failure to make a recommendation would have the mandatory effect of sending an individual to his death without the possibility of cabinet review.
Nevertheless, even if this fatal weakness were remedied in Bill C-215, it seems to me that the bill places an intolerable burden upon a jury by giving them the unprecedented power to remove the discretion of the governor in council even to consider cases for commutation.
There are absolutely no criteria in Bill C-215 to guide or limit the absolute discretion of a jury to make a clemency recommendation. Bill C-215 also has the effect of widening the scope of the application of the death penalty. Not only is the sentence of death to be imposed in cases of planned and deliberate murders, or murders of police officers and prison guards, but it is also to be imposed in cases of death caused by a person while committing other offences. These can include aircraft highjacking, kidnapping, rape, attempted rape and indecent assult, to name but a few.

October 7, 1980
Capital Punishment
To make my point, allow me, Mr. Speaker, to refer to the amendments to the Narcotics Control Act suggested in clause lOof Bill C-215.
Presently, there is a maximum of life imprisonment for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, and there is a mandatory minimum seven-year term for importing or exporting.
The bill we are considering would establish as a judicial formula such things as the following: a mandatory minimum seven-year term for first offences; a mandatory minimum fourteen-year term for second offences and a mandatory death sentence for third offences.
Already, the seven-year term currently in law has been vigorously criticized by the Canadian Bar Association and by some judges. They feel it is too harsh. To replace the seven-year term with the formula set forward in Bill C-215 is completely intolerable. Bill C-215 would widen the scope of mandatory minimum sentences and provide for even harsher mandatory minimums, up to and including a sentence of death. In my opinion, this is unthinkable.
It seems to me there are but two reasons why anyone could put forward a bill which would bring back the death penalty. The first is the deterrent effect. In other words by having the death penalty on the statute books there would be fewer murders per 100,000 population in the future than in the past. 1 think the statistical evidence indicates that this is not the case in Canada both before and after capital punishment was abolished. In my view, the evidence does not support the deterrent effect, or at least the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) has not presented statistical evidence which would support his position and lead those who believe in the deterrent effect to support the bill.
The second reason one could put forward for bringing forward capital punishment is simply a desire for vengeance. I fear a situation where a civilized nation institutionalizes vengeance in its Criminal Code or in its criminal system. I think a system of government, a societal system, which builds upon itself or builds within itself a code of violence, begets violence.


Donald W. Munro: We have got it.


John Leslie Evans: I think that a situation where criminals are treated with violence leads to violence. 1 think that over time as a result of abolition of capital punishment we will find that because we do not institutionalize violence in our system in this way, we will probably wind up-I certainly hope this will be the case-with a fewer, rather than a greater, incidence of murder and such previously classed capital crimes. I hope that is the case. The evidence before me indicates some tendency in the direction I suggest. I will certainly want to watch that very carefully to see if that trend continues in the future. That is my hope, and until such other evidence can be brought to my attention, I hope that we will go no further in considering this legislation.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-215. However, before I do so, I wish to say that in my view it is rather unfortunate we are seeing the use of valuable parliamentary time in this private member's hour devoted to this subject when there are so many other important issues facing Canadian people.


An hon. Member:: Why are you speaking, then? Sit down.


Svend Johannes Robinson: For example, there is the issue of high unemployment, particularly among young people. I note that in the hon. member's own constituency there are serious layoffs in the shipbuilding industry. It is unfortunate that the hon. member chooses to speak on this subject, one which has been spoken about so many times in the past by members of his party and other parties, instead of speaking about layoffs in the shipbuilding industry. To talk at this time about capital punishment when so many people are out of work and when our resources are being sold out is unfortunate and is a reflection on the kind of priorities to which the party to my right is subjecting Parliament to at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I might remind the hon. gentleman that, to my recollection, as a general rule once a bill is before the House, as in this instance, it is not ordinarily the case that its origin is subject to comment. The hon. member has sought an opportunity to put a bill before the House and, to the best of my recollection, his motivation is not ordinarily one which should be the object of comment.
1 want to make it clear that I am not referring to a standing order; 1 am working at the moment on my recollection. Perhaps the hon. member might pursue the debate in terms of the bill rather than the proposer's motives.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, with respect, 1 make no aspersions whatsoever on the motives of the proponent of this bill. I merely suggested that this was a reflection of the priorities of that particular party and, obviously, of that particular individual.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. 1 have to interrupt the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) for a moment on a point of order. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro).


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do take issue with the hon. member who was just speaking. He is questioning my motives. The hon. member will recall that 1 accorded to the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) the courtesy of allowing him to interfere with my time. The time was not of my choosing. The time of my choosing was July. I had the floor on that particular occasion, and I was asked to continue now. I do feel the rules of the House here prevail. If the speaker wishes to criticize the bill, he should do so and cease any criticism of the author.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, while the time may not have been of the hon. member's choosing, the point I was
October 7, 1980

making concerned the subject itself which was of the hon. member's choosing and, as I say, that reflects the priorities of that particular member, and perhaps to a lesser extent of the party.
I turn now to consideration of the subject itself. The hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) has asked what are the priorities of this party. The priorities of this party are to build a decent society in this country, to reduce unemployment and to end the sell-out of our resources. If the hon. member wishes me to continue on this subject, I will be quite happy to do so. The hon. member is silent. In that event, I will turn to the subject of the bill before us.
We have heard already from the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) in terms of the technical drafting of this bill, and indeed it is deficient in a number of respects in that regard. However, I would point out that fortunately all three leaders of the political parties represented in this House are opposed to capital punishment and are on record as being opposed to capital punishment.


Donald W. Munro: But not to a vote.


Svend Johannes Robinson: That includes the present leader of the Conservative party, 1 am pleased to say.
I might also point out that while the Conservative party was in government it took absolutely no steps whatsoever in the direction suggested by my hon. friend. 1 am pleased to note that. 1 am pleased to note that the initiative my hon. friend appears to be putting forward was in no way seen as a priority by the government his party formed for a short period of time in this country.


Donald W. Munro: I was number one on the list.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I also point out that at this particular moment it is divisive, and it would be destructive to embark again on a lengthy parliamentary debate on this subject. More than 100 members of Parliament took part in the debate in 1976 on this subject. I suggest we should be getting on to far more important issues at this time, issues which affect the people of Canada such as those I referred to earlier, rather than spending valuable parliamentary and committee time debating this issue. This issue should be allowed to remain dead.
What are some of the concerns we have with this bill? My friend from Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) said, and 1 certainly accept his statement, that he is not motivated by vengeance. He said he is motivated by deterrence. Surely there is some obligation on my friend to provide evidence that the measures he is proposing would in some way deter the crime of murder. No evidence has been submitted by my friend to suggest that if we stick needles in people and kill them, that will somehow deter the commission of the offence of murder.
Capital Punishment
If my friend is concerned about deterrence, rather than suggesting as he does in his bill that the method of execution would be by intravenous injection of sodium thiopentol, an anaesthetic which in sufficient dosage leads directly to unconsciousness and death, he should be proposing public hangings or perhaps public stonings which would have a far greater deterrent effect.
Why should we be sticking needles in people behind closed doors if we are concerned about deterrence? Rather, 1 suggest my friend should adopt the example of civilized countries such as Iran which have more open forums in which to stone and otherwise indicate their disapproval of various offences which are deemed to be capital in that country.
I would also point to some of the types of punishment which have been meted out in the past which have not in any way helped to deter the crime of murder and to some of the other crimes which have been capital offences in the past. In the past in countries such as the United Kingdom, the following have been used and have failed as deterrents. We have seen burning at the stake, boiling in oil and water, iron coffins, burying alive, breaking on the wheel, drawing and quartering, decapitation. My friend behind me says don't give them ideas, there might be another bill coming.
We have also seen impaling, hanging, crushing, flaying, shooting-maybe it should be retroactive-exposure to insects, poisoning, throwing to animals, stoning, drowning, torturing, electrocution, asphyxiation, crucifixion, mayhem, which is the amputation of one or both legs. All of these have been used in the past in an attempt to deter and all have failed.
Why should it be suggested by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich that sticking a needle in somebody behind closed doors will deter someone from committing the various offences which he would make capital? If someone is contemplating cold-blooded murder, surely he will not say to himself, "Well, I only face 25 years behind bars, so that's no problem". The reality is that they do not think about the penalty. Most think that they are too smart to get caught or are acting in a moment in which their emotions are governing, and certainly they are not acting rationally.
There are a number of other concerns we have with this bill. For example, in no way will this lead to an improvement of our criminal justice system and to a reduction in the number of murders in Canada. Instead, we should be looking at a number of other more positive and constructive measures. We should be looking at better trained, better deployed and better equipped police. We should be looking at more effective gun control, particularly hand gun control; preventive, rather than reactive police work, and more effective correctional programs for juveniles and adults. The resources presently put into juvenile programs when dealing with juvenile delinquents are miserably inadequate. We should be improving them substantially.
We should be looking at more effective and economic programs to remove the causes of crime and improve treatment for alcoholics and drug addicts. In other words, we should be attempting to prevent murders in this country by

October 7, 1980
Capital Punishment
effective programs rather than dealing after the fact in a manner which will not in any way reduce the number of murders. As has been suggested by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), that merely sets a bad example in which the state is emulating the very act which it is condemning. The state is merely repeating that act.
There are those who seek to glorify or make martyrs of themselves. If the crime of murder were punishable by death, this would contribute to those individuals who seek the glory; the Gary Gilmours of this world who seek the publicity and exposure they would get in such a case.
Recently in one of our newspapers there was a letter to the editor headlined "A standard of humanity". I draw this to the attention of all hon. members as being a very vivid and graphic example of one of the reasons why we believe on this side of the House that this bill is a mistake. This letter was written by the widow of Sir Christopher Ewart-Biggs, a former British ambassador to Dublin. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich may be aware that Sir Christopher Ewart-Biggs was assassinated by the IRA. This letter was written by his widow, Lady Ewart-Biggs, following the assassination. I quote:
As capital punishment will be coming up soon for debate in the Commons, I am sure that some readers will welcome the use of your columns to express their views.
I would point out in explanation that the subject of capital punishment was recently debated in the U.K. Parliament. A motion in that Parliament to restore capital punishment was overwhelmingly defeated. The letter continues:
I look at this issue from a practical and moral viewpoint. Is hanging a deterrent to killing and is it morally defensible that the community should be empowered to decide on whether one of its members lives or dies?
Statistics convince me that the threat of execution does not deter the potential murderer. This leaves the moral standpoint. In my view it should be the responsibility of a civilized society to contain the destructive elements within it without resorting to similar methods. This whilst striving through social reform to eradicate the root causes of crime and violence. We must judge the criminal, condemn him, isolate him-but not emulate him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) is rising on a point of order.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Will the hon. member for Burnaby permit a question in view of the fact he is now speaking of morality?


Svend Johannes Robinson: No, Mr. Speaker. I continue the letter:
On another aspect, and one which touches me deeply. It is felt that certain categories of murder justify the supreme penalty more than others. Murder through terrorist action is deemed one. Again, from both practical and moral viewpoints, this is to me indefensible. Society cannot degrade its own behaviour to match that of a terrorist.
It must, within the limitations imposed by a democratic state, wage continual war against the terrorist and strive to protect the community from his action.
I am convinced that the execution of a terrorist-thus making him a martyr- would infinitely enrich his cause. Many would rally with renewed vigour to fill his place. His supporters, sharing his contempt for human life, would in retaliation make further reprisals.
Surely the arguments which I have put forward can be shared by every sane, civilized, and compassionate human being.
As I say, that was written by the widow of Sir Christopher Ewart-Biggs, who was brutally assassinated by IRA terrorists. If any member of our community were in a position to wreak vengeance or in any way suggest that capital punishment is a deterrent, I suggest that a woman such as Lady Ewart-Biggs would have done so.
A former leader of the Conservative party, the late Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, had a story about the alleged deterrent effects of capital punishment. 1 should like to quote it because I know members of his party would be interested in this story, and I know that perhaps after hearing it they would want to change their views on this important subject. Mr. Diefenbaker said as follows:
My great-grandfather saw a boy hanged in Upper Canada for picking pockets in 1837. I think the boy was 17 years of age and everybody gathered for the public execution.
Those Scottish people in North York turned out in large numbers.
There was a great celebration, and during the ceremonies of the execution, four of them had their pockets picked, which just indicates the argument that the fear of capital punishment will greatly reduce the number of offences is not completely tenable, or indeed tenable at all.
That illustration, as I say, was from the distinguished lawyer and former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.
There are other problems inherent in this bill and one of them is, of course, the fact that we have seen traditionally in this country, and in other countries, that the enforcement of capital punishment is very selective in nature. The reality is that it is not the rich who hang; in fact, it is the poor who hang. I would like to quote from a former warden of Sing Sing prison who has seen a lot of convicts come and go, Lewis E. James. He said as follows:
Not only does capital punishment fail in its justification-
That justification allegedly is deterrence.
-but no punishment could be invented with so many inherent defects.
It is an unequal punishment in the way it is applied to the lich and to the poor. The defendant of wealth and position never goes to the electric chair or to the gallows.
Juries do not intentionally favour the rich, the law is theoretically impartial, but the defendant with ample means is able to have his case presented with every favourable aspect, while the poor defendant often has a lawyer assigned by the court.
We have seen once again selective enforcement of the law, a law which obviously in its ramifications is very serious. We have also seen historically documented cases of errors made, of innocent people who have been executed by the state. Surely if members on this side of the House are concerned about the preservation of human life they would not want to bring into existence a punishment which has the possibility of taking innocent human lives.
1 should like to point to a couple of examples. One is cited in the Ottawa Citizen of May 20, 1976 relating to a man who spent seven years in jail for a murder which, ultimately it became clear, he had not committed. Another person confessed to the murder and showed by conclusive proof that indeed he was the person who had committed the murder. Had
October 7, 1980

the condemned man been executed, it would have meant an innocent life taken.
In concluding let me say that this is an issue which touches many people in Canada and on which many organizations and individuals have genuine differences of view. I would like to close by quoting from one important organization in this country, the Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops. That Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops has resolved that it is in favour of the abolition of capital punishment in Canada. At the same time it urged the government to move to bring about the reforms which are required in our penitentiary system and in all areas of justice. I am pleased that the Catholic Church has taken such a courageous stand on this important question. I suggest at this time that to embark once again upon a divisive and destructive debate of this nature when there are so many other important issues facing the people of Canada would be a very serious mistake. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why members of the NDP get so disturbed about a resolution like this. It hits at their very conscience. They are quite in favour of murdering little babies that are unborn but they are very much against the death penalty for someone who kills a little girl, a child. 1 think that is the reason they are so disturbed.
1 want to deal with some of the reasons-


Svend Johannes Robinson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. 1 must take exception to the remarks by my friend, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), and his statement that is completely without foundation. We are in no way in support of the murder of innocent children. 1 would ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement as being completely unfounded.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, 1 have no intention of withdrawing it because the very member himself and one of his colleagues acted in favour of abortion during the last session. If he has changed his mind let him stand and refute his own statement.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I rise on a point of order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member took up a lot of time. Surely he can hear the other side of the argument.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a point of order. 1 am perfectly aware that a misunderstanding took place between two hon. members as to whether a reference was made to abortion or to the murder of young people. What is happening now is that we are having a debate between one member and the other as to what has or has not been said. 1 think the hon. member should be allowed to continue. There is relatively little time left, and unless the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) insists on pursuing his point of order, the hon. member should be allowed to continue. The hon. member has distinguished his previous statements, he has made the correction he wants made on the
Capital Punishment
record. I will recognize him on a point of order but I would ask that the hon. member for Bow River be allowed to continue the debate.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be very brief, but I must insist that any suggestion that either myself as a member of Parliament or any of my colleagues in any way condone murder, however murder is applied-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I took the trouble to advise the hon. member for Burnaby that this was not what was said. I heard perfectly clearly what was said by the hon. member for Bow River. 1 would suggest a reference to Hansard if that is necessary. What is taking place now is not a point of order but an argument over what has been said.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I believe in capital punishment, the death penalty, in the case of a murder of a human being that has been deliberately planned and carried out and the person is found guilty without any shadow of doubt.
When we are young we are punished if we do something wrong; if we do something even more wrong we are punished more severely, yet people today are saying that when we commit the ultimate crime of killing another human being we should not then receive the ultimate punishment.
I think capital punishment is a deterrent. It is utterly impossible to determine how many people were not killed because of the fear of death. The argument against that is rather void. In my view the fact that people fear death makes this a realistic deterrent.
The death penalty is an effective tool that pinpoints law and order. The abolitionists appear to have no objection to punishing a child for stealing or a grown-up for rape. Why then in the logical order of things do we not go the rest of the way and exact the death penalty for those who commit the worst possible crime, the killing of another human being?
Violent crime is becoming all too rampant across Canada. The elderly and women are afraid to walk outside after dark in some of our cities. Boys and girls are being murdered by animals, as I call them. We then put the convicted in jail, provide them with education, the best of TVs and food and we keep them there for the rest of their lives. One of these days all these criminals being kept in these prisons will get together and commit a terrible crime. Perhaps then people might realize that these criminals who have taken the lives of others have no right to live. We give too much consideration to the criminal. Let us give some consideration to those who are the sufferers, the victims of the criminals.
I would move, Mr. Speaker, that the question be now put.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we have to reflect on how valuable life is and how sacred it is. The sages of old have said "He who saves a life is as if he saved an entire world, and he who destroys a life is as if he destroyed an entire world". How tragic it is to see an innocent man die.

October 7, 1980
Capital Punishment
There are few countries in this world which enjoy the unique distinction Canada has enjoyed in having demonstrated its commitment to human rights, and in providing freedom for its people. It is a country to which men and women from all over the world have come in order to enjoy such freedom and rights. Both in Canada, as well as beyond its borders, we must continue to be vigilant in our concern for these rights and freedoms. We must not be just average, we must set an example, and our efforts must extend both to the rights of the individual as well as to the rights of the social group.
The overwhelming need for this concern is strikingly demonstrated by the case of Raoul Wallenberg, whose rights as an individual were totally denied him while he himself was engaged in protecting the human rights of others in Hungary. His case provides us with a fascinating and remarkable example, which stands as a warning about the dangers of government having the power of life and death in its hands. His is the case of an innocent man condemned to death.
Thirty-five years ago a young Swedish Christian diplomat named Raoul Wallenberg disappeared suddenly under the arrest of the Soviet secret police. It was a mystery because he had helped to save thousands from dying at the hands of the Nazis. Lost hero of the holocaust, a righteous gentile, an unsung war hero, saviour of Hungarian Jews, champion of the Jewish people-these are but a few of the tributes now being paid, worldwide, to Raoul Wallenberg.
During the past few months, some 35 years after that Swedish diplomat's disappearance behind the iron curtain, "Free Wallenberg" committees have sprung up all over the world. Articles, books, television programs and, most important of all, a recent documentary entitled "The Wallenberg Mystery"-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien):
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report upon the document entitled "Proposed Resolution for a Joint Address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada" published by the government on October 2, 1980, and to recommend in their report whether or not such an address, with such amendments as the committee considers necessary, should be presented by both Houses of Parliament to Her Majesty the Queen;
That 15 members of the House of Commons to be designated no later than three sitting days after the adoption of this motion be members on the part of this House of the Special Joint Committee;
That the committee have power to appoint from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable and necessary and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
That the committee submit their report not later than December 9, 1980;
That the quorum of the committee be 12 members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented and that the joint chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, when six members are present so long as both Houses arc represented; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it to be advisable, members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When the debate was interrupted at five o'clock, we were on government business, item no. 18, and the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville (Mr. Nystrom) had the floor.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I believe I had a few more minutes to go at five o'clock. I was talking about minority language rights when it came to education. But for a moment or two I should like to review what I said earlier. I started off by saying that this party thinks we have come to a time in history when we need a constitutional change in this country, and I said that later on in this debate other members would talk about the need for changes in a number of areas, one of them being changes with regard to our native Canadians, the original people, another one being the failure of the government to refer in this resolution to offshore resources. I spoke about the absolute necessity to have something in this resolution about resources. This is very important, not just to western Canada but indeed to all provinces in our country. Without the inclusion of resources, I want to make it very clear that I do not see this resolution supported by people in western Canada. That resource section is absolutely vital. I also said earlier that we have grave concerns about section 42
October 7, 1980

of the resolution. That is the part of the resolution where the federal Parliament can unilaterally hold a referendum on a constitutional matter in this country. Regardless of what a provincial legislature may do, regardless of whether or not in a provincial legislature all the parties are united in opposing a referendum, a referendum may be held and it may pass because the federal government is playing with loaded dice. They have control of the referendum question, they write the question, they determine the funds and they determine all the rules for that referendum. I find that to be highly unacceptable, as I said before the supper hour.
I also referred to the section on equalization and said that we agree in principle to equalization. But in the resolution before us today-and I wish hon. members would take a look at it-there is no reference at all to equalization payments. I find that absolutely disgusting and unacceptable. Under the formula, which only one province supported at the conference here a month ago, nine provinces argued for a different approach. I say we must change that to make sure that equalization payments are referred to and that a system such as the provinces want is included. There is a system that is talked about in here, one where the federal government can go over the heads of provincial governments and make payments directly to individuals in various provinces. That is not right and not fair and I find it very difficult to support that kind of approach.
The fourth point about which I was really concerned, and I was speaking about this in detail at five o'clock, arises in sections 20 and 23 dealing with official languages. As 1 said, in section 20 we are talking about the official languages as they pertain to the federal Parliament and to federal institutions. There is a reference here to the phrase "where numbers warrant", but it is the federal Parliament which is going to decide whether or not the numbers warrant it. But when one turns to section 23, one finds it talks about minority language educational rights and when we get to "where numbers warrant", all of a sudden there is a double standard and we see that it is not the provinces, with their control over education which will determine that, but it is the courts which will make that determination. I say this is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to have that double standard in federalism where, on the one hand, Parliament will make decisions which affect our institutions while, on the other hand, when it comes to the provinces, matters are left to the courts to decide.
1 wanted to refer very briefly to a communique which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is very fond of quoting. He quoted this communique last Thursday evening in the televised address to the people of this country. It is a February, 1978, communique from the premiers who met in Montreal when they spoke about language rights in education. They said:
The premiers reaffirm their intention to make their best efforts to provide education to their English or French-speaking minorities, and in order to ensure appropriate levels of services, they also agree that the following principles should govern the availability of, as well as accessibility to, such services;
(i) each child of the French-speaking or English-speaking minority is entitled
to an education in his or her language in the primary or the secondary schools
in each province wherever numbers warrant
The Constitution
That is what the Prime Minister refers to when he talks about all the premiers agreeing to this. But what he does not say is what is contained in the second part of the communique, which 1 think is very important. It reads:
(ii) It is understood, due to exclusive jurisdiction of provincial governments in
the field of education, and due also to wide cultural and demographic
differences, that the implementation of the foregoing principle-
-which is "where numbers warrant"

-would be as defined by each province.
There is a very important difference here and I suggest to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) that he accept that principle because there are demographic differences in this country from one province to the other. Education is under the exclusive authority of the provincial governments, and if we are going to have Parliament define "where numbers warrant" in the case of federal bilingualism, we should make sure the same rights reside with the provincial legislatures, that they define where numbers warrant.
Some hon. Members; Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have a number of concerns about the resolution before us. I suppose I am airing those concerns as a warning to the government. A lot has been written about the fact that the government has widespread support among its people for what it is doing. But within that support I detect a great deal of apprehension about a number of things in the resolution. I detect a great deal of apprehension in western Canada, Quebec, Newfoundland and among the original peoples of this country, just to name a few. Because those apprehensions are there, I have made four or five points today-a number of further points will be made by my colleagues later.
I mentioned original peoples and offshore resources. Those apprehensions are there because of the process which occurred over the summer and the fact that the government failed to widen the negotiating process as was suggested by my leader and the leader of the Conservative party last June. Also, the apprehension is there because of the advertising campaign launched by the government at a cost of $6 million over the course of the summer. Also it is there because the budget of the unity information office has been increased from $9 million or $10 million to around $33 million. We wonder what is to come.
In conclusion I should like to make one more suggestion to the government. It was contained in a resolution passed by my party on September 7. It was supported by my leader, my caucus and the national council of the party. It was a bit of advice for the government concerning future constitutional negotiations which we hope will be ongoing. I should like to read part of the resolution. After the September 8 to September 12 conference we recommended the following:
-that a new round of deliberations be started almost immediately and that the conference participants include multiparty delegations selected by Parliament and each of the provincial legislatures-

October 7, 1980
The Constitution
in addition, that the original peoples be given the right to direct representation and vote in the deliberations;
in addition, that multiparty delegations from the territories be given the right to direct representation and vote in the deliberations;
in addition, a delegation of women's organizations be given the right to direct representation and vote in the deliberations;
that a series of regional meetings be held by this group across Canada.
In effect this would bring the discussion on the constitution closer to the people of Canada. It is important to learn a few lessons from what has happened and to widen the negotiating process to include the government and the opposition here, the governments and the opposition parties of all legislatures, the legislatures of the two territories, the original peoples and women's organizations. In my opinion the constitution belongs to more than just 11 men. All the heads of government in this country happen to be men, and I am not sure that all the views of Canada with its divergent regions and people can be properly reflected in the process that has gone on until now.
I suggest to the government that we should broaden the process and that the process should be started as soon as possible. We should consider making serious changes to the resolution before us. We should dig out the repugnant section on the direct referendum to be organized solely and exclusively by the government. It strikes at the very essence of federalism. It can take away by referendum what has been given in a charter of rights in a time of emotional concern. We should entrench the philosophy of equalization payments so that there may be genuine equality of condition across the country. We should not have a double standard when it comes to federalism.
Sections 20 and 23 refer to the official languages, which is a very sensitive issue. If it is good enough for Parliament for us to define "where numbers warrant" concerning our institutions, programs and things we do, then surely in the name of equity, co-operative federalism and fairness, it is for the provinces to define "where numbers warrant" when it comes to education in minority languages rather than leaving it to the courts.
Finally changes are absolutely necessary in the area of resources so that there may be access to indirect taxation, concurrent powers with the provinces in international and interprovincial trade with federal paramountcy because it is international and interprovincial. There must be a clarification of resource ownership. 1 appeal to the government to seek such a consensus, to listen to all members of Parliament and indeed to some of its own backbenchers, some of whom are not happy at all with a number of matters in the resolution before us. I appeal to the government to listen to the people of Canada, the various provincial political parties both government and opposition from one coast to the other. If the government does this, perhaps it will be a very historic beginning, the beginning of a new Canada, not the end, or something which will turn out to be a very tragic nightmare.
I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) running out. I hope he heeds our words and makes some very serious changes to this resolution. If he does I assure him all Canada will applaud.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to follow such a distinguished member of the House as the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), particularly after the remarks he made in closing when he indicated how important he thought it was to the country and its people that this Parliament be the focal point for this debate.
There is a certain moment in each decade and generation when events begin to converge and Parliament becomes the centre of the nation. In the past many commentators have assessed that Parliament is no longer the power it once was, that it is the executive, the cabinet, which is the centre of influence. Some have even suggested that there is a new level of government in Canada called the federal-provincial conference which makes the real decisions about how we are to be governed. I believe this debate once again shows how relevant and valuable an institution Parliament is. I for one am very glad that the debate has finally come to its proper home. The debate about the constitutional laws of this country is now outside the arena of the federal-provincial conference and in an arena where the full range of opinions and views in all regions can be heard, expressed, debated and discussed.
In the end, this is the place where the choice should be made. It should not be made around a table by 11 people who, though they represent regions, do not in any way represent the full range of opinions and views withtin those regions. As one of the western members on the government benches, I think it is very important that I express this other point of view which 1, together with hundreds of thousands of western Canadians believe, was not expressed at the federal-provincial conference last September.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: No one representing the provinces around that table whether it was Mr. Lougheed, Mr. Blakeney, Mr. Lyon or Mr. Bennett, spoke for the kind of political traditions and concerns which many of us from the west feel. I am not saying there are not others in this House who would not agree with the Lougheeds, the Bennetts and the Lyons, because we have already heard from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) that he is basically taking the position of the provincial premiers. He spoke at great length about the Trojan horse. Well, Mr. Speaker, he is a horse of another colour. He is a stalking horse for the provincial premiers and he is simply representing their point of view once again, which is legitimate enough, there is no problem with that. It does mean we should be very careful and very cautious that we do not assume it is the only point of view which is being heard or expressed in the west, because there are many westerners who believe there is a need for a strong central government, that there is a need for a bill of rights, there is a need for repatriating the constitution, and they want action now. That was not a voice which was being heard at the conference or has yet been heard by members of the Conservative party in this House. In fact, what has really been heard is more the Cassandra-like wails of
October 7, 1980

woe-betide-the-country, that this will devour the nation, that this will be the downfall of Canadian democracy. There are times, listening to the Leader of the Opposition, when I am reminded of the character in the Woody Allen movie who said: "We stand at the crossroads; on the one hand there is total extinction and on the other utter annihilation." Not much of a choice. The danger we have to be fearful of here is not this resolution. The real danger we have to watch out for is the fearmongers in this country who are attempting to use this resolution and this initiative as a way of raising fears and alarms throughout Canada and creating their own divisiveness with those tactics alone. A concern to our caucus and a concern to us in the west is that somehow the rest of Canadians will take as the representatives of the west those provincial premiers who have their own objectives, legitimate as they may be, for fighting for their own continuation in the power game they have been playing for decades. We should not assume that this is the full range of points of view coming from my region of the country because they do not speak for the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) or for many of the members in the New Democratic Party. Yet that was the only point of view being heard at the conference and that is why it is critical at this time, in this Parliament, that we have the opportunity to hear from people with all ranges of points of view.
It is important to dispel some of the myths which have been perpetrated about what this resolution really means. The first was the one that was parlayed in this House last night and is being heard across the land. Mr. Lougheed talks of total war and the Leader of the Opposition was expressing that this was the final moment, this was the Armageddon, that he was concerned that somehow the country was going to break into pieces, that somehow the federal government, with this resolution, is involved in some dark conspiracy to fundamentally change the framework of Canada. It is like the Lyon approach which says that we are on the slippery slide of republicanism. The fact of the matter is we have to look at what the resolution is really all about, what are the elements of this grand conspiracy about which Mr. Lyon, the Leader of the Opposition and others are beating the drums of fear across the nation. Well, we are talking about bringing the constitution back to Canada. That is really a radical and extreme measure-that the country wants to have its own constitution. Now, isn't that an awful thing to consider, Mr. Speaker, that we may want the power to amend our own constitution? But then they say: Look, how you are going to amend it; you are going to have a referendum. That is how section 42 has somehow been raised as the great bogeyman of this constitutional debate. They somehow found something in the resolution that expresses in some way the deep, dark conspiracy of the Liberal party to destroy Canada in section 42. What was it really all about, Mr. Speaker? It simply said that somehow we are denying the rights of the provinces. Well, then, they haven't read section 42 very carefully. What we have said in this resolution is that
The Constitution
the provinces have a full and equal chance to present a new amending formula-


Harvie Andre: What about section 42?


Lloyd Axworthy: -and we can negotiate that. And if they don't like that, they can have the Victoria formula. The provinces have full and equal rights, Mr. Speaker. Then, we say if they cannot agree to that, we must go to a referendum. So they are saying they don't trust us. But, after all, section 42 requires a debate in this House. Well, what we are saying is that obviously the members of the Conservative party are expressing a deep mistrust of the procedures and processes of Parliament itself. This is an unusual thought for me because I have always believed they were the guardians and defenders of the parliamentary system. I have heard them defend this. They don't want a bill of rights because they have said they can depend on Parliament, but when it comes to the Magna Carta they cannot depend upon Parliament. They cannot have it both ways. Either you believe in Parliament or you do not believe in Parliament. You cannot believe in Parliament on the question of amendment but not believe it on the bill of rights. So they should get their act straight and decide whether they do believe in Parliament and on what issues.


Harvie Andre: We don't believe in a dictatorship!


Lloyd Axworthy: That is part of the other conspiracy. Somehow they have refined the art of character assassination, somehow this is a deep, evil plot by the Prime Minister of this country, something he has been hatching over the years-


Harvie Andre: That is it.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is the myth. That is the great Tory lie in this country. That is the great Tory mythology which they have spread up and down this country. Why? Because they cannot use logic, they cannot use reason, they cannot use rationality. So what do they use? They use personality assassination. That is the nature of their attack. It is an interesting comment, you can always tell when the other side does not have an argument because that is when they start picking on people. It goes right back to schoolyard politics and battles. If you really do not have a basis of reason and rationality, what do you do? You pick on the person. We have found out that this art has been developed to a fine form by members over there, because they do not have much reason, much rationality or logic in their position.
Thus we hear the Premier of Manitoba and other members from the opposition saying that a bill of rights is unCanadian, that a bill of rights is really going to destroy the fundamental traditions of our country, that we should adhere to the British system of common law. 1 am sure hon. members would be interested in the September 22 copy of the Manchester Guardian I have here. It says Lord Hailsham and Sir Keith Joseph and all the members of the Margaret Thatcher government are doing two things: one, they are considering a new charter of rights for the British Parliament and, two, they have just ratified the European Convention of Human Rights. I

October 7, 1980
The Constitution
have known that Margaret Thatcher and her government have been held up as paragons of excellence by members opposite. I would suggest they read what their counterparts in Great Britain are talking about. Why? Because even the Thatcher government recognizes and understands that when the country becomes complex and pluralistic there must be some fundamental set of rights as a standard by which people can determine what their guarantees and protections are.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: They say the bill of rights is something which is foreign to our traditions because we are afraid of the courts; we cannot go to the courts. They say we should depend on the legislatures.


An hon. Member:: They are unreliable.


Lloyd Axworthy: Maybe they are unreliable but we use them every day. What about the Bliss case, the Lavallee case and the Drybones case, all the cases being judged by our courts every single day dealing with questions of human rights? The weakness in their argument is that there is not a bill of rights upon which the courts can properly decide. The Canadian Bill of Rights which was passed in this House in the early sixties is not strong enough and the Supreme Court decisions have said that they need further guidance from this Parliament on the constitution in order to establish a common standard of rights across Canada. That is why we do need a bill of rights-not only to make sure there is an evenness and equality in those opportunities and rights, but it is also needed to set directions for the courts in the decisions they are making every single day dealing with matters of human rights in this country. There is nothing untraditional or uncommon about the courts dealing in these matters.
Then we come to the argument that I have heard Mr. Lyon use. He says we should trust the legislatures, trust the legislature of Manitoba. But I ask you, Mr. Speaker, did George Forrest trust the legislature of Manitoba to get his rights as a French-speaking Manitoban guaranteed? No. He had to go to traffic court to get his rights guaranteed. 1 was a member of that legislature for several years and I was there when a resolution was initiated by our party, and rejected by the other parties, trying to establish some basic fundamental rights.
The legislature of Manitoba spoke so well to the issue of linguistic rights in that province, that Mr. Forrest had to go to a traffic court to have his rights protected because our legislature was not prepared to deal with these rights.


Harvie Andre: How about Peter Treu's treatment by your party?


Lloyd Axworthy: The large voice from the other side, he has the point-that you do not trust any party or any majority. That is why we need the entrenchment of a charter of rights which cannot be touched by the ephemeral decisions of a
majority. It does not matter what party is in power in which legislature. This is why we need a fundamental charter.


Harvie Andre: Why a referendum if the majority of decisions are ephemeral? Be logical. You can't have it both ways.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is exactly what we said, but the member from Calgary, according to his past history, wants it all ways and usually gets it that way too.


Harvie Andre: If you are going to lecture about logic, I suggest you listen to your own rhetoric.


Lloyd Axworthy: There are many people in western Canada who feel, because we are the most multicultural society and the most pluralistic region in the country, that it is absolutely essential that we have a bill of rights. This fact has not been expressed by western members or western premiers. In fact there is an increase in discrimination against the new ethnic groups moving into the west. In a recent study by a social scientist from Alberta, of all places, it was shown that discrimination was on the increase during the 1970s and that ethnic groups themselves are far more concerned about such fundamental protection, protection which they want.
So there are many people in the west who want a bill of rights. There are many people in western Canada who feel it is important that it be entrenched in the constitution. They do not buy the great conspiracy theory which says that somehow it is all unparliamentary or unCanadian to include such a charter of rights in our constitution. In fact they feel it is the best way of enhancing our fundamental freedoms, rights and liberties, and they are prepared when the chips come down to back us on this particular issue.
Let us deal with another one of the great myths about which I have heard the provincial premiers and their spokesmen in this House, the Leader of the Opposition, talk, that somehow this is all a federal plot to pick on those poor, weak, defenceless provinces of the west, those poor provinces which are struggling to survive. That just does not conform to reality because the fact of the matter is that for the last ten or 15 years of this confederation powers have been devolving rapidly to the provinces and the fact of the matter is that the provinces have by far the largest expenditures from the public purse. They make close to 50 per cent of the public expenditures in this country, 15 per cent more than what is spent by the federal government. If those trends continue, the ratio will be 75/25 in ten years' time.
The provinces are not defenceless and weak, but in fact are very powerful. At the present moment, our federation is probably the weakest and most decentralized of any federal system in the world. The reality we must face is that if we intend to manage and deal with the conditions and issues we must face in this decade, then we need a far more effective central government to provide that effective management and growth.
The fact of the matter is these powerful provincial premiers do not want change. Of course they do not want change. They want the status quo, because they have the chips on their side.
October 7, 1980

Why would they deal away a winning hand. What we are talking about, of course, is a power play or a power game being played by the provincial premiers and, of course, they will stand up on their hind legs and rear because they do not want to share any of their powers. It is far more important to them in their political mandates to amass more power and more influence. The question arises, though, whether this is good for the country. Is this really what is necessary at the present time having regard to the problems and conditions that we will face in this decade?
I am here as a western Canadian saying, "No, it is not what we need". If we allow devolution to continue and decentralization to take place, then we as western Canadians will have given away one of the great opportunities in this country to help our region grow. The fundamental assumption which is being made by members of both the Conservative party and the New Democratic Party is that it is only the provinces which can manage this new growth in western Canada, that it is only the provinces and provincial jurisdictions which should be the managers of the new wealth.


Arnold John Malone: Who said that?


Lloyd Axworthy: You have all been saying that.


Arnold John Malone: Name one person.


Lloyd Axworthy: I do not have time to name all of you. The fact is that we did offer concessions to the provinces. This seems to have been conveniently forgotten among the hysteria and exaggeration implying that somehow there is a Liberal conspiracy to destroy the provinces. I saw the list of concessions which was assembled for the constitutional conference. We were prepared to share the powers of taxation with the provinces on resources. We were prepared to share interprovincial trade and powers over communications and fisheries. Where was the conspiracy against the provinces in those concessions?
However, Mr. Speaker, if one looks at the other side of the ledger at what those generous, open-hearted visionary provinces were offering, it adds up to one big goose egg. They were playing the game of "heads 1 win, tails you lose". It was a classic no-bargain, no-win game. The federal government would have betrayed its fundamental mandate if we had even listened to that kind of blackmail. We went into those conferences with all the right intentions to bargain and to share and to deal with the provinces, but we did not get anything in return.
What we must really examine at this point, because I believe it is important to the debate, is really what kind of federal state is necessary to take advantage and develop the new-found opportunities of western Canada. There has been historically and is a strong and abiding role for the federal government, but this has been conveniently forgotten by hon. members opposite. When the prairies were in trouble during the depression, it was the federal government which moved in with the wheat board, the PFRA and other kinds of grain acts. It was the federal government which used its declaratory
The Constitution
powers to bring in the Wheat Board in order to protect the western farmer. Those are the very powers we are being asked to give away at the present time.
It embarrasses me at times to hear the kind of expressions which come from certain western politicians, including the premier of my province, who has no business saying what he says because we are a have-not province. We need equalization, not him saying, "Now that we have ours, we are going to keep it". Suddenly equalization, which was one of the basic touchstones for western Canada for many years, can be conveniently forgotten because we have discovered a big pool of oil and gas below our soil.
This kind of spirit in western Canada is not the kind of traditional spirit of which I feel a part. It may be the tradition which has been there historically, a kind of New Englander approach-how to shrink your horizons, in your dimensions and draw yourself into a fetal position for utmost protection. That is not the only point of view that is being heard in the west. There are many westerners who say they would like to share and the only vehicle and mechanism for that sharing is the federal government. That sharing must be in our interest as westerners as well as in the interests of the entire country.
In the next decade we will go through an amazing growth in the west. We will be putting billions of dollars into railroads, water systems, research and development and industrialization. By their nature there must be some degree of crossregional management in these areas.


Mr. Lambert:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: I hear a harrumph from the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I am glad he has finally come awake in this debate. The fact is we must recognize the realities, not dreams and fantasies. Let me use an example from my own department.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You would not dare make that speech in Winnipeg.


Lloyd Axworthy: I have made that speech in Winnipeg five times in the past two weeks. I am going to the hon. member's province on Thursday to make it again, and he is invited to come. In fact, I will be glad to accept an invitation from the hon. member to speak at his next riding association meeting. They might find it educational.
Let us look at one dimension that concerns my ministerial responsibilities, namely, the enormous movement of people, both within and outside the region in western Canada. We are talking about the need to develop 30,000 or 40,000 skilled jobs per year for western Canada. We are talking about training hundreds of thousands of people over the next decade to do the work that is necessary to ensure the growth of the west. We are talking about trying to make sure that this enormous employment opportunity is available to the native people of western Canada and to women in this country. We are talking about using the enormous growth potential that exists.
3360

October 7, 1980
The Constitution
When I start negotiating how to provide these skills and this training I find, increasingly, provincial barriers to the movement of labour or certification laws which provide that people cannot work in a certain place because they do not have a white piece of paper-their paper is not the right colour. When we try to sign training agreements with industries in western Canada, right away the provincial governments say we cannot have training agreements with their industries. When we talk about introducing affirmative action programs to make sure there is equal opportunity for native people, the provincial governments tell us they do not believe in affirmative action. They claim there is no inequality in their provinces and they do not have affirmative actions, and therefore the agreement cannot be signed.
Our capacity and ability to provide some degree of management of the human resources which are absolutely essential for the development of the west, are being hindered and handicapped by the increasing growth of provincial barriers to the mobility and movement of people. They are being hindered and handicapped by the increasing number of labour laws and provincial human rights codes which prevent federal activity providing those skills and opportunities. We cannot build the west with those kinds of barriers, Mr. Speaker. We cannot fulfil our destiny unless there is some jurisdiction that provides comprehensive management. The people must come from somewhere. They cannot come from under the ground like the oil and gas. They must come from other parts of Canada or from offshore and someone has to manage that movement. That is one of the great tasks of our time.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: The hon. member opposite does not have to believe that. He can stay on his couch. He can hide his head in the sand, that is his prerogative, but it happens to be the reality about the new western fact that there is going to be a tremendous movement of people which somehow must be managed with some degree of care and concern. The federal government is doing it right now because the provinces are not prepared to or are not in a position to.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Let us now talk about resource management-all right, we will cut off all the grants in your provinces and see how much they are going to react in Ottawa! If you think it is a big handicap, we will see. We will call your bluff on that one.
Let us talk about resource management. We hear a great deal about the provincial premiers and how they want to make sure they can manage the oil and gas and the coal and the electricity. What we do not hear about them is how they are going to manage the forests or the farms in those areas. It is a fact that the condition of the soil in the west is deteriorating every year and that there is no reforestation being done in western Canada. Those resources are under provincial management and lie within their jurisdiction. Somehow they have forgotten about resource management. Why? Because there are not as many bucks in those areas as there are in others. What is happening now is that every day coal is being mined. The Minister of DREE and the minister responsible for forestry have applications on their desks asking them to look after the fisheries or the forests or the farms. When they get into trouble they know where the first hand is out-it is the provincial hand out for the federal purse.
That is the way federalism should work, Mr. Speaker. We must recognize, however, that in order to provide that kind of management and control, we need to share in some of the revenues from those resources. We simply cannot be drawing purely upon a tax base which is static and that is a part of what the debate is about. That is why we have to work at changing the rules and why we have to ensure that there is at least an equal sharing of powers over the resources of this country. There is no ambition whatsoever to intervene in existing powers over resources. There is not a line in the resolution that says we are going to take resource powers away from the provinces.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) made a revelation on Monday. We were very pleased with his constructive comments but he said we forgot the whole question of the provision of powers over resources. We did not forget it, Mr. Speaker; we altered it. We altered it at the conference. It was not forgotten; it was there on the table for the provinces to pick up. They did not pick it up, however, Mr. Speaker. We offered to provide some of our share.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: The hon. member should have opened up earlier. We feel that the issue on the division of powers should still be discussed and debated and negotiated.
There is no point getting into that debate, however, until we have in this Parliament and in our own hands the ability to make changes to our constitution. The history of constitutional change in Canada has been that every time we reach a consensus or agreement and are ready to make a change, we do not have the lever because it is in England. By the time we figure out how to get it, the consensus has changed.


Mr. Kempling:: Go back and read history.


Lloyd Axworthy: We also consider a debate on resources to be an important debate, it is something that should be looked at as part of constitutional change. It is a critical item in terms of where we go in this country and it is something we have to put in place in this constitution. But other things must come first. We must obtain the power to make the amendments in our own constitution so that when some of those provincial governments change-as the government of Manitoba will change next year and the government of British Columbia the year after and several others-we may get a more progressive point of view from those provinces, allowing us to get back into serious, sharing negotiations. Then we can bring about the
October 7, 1980

changes we need because we will have the power in Canada to make those changes when we need them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) on a point of order.


Mr. Roche:: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member had finished his peroration. I wanted to ask him a question.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very pleased indeed to answer the hon. member's question.
I think we have seen that a number of myths have been perpetrated and a number of fantasies have been spread around this House and other places about what the west really wants. I think it is time we dispelled those myths and realized there is just as much a commitment among western Canadians to the position stated in this resolution as there is in other regions of Canada.
Evidence of this is supplied to me daily from western Canada. Just this week someone told me he did not realize how much of a federalist he was until he heard the premiers speak. Westerners are really saying that they are prepared to make the federalist choice-to make a choice in terms of what they see as a necessity for their own region to develop through strong, effective, central government and to use that strong, effective, central government to provide some degree of sharing of its resources and its opportunities with other Canadians.
There are also westerners who have not given up on the ideal of equalization. They still believe this country is based upon the notion of equality of opportunity and they are not prepared to abandon that.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Hon. members opposite say that is not so, Mr. Speaker. 1 do not know what conference they were watching in September. If there is all the agreement with equalization and bills of rights and repatriation that hon. members opposite have indicated, why are they opposing this resolution? If there is all that agreement, then why are they opposing it? Do they have principles or do they not? Do they believe in what they say or do they not? If they say they agree with all those items, then why do we do not have the vote tonight, get the resolution passed and go to England as soon as possible? What are we waiting for, if there is this consensus and agreement? Are they simply interested in using this debate for some degree of political posturing?
I suspect there is no problem of unity in Canada, Mr. Speaker. But there is a problem of unity in the Tory caucus. They do not know what they believe in and they do not know where they belong, because there is no agreement among members of that caucus. Their only tactic is to attack. Let them state what they believe in. I would be very interested in hearing them. What kind of constitution do they want? They have been very good at saying what they are against, but what are they for?
The Constitution
There is a line in the play "The Rainmaker". When the evangelical preacher is on his feet holding forth, someone tells him he is so busy being right, he forgets what is good. 1 suggest that hon. members opposite are so busy being right that they forget what is good for this country.
Finally, it comes down to the fact that this is not a debate between the federal government and the provincial governments. Governments are simply a means to an end. They are simply mechanisms for achieving goals and values for people. They are simply a way of trying to provide basic values for what we want to achieve in this country. Rather than degrading this debate into a great federal-provincial clash, what we should be talking about is what it means for the individuals of this country. What does it mean for people in this country? What will this resolution do for women who have been denied their rights for many, many years in this country? How will the entrenchment of a bill of rights make sure that when they go to court to get equality or when they try to get a proper definition of their rights before the courts they will have some protection under the law?
What does it mean for individuals in this country who want to make sure they can work wherever they live, because they are Canadian, and are not disbarred from working simply because they do not happen to be an inhabitant of one province or another. There are many people who want to see in our constitution not some abstract piece of theory, not something politicians just talk about, but the real nuts and bolts of their daily lives. It means restructuring our foundations so that we will have the powers to begin to provide for the effective management and growth of our economy.
There was an interesting sort of trio who all agreed that the federal government at the present time does not have enough power nor does it have the levers required to do the job it has to do, namely, the economic council, Joe Clark and Jacques Parizeau. None of those can be considered to be a Liberal adherent, from what 1 can tell, yet they all agreed the federal government at this point does not have the ability to govern and manage in the way it should. I agree with those statements and that is why we need to go back to some fundamentals as to how we change our constitution. 1 think, Mr. Speaker, we should ask that question about what kind of government can best serve the demands and needs and necessities of Canadians over the next several decades and get away from the picayune technicalities, which we can deal with in committee, and come back to some fundamental questions on the principles of constitutional change. If we can do so, I think this Parliament will have served very well its purpose of helping this country to make a choice about how it is going to govern itself in the future, and how it will provide a framework of government to give it the ability to be the kind of country we all want it to be.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question. He built his case on the need for an entrenchment of a charter of rights around the report of what he called an Alberta social scientist who produced a study showing that

October 7, 1980
The Constitution
western ethnic minorities are clamouring for a charter of rights for their protection. First, I want to ask the minister what is the name of that Alberta social scientist? What is the evidence adduced that minorities in western Canada feel they need this charter of rights for their protection? Second, does the minister recognize that the reason for the growth of alienation in western Canada, growing into such organizations as the western federation, is precisely because of the intransigence and unilateralism of the federal government, as shown precisely in this resolution?


An hon. Member:: That is a speech.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be very glad to provide the hon. member or any other member, with a copy of the article which appeared in a journal called "Race" about two years ago.
As for the hon. member's second question, I think his assumptions are somewhat specious. I think the reasons many of the ethnic groups feel the need for a bill of rights is because they feel discriminated against. That discrimination can be solved by the bill of rights we are proposing.


Mr. Mayer:: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure the minister who has just finished speaking would not want to deliberately leave the House, and although he is from Winnipeg and the Wheat Board is centred there, I am sure if he does some research and checks into it he will find that the Wheat Board was not set up as a result of the federal government using declaratory powers.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister a very straightforward question.


David Michael Collenette: Go into committee and ask these questions.


Douglas Roche: He used the phrase "Alberta social scientist." He built his argument around it. I am simply asking him the name of the Alberta social scientist.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. As the hon. member will recognize, the practice on occasion of asking questions at the end of another member's speech is tolerated, if 1 can put it that way. It is, of course, done at the option of the hon. member, in this case the minister, who has the floor. Normally the Chair will allow a question once, perhaps twice. That seems to be a courtesy which is extended both to the person who had the floor and the questioner. But I think the point has been made and perhaps we might go ahead.
Is there another hon. member who is seeking the floor on a point of order?


Mr. Anguish:: Mr. Speaker, I represent The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency. I would like clarification from the minister about something which arose from a comment in a speech he just made. He mentioned that part of the commitment to western Canada would be the extent of dollars that would be spent on the railway system. I would like to bring to the minister's attention a situation that happened in our constituency-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I have just attempted to explain to hon. members that in a situation where a minister or a member is finishing his speech there are times when with the agreement of the hon. member who wants to raise a question and the agreement of a member who has been speaking, the Chair has permitted that kind of an exchange. It should also be noted that it has never been done beyond the time limit of the individual member who had the floor. I did not make that point clear earlier with respect to the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) when he rose. However, 1 must point out that in accordance with the rules of the House the time given to the minister for his speech has now expired, and it is appropriate to move on to the next hon. member who seeks the floor.
The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake on a point of order.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House. I have a question that is very pressing and urgent arising from the minister's presentation.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


An hon. Member:: Ask it in question period tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It is simply irrelevant whether the hon. member thinks his question is the most important since creation. I cannot allow it under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that this debate is of great interest and significance. I wish to contribute to the discussion and I would like to refer immediately to the previous speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), who told us about the co-operation shown by the federal government and the role that it must play within Canada. We do not object to the federal government taking part in the development of economic projects in the west and in the other provinces. There is no problem about that. However, he seemed to forget one most basic fact which is to speak about the provinces. Of course, this proposed resolution could lead to very interesting discussions about principles, rights, and so on. And in addition, there is another issue of which we are all aware, that of the patriation of the constitution. We have nothing against patriation as such except to the extent that we want to respect the federal structure and the two levels of government and that we shall never allow this government to go over the head of the provinces. This is very clear in our minds.


An hon. Member:: Speak louder.


An hon. Member:: What did you do in Quebec for 40 years?


Roch La Salle: This afternoon, I heard the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) play a very different tune since the time he signed the minority report on

October 7, 1980

the constitution seven or eight years ago. Of course, he is now a minister. He spoke for instance of his deep concern for Francophones outside Quebec, and I remember that not so long ago, this same government and this same minister refused the Federation des Francophones Hors Quebec, a mechanism which they suggested to us when we were in power. Within a few weeks, we had accepted this mechanism through which the Federation des Francophones Hors Quebec would be able to take part in the development of policies which could affect them. The present government rejected this mechanism offhandedly and still refuses to provide the federation with sufficient funds to maintain proper offices to do its own propaganda, in a manner of speaking. The minister spoke about his interest in Francophones outside Quebec, but he omitted to tell the people about this decision which goes against Francophones outside Quebec and about this delay which is unfair for these Francophones.


An hon. Member:: What have you done in Quebec? Nothing!


An hon. Member:: Where were you?


Roch La Salle: I shall tell you where I was later.


An hon. Member:: It is easy to see that winter is coming in Quebec.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, it is the first time that we hear them; let them release their frustrations. Mr. Speaker, we are certainly going to hear this evening a voice from Quebec, but it will be a very different voice from that of the Liberals on the other side. We shall hear things said by someone who speaks on behalf of thousands of Quebeckers because those hon. members opposite do not do so. Of course, we shall hear comments which I hope will also be heard by thousands of Canadians. And 1 would certainly not want, especially during this debate, to give Canadians the impression that 74 out of 75 members think the same.
Under the circumstances, 1 shall of course speak on behalf of the provincial party leaders in Quebec. Our friends opposite have not spoken about the position of Mr. Le Moignan, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Levesque. Just as was the case concerning the sales tax, the National Assembly opposes unanimously the proposed resolution.


An hon. Member:: Get yourself elected to the National Assembly!


Roch La Salle: What I have just said cannot be denied.
1 could not refer to the comments made by my friends opposite, completely subjugated as they are by a man who has an artificial vision of Canada and who tries to sell us an artificial Canada, I mean the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). From the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien)-I will come
The Constitution
back later to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin)-to all the others, they are a group of sheep hiding behind the Prime Minister about a vision that he has had in mind for years and I shall speak mostly about him because it is not the Liberal party that presented a resolution, that invented that resolution but a man determined to find an acceptable solution with the provinces.


An hon. Member:: What is the word?


Roch La Salle: And I will prove it. We have been complaining for 53 years. I was listening to Liberal members. In the last 53 years we have not succeeded in finding a solution with the provinces. Let us go back over the last 15 years when the present Prime Minister promised to amend our constitution when he came to Ottawa with two other doves that have flown to gentler climes. And 15 years later he has yet to succeed in reaching agreement with the provinces. Considering the spirit of the constitution and the fact that he almost dreamed up the present failure himself what allows him to think that he can act unilaterally?


An hon. Member:: No right!


Roch La Salle: No right, but the Prime Minister demonstrates that after 15 years of efforts his idea has failed completely and he cannot reach an agreement with the provinces. Perhaps we ought to wonder whether we should change the premiers or the Prime Minister of Canada himself.


An hon. Member:: Change the Prime Minister.


Roch La Salle: So, Mr. Speaker, I come back to that man, as I said I cannot talk about the Liberal party because they are behind him, they are subjugated by him and it is not the philosophy of the Liberal party, never has a Liberal delegation given a mandate to a prime minister on such a vision, it is his own. Ten years ago, Mr. Speaker, while bombs were blowing up here and there in Quebec, Pierre Laporte was murdered by young terrorists who considered themselves above the law and tried to force upon us their own political ideal. Today, in October, 1980, under the pretence of a quite artificial urgency, a 60-year-old Quebecker, the Prime Minister of Canada, declares himself an absolute ruler and tries to go beyond the constitution which gives us a political tradition. He hides a time bomb right in the heart of the country and gets ready to murder the Canadian federation, this marvellous achievement of the political genius of our fathers.
When the hon. member for I do not know what constituency tells me that he was not elected by 200 votes, 1, for one, was not elected on the coat-tails of the Prime Minister, for instance. You will understand that as a Canadian and as a Quebecker, I cannot agree with such an initiative. Therefore, I am prepared to keep fighting, Mr. Speaker, against this bid for power which would lead, should it succeed, to the disruption of

October 7, 1980
The Constitution
Canada and to the end of the political system which we have had since 1867.
It is not enough for this Prime Minister to have ruined the Canadian economy, Mr. Speaker, to have dangerously reduced the value of the Canadian dollar, to have piled up huge budgetary deficits and threatened our balance of payments, it is not enough for him to have brought unemployment to millions of Canadians, fuelled permanent galloping inflation and increased disparities between various regions of this country. So many disasters have not yet satisfied this monstrous egocentric.
Now, he has to set Canadians against themselves. Now, he has to undermine the very constitutional structure of this country. He has to destroy what was its strength and harmony, namely, the presence of two levels of sovereign governments in their respective jurisdictions. He also has to deny the original duality of Canadian society. He has to burden the whole country with an economic autocracy whose weight is only equalled by its administrative incompetence.
The natural tensions between regions and groups so diverse are not enough. He has to have open war with the provinces. He has to crush all those who do not dare think like him. As to the members of his party, they have been crushed for a long time. He has to challenge all those who refuse to share his dream of centralizing hegemony and level out the cultural originalities that had been up till now a source of pride for Canada, what was its strength and guaranteed its social balance. To justify the rape of the constitution and our political traditions, the Prime Minister points to the failure of the last conference of heads of government. He is the only one to say there was no progress and chances for agreement in a not too distant future are inexistent.
Most participants at the conference said they had moved much closer on several points and compromises were still possible with renewed discussions and good faith on all sides.
That feeling was also shared by most newspapers and Canadian and even foreign commentators. At the same time, politicians and observers warned the Prime Minister of Canada not to try to go ahead anyway, even on the unilateral patriation of the constitution. But the Prime Minister turned a deaf ear, even to Mr. Ryan in Quebec. He persists, in spite of the recent progress made in talking about a definitive failure, not because there is no more hope for agreement but because he and he alone, Mr. Speaker, wants to regard it as a failure.
And this he has orchestrated for his own personal reasons and because he is anxious to get out of politics, as everyone knows. The Prime Minister wittingly engineered the scenario of the last conference and he astutely manoeuvred so the apparent results would be nil, so he could feel justified in referring to such a failure to better sell to the public his unilateral patriation proposal.
There is no need to recall here the confidential memoranda prepared by officials in his office, the existence of which we learned thanks to providential leaks. Clearly the Prime Minister wanted a failure.
No doubt he would have been most unhappy had the Premiers acquiesced to his requirements, because much more so than patriation, the Prime Minister wants to receive de facto full powers to better regulate Canadian society and shape it according to his own political designs.
The September conference was not a failure, far from it. But it was described as such because that was the Prime Minister's will, to justify his autocratic control over the unfolding of Canadian life. If that is not dictatorship, words have become meaningless, Mr. Speaker.
What the Prime Minister wants to establish in Canada, and it is important that Canadians should learn about it because this they will not hear from my friends opposite, is in effect a Unitarian government, a central government with exclusive ownership over the instruments of social and economic life in this country. What the Prime Minister wants to establish before he leaves is a federal authority so powerful that provinces will be reduced to the rank of vassals merely there to carry out the will and the policies of the central body.
In his view, provinces should not derive their jurisdiction from the 1867 pact, under which a number of matters are exclusively their own. In the Prime Minister's scheme, the provinces must become mere administrative divisions responsible for punctiliously and silently implementing the policies and orders from the mandarins and the bureaucrats in Ottawa.
Such a vision of Canada I personally reject, as does my party, because it inescapably leads to the fragmentation of our confederation and the ultimate end of this country.
It stems from the Prime Minister's deep contempt for the provinces, a contempt that the present Leader of the Government showed even before he entered active politics and has kept showing for the last 13 years. Is there any need to remind anybody of the compliments he paid to Robert Bourassa when he was premier of the province of Quebec? My friends across the way do not talk about the attitude the Prime Minister of Canada had towards the Quebec premier. That would be embarrassing and I can understand that.
That is why, for instance, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, in the April, 1963, issue of Cite Libre for which he was a political commentator at the time, blamed the provinces for what he called the decay of the Canadian political philosophy. Why was that? Simply because, according to him, the central government has to take the provinces into account and make concessions to them. The fact that he wants to get rid of these structures and of the provinces is nothing new. Some people think that I am exaggerating? I will quote the exact words of
October 7, 1980

the man who was to become the prime minister of this country five years later. He said, and I quote:
The men of the 1867 constitution must have feared the paralysis that such a state of affairs inevitably leads to. Today, they would have to reconcile many more things than Upper and Lower Canada, the maritimes and the provinces that followed. As a result, to take over power in Ottawa, political parties naturally had to strive increasingly to reconcile very different regional interests, which usually meant reducing the ideological content to its bare minimum.
And Mr. Trudeau concluded, at that time, and I quote:
But what may have been overlooked is the degree of intellectual decay that process finally led us to.
So, what constitutes, in the eyes of other Canadians, the main value of the political men in this country, whether they work at the federal or provincial levels, is the faculty to compromise and adjust themselves to the political facts and situations, of Canadian life, that admirable philosophy that has enabled Canada to go through, without too much danger, the severest crisis in its history, the need to love, understand, tolerate and accept one another, and get along together, which is the main characteristic of Canadian political life, all that is not the greatest Canadian virtue; in the eyes of the present Prime Minister, all that has become an offensive vice that leads to the "decay of Canadian political thought".
Those who had a chance to watch the debates of the September conference on television were unanimous in praising and admiring the quality of the interventions of the ten provincial premiers, including that of my province. They were in a position to see that if there is any decay in the Canadian political thought, it is not at the provincial level. The decay, Mr. Speaker, is found in the Pitfield and Kirby documents, in the "bulldozer" tactics of the Minister of Justice, and in the art of expertly presenting facts in a wrong light of the Prime Minister of Canada himself.
The Prime Minister brags about having the support of his caucus, as if the latter represented the Canadian people, but 1 doubt that Canadians, especially Canadian Liberals, see themselves in the people the voters sent to sit in Parliament. For all practical purposes, the Liberal caucus actually represents only two provinces: Quebec, with more than half the caucus members, and Ontario, which provides the other half, more or less. The Atlantic provinces are poorly represented and the west is totally missing, except for two members. In these circumstances, how can the Prime Minister emphasize the representativeness of the Canadian nation rather than that of the Liberal caucus? One would not argue if the Prime Minister had received a clear mandate from delegates representing the whole of his party in a policy convention. But he never had such a mandate, even at the last election, because he deliberately and knowingly kept silent on the matter of constitutional reform, arguing that the provinces were fed up with this subject matter which, one has to admit, had become the pet project of the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.
But in fact, is the Liberal party worth more than its caucus? On this point, let us refer to the statement made by the Prime
The Constitution
Minister himself in the article published in the April, 1963, issue of Cite Libre. 1 apologize to my friends from the other side if 1 go back to Cite Libre. However, the Prime Minister-


An hon. Member:: It is not a shared feeling!


Roch La Salle: It is.
I referred a moment ago to an article published in Cite Libre. In fact, knowing how ambitious the government head is, one cannot help but wonder whether it is not precisely what he calls the decay of the political thinking within the Liberal Party which has drawn him into this formation, thus repudiating his past links.
For that matter, did he not confess it publicly by running under the Liberal banner in 1965? Isn't it well known that despairing ever to see the New Democratic Party take power he needed a more flexible tool to realize his plans and that this tool, always available to autocrats, he would have found in the Liberal party? In spite of the deep contempt that he feels toward his own party, isn't it precisely that proverbial spinelessness of its members which prompted him to run for the leadership?
Let us read again, Mr. Speaker, excerpts from Cite Libre, a text of 1963, 17 years old but which still conveys a vivid sense of present-day reality, it said, and I quote:
"Since I have been watching politics, I do not recall having witnessed a more degrading spectacle than that of all these Liberals who have acted as turncoats along with their boss."
Also, criticizing what he calls-
-the autocratism of the Liberal structures and the extraordinary cowardice of its members-
-The present Prime Minister, but back in those days, with Cite Libre, he would add, and I quote:
The philosophy of the Liberal party is quite simple-
-That is interesting, Mr. Speaker.
Just say anything, think about anything; or even better, do not think at all; but get yourself into power because we arc those who can best govern you-
-and Mr. Trudeau to conclude:
Suckers, all of them.
He wrote that. Say anything, this is what the Prime Minister of Canada has just done in his most recent statement to the Canadian people when he stated that the repatriation is urgent because of the commitments which were made to Quebeckers during the May 22 referendum.


An hon. Member:: You were not there on May 22.


Roch La Salle: No, Mr. Speaker. I was not there on May 22. Those who worried about the fact that I did not take part in the referendum will understand today-


An hon. Member:: You have never been there for Quebec.

October 7, 1980
The Constitution


Roch La Salle: -will understand, Mr. Speaker, what I felt in the slogan which was launched by the Prime Minister, since it was nothing but a slogan. 1 had the opportunity to say that I did not want to take a position publicly during the referendum when I recognized that I voted against Mr. Levesque's proposal but that I could not defend the slogan presented by Mr. Trudeau to Quebeckers because 1 already felt the perfidy and the hypocrisy in his renewed federalism. And I was right. And I shall read later what Mr. Ryan said. He too regrets to have been taken in by the proposal made by the Prime Minister of Canada and by his accomplices, his sheep, who followed him without protesting. What dissatisfaction among the partisans of the No-side today!


An hon. Member:: And your people in Joliette?


Roch La Salle: What dissatisfaction among the partisans of the No-side. Do not concern yourself with the people in Joliette.
Of the deterioration of the political ideology and the absolute lack of principles within the Liberal party which were denounced in 1963 by the present Prime Minister and described by him as the "raddled face of power", we have had a clear illustration these past few days.
1 am coming now to the constitutional apostasy of the Minister of Transport, which has demonstrated the slavish partisanship which the present leader of the Liberal party denounced 17 years ago. The fact that to keep his position within the cabinet the Minister of Transport has deemed it advisable to repudiate now the spirit and the letter of the Pepin-Robarts report is certainly one of the most despicable events in Canadian history. When we consider this decision by one of the co-chairmen of the Task Force on Canadian Unity to repudiate so lightly his own report, we feel both sad and angry because there is not a single person on the Liberal side who can still grow incensed at the unspeakable machination masterminded by the leader of the party.
The man who once proclaimed the sovereignty of both the federal and provincial governments over their respective areas of jurisdiction-1 am still referring to the Minister of Transport-who claimed that an equilibrium and a consensus between the two levels of government were necessary for the survival of Canada, has come to adhere to the thesis that the provinces are only the subordinates of the central government.
"The thesis of the Prime Minister on the paramountcy of the federal government can be established and easily defended" the Minister of Transport dares tell us now, thereby rejecting the judgement he himself had passed as co-chairman of the royal commission. Canadian history is not devoid of vile actions but 1 do not know of a great many that are more degrading than that one, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the pure and simple violation of provincial jurisdiction in the field
of education under the pretence of entrenching language rights in the constitution. The Minister of Transport subscribes to this view with an eagerness that his fellow members of the Pepin-Robarts commission will have no ground for being proud of. The pseudo intellectual gimmicks of the minister will not fool anyone. The minister has kept his power but he has forsaken honour. His credibility has been reduced to nothing, but his servile attitude will probably not carry him very far in the realm of politics. I suspect that the minister will eventually experience the fate his leader had in store for John Turner, for instance, precisely the man who represented his riding of Ottawa-Carleton. Yet, unlike John Turner, he will not find anybody to regret his departure except those who will feel pity and shame for him.
And I turn again to the Prime Minister, to the man who, the day after the Victoria conference, stated that he no longer wanted to hear about the constitution and that it was more urgent to find some remedy to the mounting economic problems that Canada faced. This same man is today making an impassionate plea for patriation, which everyone wants, no doubt, but which no one finds so pressing as to have priority over the other ills of our Canadian society.
That is another strategy of this government, to bring Canadians to discuss constitutional amendments in order to hide the real problems while Parliament and Canadians have no budget and while there is a pressing and vital need for economic direction. During the next two months the Prime Minister will try to make the media concentrate on constitutional reform because he is ashamed and does not have the courage to table his economic proposals but especially because he has none that would please Canadians. This is the kind of strategy which will not fool Canadians as far as this government's attitudes are concerned, and everybody subscribed to them. The constitution will not put bread and butter on the tables of the unemployed this winter.


An hon. Member:: It is about time you started to think about it.


Roch La Salle: That is not scandalous. It is high time the hon. member thought about it. A government member criticized us for having waited seven months before presenting a budget, and the Liberals have now been waiting for nine months. I forgive them, Mr. Speaker, because they do not know any better.
Here again we are witnessing well known Liberal tactics, that of twisting facts and misrepresentation. All those who followed the progress of the referendum campaign in the country, whether they belonged to the Yes or the No committee, know that the May 20 vote was about one precise question: the mandate of the Levesque government to propose a system of political sovereignty coupled with economic association with the rest of Canada. The question never dealt with any other project. Quebeckers said no to sovereignty, because
October 7, 1980

they were promised a thorough constitutional reform, the nature and extent of which the No forces did not even consult or ever agree. That is something the Prime Minister knows very well. To say otherwise is to make a statement that the Standing Orders do not allow one to qualify by the only right term.
Indeed, putting his head on the block the Prime Minister promised to amend the constitution but he knows full well that for Quebeckers this reform was in fact a new distribution of powers. If Quebeckers had been told by the Prime Minister that this reform would be limited to unilateral patriation of the constitution, including a bill of fundamental and linguistic rights entrenched in it and that it would only be a way for the federal government to grab the rest of powers and of economic liberties of the provinces, I do not hesitate to say that Quebeckers would have massively rejected such arguments. Most likely, under those circumstances the Yes-side would have won. The No supporters would have dissociated themselves from the Prime Minister of Canada and I do not think I am wrong when I say that Claude Ryan would have dissociated himself from the position of the federal Liberal leader. It is important that Canadians know that the provincial Liberals do not approve the methods used by the Prime Minister of Canada. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read two paragraphs from Mr. Ryan. Of course, like us, he dreams about great principles which would be respected throughout Canada, he dreams about an ideal situation as concerns justice and many other things. Of course, this is what Mr. Ryan wishes. We wish the same thing, but we want to respect our present structure. If a change is needed, we must consult the provinces. Mr. Ryan says and I quote:
What I fear personally because of the way things have been going is that we might be led gradually to profound changes in the very nature of the federal structure which governs us.
The man speaking is not a Tory! He is not a separatist!
Until now, the federal structure has been based on the principle of the equality of both levels of government-
Is this clear, my Liberal friends on the other side?
There was no question of subordinating one level of government to the other or of giving one level priority over the other. The method advanced in the federal proposal, asserts the supremacy of the federal government over the provinces.
This is a new political principle which, in my opinion, opens a completely new page in the history of constitutional law and political evolution in Canada. We maintain-
-says Mr. Ryan, still on behalf of the Liberal party-
-that the constitution is the common property and the responsibility of the two levels of government. If we want to bring about major changes which would affect the constitution, these changes must be made with the agreement of both levels of government. Neither one of them can claim the privilege or the right to act alone in these matters which could affect federal relations.
And he adds something interesting about trying to evaluate the referendum in Quebec.
The Constitution


An hon. Member:: Do not speak about the referendum; you know nothing about it!


Roch La Salle: And when I hear, says Mr. Ryan-Can someone tell me the name of the idiot who speaks louder than anyone else? And when I hear, says Mr. Ryan, and 1 quote, Mr. Speaker:
And when I hear Mr. Trudeau suggest that the No given at the referendum was the same as giving a free hand to the Prime Minister of Canada to impose his concept of constitutional change, I cannot agree on this point either. We fought both for the No vote and for reasonable changes in the federal system of Canadian government, but we have always said that any basic change must be sought and made with the agreement of the two orders of government-
If I had been told:
-concludes Mr. Ryan:
"You are going to chair the No vote committee and will after that be told what to do, what your duty is and shut up", I would never have chaired the No committee, as you perfectly know. And if I had been told that this was my last chance, that after that sovereignty-association would come, 1 would never have let myself be caught in such a trap either. For some months, both sides have been joyfully falsifying the true meaning of the results of the referendum held on May 20 of this year. As a well placed witness of that enterprise, as chairman of the No committee, I feel obliged to record my dissent.
It is therefore important in my view that Canadians know the Quebec Liberal party is totally opposed to what Liberals here imply.
That implication by Liberals, who pretend to represent Quebec voters, is false representation as I said. They say it is urgent. How can that be explained, Mr. Speaker? Well, it would have been so easy for Mr. Trudeau, for the Prime Minister, excuse me, to meet with Mr. Ryan and allow Quebec Liberals to make their views known rather than taking immediate decision. As far as we are concerned, we would have preferred that the Right Hon. Prime Minister have another try at a first ministers' meeting, a last minute effort in order to at least have the decency to have that two-year freeze accepted. Let us suppose the ten first ministers accepted patriation with a two-year freeze, we-


An hon. Member:: Never!


Roch La Salle: Somebody says, never. Because the Right Hon. Prime Minister is not interested in having an affirmative answer from the provinces. The Right Hon. Prime Minister's vision of Canada is evidence of his incompetence and his inability to find a solution.
So it is true that to dress his salad the Prime Minister talks about a charter of fundamental and linguistic rights. What he has yet to prove is that fundamental rights are being threatened. Quite the contrary, all Canadian provinces, if 1 am not mistaken, have their own charter of human rights and I do not know of any case where they are really endangered. What 1 do know on this point of upholding human rights is that the government of this Prime Minister is not beyond reproach. That is why I urge him to approach the problem with a little
3368

October 7, 1980
The Constitution
more humility. His past attitudes make him more than suspect.
It was his government, Mr. Speaker, that during the October, 1970, crisis when it was a matter of seeking out some thirty young terrorists did not hesitate with the co-operation of the police to put under arrest and detain without warrants some 450 people whose only crime was to continue to believe in the socialism the Prime Minister had himself advocated up until the time he joined what he elegantly described as the Liberal centre of intellectual decay.
One should not forget, indeed, that the Prime Minister was and remains the chairman of the cabinet committee on national security and in that capacity must bear responsibility for the actions that were taken and, consequently, the general directives that were given. Well, judging from the information that filtered through during the past ten years the Prime Minister never even bothered to really find out what had happened and people are still waiting for his excuses to Quebeckers, be they leftists, unjustly deprived of their citizens' rights and their fundamental freedoms.
Until the McDonald commission clearly assesses the respective responsibilities of cabinet members and police departments, I, for one, hold the present Prime Minister above all responsible for the thoughtless imposition of the War Measures Act and all the police and other abuses that resulted from it.
In any case, as long as we live in a democratic society, 1 do not see the need-and I do say the need-to entrench human rights in the Constitution of Canada. It is enough for me that these rights be provided for in specific federal or provincial legislation with enough flexibility to make them more explicit with the evolution of our society and indeed for the addition of new rights that are not yet clearly defined.
Concerning the language rights, I hope they will be recognized for French-speaking people outside Quebec with as much generosity as those of the English-speaking residents in Quebec. But as these rights are very closely related to the provincial jurisdiction over education, I do not see why it should be urgent or necessary to enshrine them in the constitution at the risk of giving rise to quarrels like those the past generations have known. But I think it is the duty of a responsible federal government to help the provinces financially to establish an education system in the second language. On the other hand, I do not want the provinces to be forced, I want them to be permitted, I want them to be invited, I want them to be respected. That is the difference between the Liberals and I. But what I am really against, is that acting on the suggestion of his leader, one of the cabinet ministers should have the presumption to undercut at its very base the historical foundation of the right of Francophones to receive an education in their mother tongue. Did not the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) go as far as to denounce the thesis of the two founding peoples, on the
pretext that this expression could give rise to semantic difficulties? But making the two great linguistic communities takes away any justification for Francophones outside Quebec who demand their own schools.
As Marcel Adam wrote-I might finish with that, Mr. Speaker. As Marcel Adam wrote, I do not quote the "blues" yet, in the paper La Presse of October 1, in refusing to use the expression "two founding peoples", on what ground would Mr. Fox enshrine the language rights in the constitution?
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that my time has run out. 1 had more things to say, but I consider it as a privilege to have been able to express myself on behalf of thousands of Quebeckers, and to have had the possibility, in a desperate gesture, to ask these Liberals on the other side to show a minimum of respect, only a minimum, for the aspirations of millions of Quebeckers, as I did today.


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of Environment):: And now, Mr. Speaker, after that irrelevant tirade, let us get back to the motion.
Mr. Speaker, when we as students of history, whether Canadian or otherwise, look back on events, unless we are steeped pretty deeply in them or are graduate students of them, which I am not, we tend to identify certain milestones as though they were simple, uncomplicated or harmonious events. So, in general terms, we tend to associate a date with the act of union or the adoption of the maple leaf as our national flag. In so doing, it seems to me, unless we delve more deeply into the event, we are often not aware of the reservations, for example, which would have been expressed at the Charlottetown conference by some of the participants or the bitter acrimony which accompanied the fight for confederation in Newfoundland in the years from 1946 to 1948.
It seems to me that in respect of the proposal before us now we will find ourselves in an analogous situation a few years down the road. We are too close to it now, the emotions of the people are too tender, our minds are too cluttered by conflicting viewpoints from all sides to appreciate the ultimate magnitude of the step we are contemplating with respect to the resolution before us. An event such as this must by its very nature generate frustration and produce misunderstanding and misapprehension; it must lend itself to misrepresentation of the kind that I heard just two or three hours ago on a national radio show, the CBC's "As it Happens", when the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) perpetrated on the Canadian people an unfortunate misrepresentation, unfortunate perhaps but obvious. He alleged in that program this evening that the document which is now before the House constitutes an effort by the Prime Minister, as he said, to create a unitary state with all the power vested in one order of government.
October 7, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: The hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), or my good friend the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), could not have read the document or clearly have not understood the proposal if that is what they allege. One of the clearly stated provisions of this particular document is that it would guarantee that for all time all future changes in our constitution would require the agreement, the consensus of the provincial governments. That hardly sounds-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Roger Simmons: I will sit down if the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) will let me read it to him. He may learn something. Very clearly in the documentation it states that from the day the committee comes back with a finished proposal, only by consensus will the details of the amending formula be left to the provinces as well. Only by consensus will we be able to change the constitution.


Mr. Forrestall:: There are other ways.


Roger Simmons: I say to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East that there is one other way. We can ask the people of Canada, which I happen to think is a very sensible way of doing things. We can ask the people who put us here. The government is not afraid of doing that. The Leader of the Opposition expressed some fear. He was dealt with rather badly by the people of Canada before, so he should be apprehensive about going back to them again.


J. Michael Forrestall: Were you here when he spoke?


Roger Simmons: As much as I would have liked to, I was not able to sit here yesterday and hear the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I was down in the riding of my good friend, the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees), helping some of his constituents who dearly wanted to hear some points about the constitution. I was delighted to go down and give them of my wisdom on the subject. 1 was not here but I read with interest not only the press reports of the speech of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition but also the actual text of Hansard, the transcription of what he said. The first sentence which caught my eye was:
By destroying the federal system in Canada it could destroy this country.
He was referring to this proposal. I say to him, welcome to the twentieth century. That is what we were trying to tell him during his brief days in power. That is exactly what we were trying to tell him. He hardly crossed the threshhold of power and he was giving orders to put out the fire sale signs, to give it away to the provincial governments completely. He insisted on doing it from the day he took office. At long last my good friend from Yellowhead has seen the light. I have no doubt that it has something to do with the fact that he sits next to my very good and wise friend, the hon. member for Nepean-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker). He is a sensible man if ever there was one, a
The Constitution
man who will not stand idly by and see trampled the precepts and the principles for which John Diefenbaker fought. For that I admire the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton and the public statements he has made in the past few days on this particular subject. As the chief watches us from up there somewhere tonight, he must be having a double nightmare. First, his main protagonist during his last years in this House, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), is now doing what he, Mr. Diefenbaker, would have done had he been given the opportunity. He would have done that very thing. Indeed, while he was in power he tried to do it, not through legislation but by another route, the route we are going now. But he was prevented from doing it by provincial governments of his own party stripe. That is the first thing which must make him turn over tonight. He must be having a nightmare tonight. Second, it is insult enough to have one's main protagonist step in and do what one would have done, but the insult of insults is to find one's successor, once removed the leader of one's party, a fellow westerner not having the gratitude and loyalty and lacking the common decency to pick up the torch when one was obliged to yield it. We know the lines which read as follows:
To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high.
"No, Joe. Not upside down, Joe, you will get your hands burnt that way." When the government decided to proceed with the patriation of our constitution, it became aware of the complexities attached to making an address to Her Majesty the Queen. Asking Parliament to deal with so detailed a measure in one gulp would be like asking a man to swallow a watermelon whole.
I say to my hon. friend whose riding escapes me, as it escapes him, that at this point in time 1 am proposing to respond to two or three points the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition raised questions about yesterday. 1 invite my good friend from the west to listen. He may well learn something; it is highly possible. Asking Parliament to deal with so detailed a measure as we have here would be quite an assignment. The rules of debate are such, as members know, that attempts to propose amendments would be awkward and difficult in this particular forum. The government did not consider this reasonable or fair and consequently it decided that the best course was not to put before Parliament what amounted to a fait accompli, but to present Parliament with certain ideas, the ideas of the government obviously. It decided that it was best then to appoint a joint committee of both Houses, this chamber and the Senate chamber, in effect to draft the address to be presented to the Queen. That is the assignment, not to rubber stamp but to take this particular document before us as a working paper to draft an address to Her Majesty the Queen. The proposed address which we published on October 2 and tabled here on Monday is a working paper. Naturally we on this side hope the recommendations of the committee when brought back to this chamber will be similar to the proposed address as contained in the document. But by no means are we wedded to every detail in it. In his opening statement the Prime Minister indicated we are looking forward to a frank

October 7, 1980
The Constitution
exchange of ideas in committee. If members have concerns on this issue, before they place their bets they should try us in committee.


An hon. Member:: The ten premiers did.


Roger Simmons: I will talk about the ten premiers a little later on. Let me address myself to some of the things my good friend from Yellowhead said, the gentleman who is facing a leadership review in February. They call him out west the white elephant from Yellowhead. Let me talk about some of the points about which he was concerned yesterday. What was his response to our gesture? We said, "Here is a working paper. Go work on it some more, refine it and come back with a product that we can take over to Westminster to get our constitution back in this country where it belongs". What was his response? The Leader of the Opposition professed his usual great love for Parliament. His government said that it wanted to augment committees. What was his response to the proposal that a parliamentary committee draft an address rather than having the government ram something down his throat? His response was red herrings, good old red herrings from the good old white elephant. The Leader of the Opposition used to call himself a red Tory. Now he specializes in red herrings. The proposed joint committee is being asked to consider a proposed address to the Queen. It is being asked to consider what form it ought to take. In other words the joint committee is being asked to draft, on the basis of a working paper, the penultimate or the ultimate form of the address which should go forward, depending upon whether the House concurs without change. Members opposite, and in particular the Leader of the Opposition, claim there is no opportunity to amend the proposed address. The fact is that the ultimate form of the address does not yet exist on paper. The committee will prepare that form. Certainly the government will present its ideas to the committee. That is our right and responsibility. Certainly those ideas will be the same as those in the document referred to in the motion. Certainly members of the committee will put forward alternatives, perhaps in the form of amendments to motions before the committee. Perhaps even some government members will have such amendments as well. I do not know. We cannot predict that, nor do we want to. What we want is an address to Her Majesty that will achieve the over-all objectives stated publicly by the Prime Minister and, indeed, embodied in the resolution and the document accompanying it. That is the white elephant's red herring number one.
Next we heard him say that the proposed committee ought to travel all over the country. Members should remember that people have been travelling on this one for 53 years. I do not think there is any lack of information, any lack of ideas or lack of exchange of ideas on this. What is required now is for us to make up our minds on which set of information, which particles of truth, we want to embody, then ship if off to England and get the response back that we very much want to have. The travel is behind us. This is not the time for travel. We
have had 53 years of travelling. Now let us get our heads together and make up our minds. That is his second red herring. He wants a travelling circus. I say no to that.
Then the Leader of the Opposition complains about the time limits. How long do we need, after 53 years, to arrive at a consensus upon which there is no shortage of information, no shortage of input? Then we hear the Leader of the Opposition talk about the provision of a quorum. I have enumerated three or four objections the hon. gentleman made to the resolution and the form in which it has been introduced. But now I come to what must have been his finest hour. All the objections which have gone before, I submit, were just preliminary. He was just warming to his subject. But now, with the matter before him, Mr. Speaker, here is the white elephant, the walking dead from Yellowhead. Here he is with the vilest outrage of all. This is it. Nothing ever was as bad as this. There he stood with sagging jowl, with penetrating gaze but without the intellect of a Diefenbaker, projecting the appearance of one who understands what he is talking about. Well, what was he talking about. What is it he was objecting to about the quorum? Has the Leader of the Opposition finally stumbled on the truth for which he has been searching for all these years, the clear evidence which to date has eluded him, that we are a bunch of parliamentary scoundrels and legislative varmints? Has he finally discovered that he's got what he always needed to clench his case against us? Surely, if we can judge from his excited rhetoric of yesterday, he is without a doubt on the very verge of driving the final nail in our political coffin. What is it he is so exercised about? What is he objecting to? I will tell you. Does he not realize that the section he objects to is taken, verbatim, word for word, not from the mind of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) or from the Prime Minister, not even from the mind of the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East, if that were possible-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: No, Mr. Speaker. Taken verbatim, word for word, from the motion in our Standing Orders establishing special joint committees. Does the hon. gentleman not read the rules he lives by here? It was taken word for word from our standing rules governing the establishment of joint committees which operate under the auspices of this chamber and the chamber down the way, the Senate chamber. That is what the fuss has been all about, Mr. Speaker. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has been out misleading the public of Canada about. And he expects to have credibility after February. He will have a job keeping it until February.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Roger Simmons: There is so much more we could say in terms of what the Leader of the Opposition has been saying. His problem is that he should really stop looking over his shoulder, he should start looking straight ahead and then he might be able to see the future of the nation. He might be able to see the vision which is embodied in the document before us. As it is, looking either way, Mr. Speaker, he can only see the president
October 7, 1980

of the Iron Ore Company of Canada. He really has only himself to blame. Let no one in this chamber tonight, let no one in this country for one fleeting moment, think there is any lack of compassion in my heart for the right hon. gentleman from Yellowhead. 1 am overwhelmed with compassion for him. My heart overflows with abject, unadulterated pity for him. A person in his present situation deserves the pity of an entire nation. And, indeed, he is getting it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: To demonstrate the utter unselfishness of my compassion and to permit others in this House and across this compassionate land to rally to his side in a tangible way, I am tonight announcing a new humanitarian endeavour, a new fund-raising drive to be known, for the sake of brevity, as the FTSTHOTH MFYAT1H FATLOHM LO. Or, for the few of you who did not follow my shorthand, the Fund to Save the Hide of the Honourable Member for Yellowhead and to Instal Him forever as the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. You see, Mr. Speaker, we on this side need him. We need him because he makes our job-


Donald W. Munro: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think we have hit the bottom of degradation in this House. The speaker, the member from I-know-not-where, has diverted from a topic of great national importance-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is not making a point of order. The parliamentary secretary-
If the hon. member is making a point of order would he please get to the point?


Donald W. Munro: That is what I am getting at. The hon. member has-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has been listening with as much attention as possible to the debate and has to concede that there is about equal relevance on both sides on certain matters. The parliamentary secretary has the floor.


Roger Simmons: I do apologize to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) for coming slowly to the point. But 1 was really doing it for his own benefit. 1 wanted him to understand what I was saying. 1 wanted him to know how much we in this chamber need the Leader of the Opposition. He may have different views, he may not be on the leader's side in February, but that is not a matter he should discuss in this chamber. He should not wash his linen in public, I say to him. Mr. Speaker, we need the right hon. gentleman here, we want him here. We in this party hope he will always be leader of the opposition. It is our constant fear that the Tory party might smarten up and promote him laterally.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: That is the best the Leader of the Opposition can do with a serious document-as the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich said-to pick and falsify and misrepresent
The Constitution
to the public of Canada and go out and say: Look, see what they are doing, the vilest act of all. And what was that vile act? To lift from our Standing Orders, word for word, dot for dot, without a change of an "i" or a "t". We lift it, put it into the document before us and somehow, Mr. Speaker, that is a crime for which we have to be smeared across the country tonight on a national radio show by the irresponsible Leader of the Opposition. If you think that is irrelevant, then 1 say to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich that everything the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday is also irrelevant. It needs to be answered, this vile smear job, this misrepresentation of what has the makings of a noble document. If the people in this House would only get off their pedestals, get into committee, take this as a working paper and then come back with something we can vote on in this chamber-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Right on!


Roger Simmons: In a simpler age, when Sir John A. Macdonald, that great Canadian, and Sir George Etienne Cartier, another great Canadian, framed our constitution, the rights and liberties of the citizens were held to be an implicit part of our parliamentary democracy. But experience has shown that what is only implicit can be endangered by lack of recognition. So John Diefenbaker, another great Canadian, secured the passage of a bill of rights. And when he spoke to that bill he said: "As far as a constitutional amendment is concerned it is impossible of attainment at this time."
The reason for that, of course, was that it was blocked by the provincial governments. We are now seeking in this great Liberal party to conclude what the Tories began-Macdonald and Diefenbaker and the rest of them.
Those of us on the government benches are puzzled, therefore, by the present aberration manifested in the Leader of the Opposition, the present aberration from the unction and honourable tradition of the Canadian Tory party. Is he really speaking for his caucus, or are the rumors true? Has the caucus smartened up and taken Bill Davis' sage advice on the subject? We on this side of the House have a profound respect for the great tradition-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In accordance with Standing Order 40-


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Points of order are not entertained at the moment of adjournment.


Douglas Roche: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.

October 7, 1980
Adjournment Debate


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is well recognized in the House that once the adjournment debate has started points of order or questions of privilege are not recognized.


An hon. Member:: It has not started.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 rose and interrupted the hon. member and began to talk. The purpose of interrupting the hon. member was to commence the adjournment debate. That is my ruling.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker,
I apologize to the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche). On May 12, I asked a question of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) which he deliberately misheard and tried to answer in a different way. I was speaking about the problems caused by the absence of radar at Victoria International Airport, but he wanted to tell me about the improvements which have been made to the airport, the extension of space and the freightways and the new roads which are being built. As I indicated to him, we are all aware of the physical improvements to the buildings which were being contemplated. 1 believe there is one order out at the moment to redirect the road around the airport. However, these were not my concerns at the time.
My concern was with safety, as it has been for more years than 1 would like to count, considering the number of times I have had to land at that airport with the absence of radar. My first annotation of that particular exercise, and I still carry the memorandum telling me about it, goes back to Air Canada flight 266 from Victoria at 8.10 a.m. on January 21, 1977. Three and a half years ago, as my note reminds me-althouth 1 do not need any reminder because the impression is still very vivid in my mind-as we were taking off 1 suddenly felt the wing dip to starboard, and looking out the window which was then above me, I saw a float plane go by the tip of the wing.
1 asked the pilot when he had regained level flight if he had been warned of the existence of that particular aircraft, and he said "No". When 1 got to Vancouver I spoke to the air traffic controllers there and asked them if they were aware of the presence of that aircraft in the flight path of a scheduled airline. They, too, said "No". I asked if a report was being prepared. They said, "Well, it depends on whether a request for a report is called for". From that time on I have been
asking at regular intervals whether anything is being done about radar at Victoria International Airport.
On May 12 I raised the question again because I had heard that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) had been out there. I am glad he did not have a near miss when he landed at Victoria International Airport. Since that date, however, 1 have had a number of other occasions to raise the matter. I raised it on July 15 as reported at page 2192 of Hansard in the first column, when I pointed out that within the last 13 months at Victoria International Airport there had been 19 near misses. It is the only airport in a capital city of Canada that does not have radar. These did not all involve scheduled airlines. Some were with private airlines or business airlines. Indeed, one happened to be an RCAF flight. When coming in, the pilot suddenly found himself confronted on the flight path with three parachutists dropping in front of him. The next day, when another flight came in, there were 30. No one had been notified. The parachutists were in American territory because the flight path happens to go over that territory. The international boundary is there. There was no problem, except that the air traffic controllers in Victoria had not been notified. Now I hear that there are hang gliders in the circuit and there is still no radar.
In a centre like Victoria which I think is one of the tourist attractions of Canada, surely it is time there was radar.
It is stated in Hansard of June 12 at page 2049 that the original cost of Mirabel International Airport was set at $212 million-but that it ended up costing $371 million. Mirabel rates as forty-seventh in importance, based on the number of landings and takeoffs. From 1976 to 1979 it built up from 49,000 landings and takeoffs to 59,000 per year. Victoria is in thirteenth place at the moment. In 1979 it was in twelfth place. It handles between 186,000 and 200,000 landings and takeoffs. I am sure there is radar at Mirabel-and of course I do not say there should not be. But Victoria International Airport also has international flights and, further, it has international overflights as it is on the flight path between Seattle and Alaska and is also on some of the flight paths from Seatac Airport that serves Seattle and Tacoma, to the far east. The presence of aircraft in the area should be known to the air traffic controllers so that incoming and outgoing traffic can be notified.
All 1 am suggesting is that it is high time there was radar. I am not making a plea for a new appropriation but just a for a re-examination of the assignments of funds to, let us say, Mirabel, in order to purchase radar equipment for Victoria International Airport.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The hon. member has raised the question of radar at Victoria a number of times. I am somewhat surprised that he wishes to raise it again as he was given a clear explanation of the situation in a letter from the minister dated June 2, 1980. At the conclusion of his letter, the minister even offers to have his officials provide further detail if the hon.
October 7, 1980

member is interested. To my knowledge, the hon. member has not taken the minister up on this offer.
Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, the situation at Victoria airport is quite safe with the procedures currently in place. Controllers use the radar system at Vancouver to some extent, and when it cannot be used specific non-radar procedures are applied to ensure safety at the airport. In addition, the department has established a special operating position in the control tower at Victoria which provides an advisory service. Pilots have reported that this service is a marked improvement.
The hon. member raised a question last July about parachutists interfering with general aviation at Victoria. I would like to point out that the incidents in question took place outside the Victoria control zone in U.S. air space, and that in any event, radar would not have been able to detect the parachutists. The record at Victoria with regard to loss of separation has been remarkably good in the recent past. Naturally, we must look to the future.
Victoria has been identified in a long-term radar modernization plan as being a location requiring radar. The details of this plan will be developed in a rational manner, and Victoria will get radar at an appropriate time in the very near future.


ENERGY-OIL-SOURCES OF SUPPLY FOR EASTERN CANADA
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my concern as well arises out of a question asked in May and because of the very nature of events that have taken place in recent months. It centres on the signing of an agreement by the Government of Canada and the government of Mexico regarding the supply of crude oil for the basic needs of Canadians. We have been led to believe for a long period of time that the Canadian government was on the verge of initialling and entering into the final details of contractual arrangements for the supply of 100,000 barrels of crude oil for eastern Canada and eastern Canadian refineries. When we heard the announcement on May 26 or 27, we discovered to our surprise, shock and disappointment, that all the present government had been able to negotiate was some 50,000 barrels a day. This left eastern Canadians with a sense not only of disappointment but of real concern.
My question arose at a point in time when the glut that may exist for the present in the world oil supply market had not arisen. It arose at a point in time when there was growing apprehension about stability in the Middle East and at a point in time when we had come through a winter when most eastern Canadians were vitally concerned, with justification, as to whether or not there would be sufficient oil to supply the refineries, and, through the refineries, the requirements and demands for home heating, electrical generation and the general demand for oil and oil products. The answer given at the time by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) was:
Adjournment Debate
Madam Speaker, I would like, first of all, to alleviate some of the fears of the hon. gentleman by saying that Canada has not lost, today, 50,000 barrels a day; it has won 50,000 barrels a day.
That is a play on words from an individual who had very little, if any, concern for security of supply for eastern Canadians. Yet that minister is a resident of what might generally be described as eastern Canada. What measures has the government taken? What measures is it prepared to pursue with respect to restoring the supply to 100,000 barrels a day, which is the commitment the government gave to eastern Canadians and to this House? In addition, I ask the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren), to address himself this evening to the question of eastern security. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) made a clear statement at the port of Halifax annual dinner a few weeks ago to the effect that he would personally intervene to ensure that the Quebec-maritime natural gas pipeline would be extended, notwithstanding the position of the National Energy Board.
What discussions have taken place as a result of this concern regarding security of energy? What discussions or negotiations have taken place since May 27 in support of the principle of security? What has been done to replace the lost 50,000 barrels a day which we were counting on? A glut may be present today because of the world situation, but the strife over the past two weeks in the Middle East has destroyed the possibility of eastern Canada receiving its required share on the world market.
We cannot afford to buy on the spot market, although I suspect we are doing that to a large degree. What is being done about that? What plans are in place? What can one tell eastern Canadians other than that there is enough oil to last us until late February or early March? What happens after that, because it is very cold in Atlantic Canada and northern Quebec in late March, April, and indeed if the truth be known, through to the middle of May. What is being done to assure Atlantic Canadians that there will be enough oil for home heating, electrical generation and the ships that come in and out of our ports after the end of February?
In addition, will the parliamentary secretary address the vital question of the degree to which gas will be supplied to replace oil in accordance with the statement by the Minister of Finance so that we might conserve and, indeed, replace the lost 50,000 barrels with this alternate source of energy?


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and other members of the government have noted on a number of occasions, the agreement signed in Ottawa with Mexico on May 27 guarantees delivery of 50,000 barrels a day of Mexican oil to Canada, starting late this month.
I am pleased to say that arrangements have been completed for these deliveries. We can expect that from an initial 20,000 barrels a day they will rise to the full 50,000 barrels a day by

October 7, 1980
Adjournment Debate
the end of this year or early January. While there was never any firm commitment on the part of Mexico to increase the level of deliveries above 50,000 barrels, the president of Mexico indicated last spring that he would consider favourably an expression of interest by Canada in increasing deliveries above the 50,000 barrels a day. Currently the government has under consideration measures to ensure fair and equitable allocation of Mexican crude oil to eastern Canada refineries as this new source of supply becomes available.
Regarding the outlook for supplies to the Atlantic region, there are naturally concerns as to the impact the present Iran-lraq crisis may have on oil supplies to our country. Latest information available indicates that the war is causing the loss of exports from the two countries to the international market of some three to four million barrels a day. However, Canada has only been receiving about 1.5 per cent of its total oil supplies from these two countries and the Canadian importers involved do not anticipate any major difficulty in making other arrangements to cover this disruption. Furthermore, because of record high oil inventories and weak demand for oil products, the rest of the world appears to be able to absorb the loss of Iran and Iraq exports with relative ease.
Over the longer term, the policy will be to substitute oil in the Atlantic region by domestic energy sources. In this connection, the federal government is planning initiatives which will result in a major substitution of imported oil by other forms of energy. There will be increasing reliance on Nova Scotia coal and an increase in programs designed to use renewable energy sources. Another important source of energy will become available with the delivery of natural gas to the Atlantic market. At the same time, certain conservation programs now implemented will lead to a marked decline in the energy growth rate. We can, therefore, anticipate that increased domestic energy supplies and effective conservation programs will enable Canada, by the end of this decade, to be essentially free of dependence on oil imports from uncertain foreign sources of supply.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS-INQUIRY INTOOIL INDUSTRY-RELEASE OF INFORMATION GATHERED
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question this evening in relation to a question 1 raised in the House on June 25, 1980, concerning an investigation by the director of research and investigation into an alleged conspiracy to fix prices and to restrain competition in the oil industry.
I would point out that this particular investigation began on February 13, 1973, and some seven and a half years have passed since then. It is interesting that a similar situation occurred in the United States involving the same major oil companies. It was dealt with very quickly and very effectively. In this country the technique to deal with it was obviously to refer it for study to a committee and then allow it to disappear.
Absolutely nothing has been done and we have seen no effective results from this investigation.
The only actual results that have occurred are continued increases in the price of petroleum products to Canadians, and these products are controlled by a virtual monopoly in this country. There has been no movement on the part of the government to do anything about it.
We raised this question on June 25 after raising it on numerous occasions in the House and getting numerous commitments from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) that action would be taken or was pending. We may wait for another seven and a half years before that occurs. At one time the minister suggested action would be taken in a matter of weeks. He said it was under consideration by the Minister of Justice. The Department of Justice had received the matter more than a year before that, had fooled around with it and promised action within weeks of the day we asked the question. Nothing has occurred to this date. A few weeks have gone by, the end of the summer has passed and we are now into the fall and a session during which I doubt that anything will be done about this question, this enormous rip-off of Canadians.
There is an additional element of concern. Even if the director of investigations and research made a report, it would go to the minister. Frankly, I submit that the minister in this particular field is a do-nothing minister. Even if it went to the attorney general, in view of the action we have seen on the part of the Department of Justice in Canada on this matter, which has been reprehensible, there would be nothing done. With the reference to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission we may see another seven and a half years pass while the matter is swallowed up there.
In short, the problem in this country is that the government lacks the will to protect the Canadian people. We need a minister with some determination; we need a government with some determination and we need legislation.
The minister suggested in committee that during this session we would have competition legislation before us which would protect people before the fact rather than after. I suspect that in fact we will not see that competition legislation.
I expect that tonight we will be given a report about how this business has transpired and how, in a few weeks or perhaps in a month or so, we can expect a further report on this subject. It can be referred to the minister, or to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission or somewhere else for another seven and a half years of consideration. But basically I think the Canadian people have been tremendously shortchanged not only on this issue but also on the Campeau-Royal Trust issue, the amalgamation of forest companies in the province of British Columbia, the amalgamation of the print media, the concentration of the cablevision and electronics industries in Canada and the monopolies of the telephone companies. Yet this government sits here doing absolutely nothing.
October 7, 1980


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the inquiry into the oil industry in Canada the government recognizes that the public, as well as the parties concerned, deserve to have its results confirmed as quickly as possible. However, this inquiry is one of the largest ever undertaken under competition legislation. Its scope relates to numerous sectors of a highly integrated industry as well as covering a long period.
While inquiries are conducted in private pursuant to section 27(1) of the Combines Investigation Act, there have been occasions when information relating to the pursuit of this particular inquiry has come to public attention from sources other than the office of the director of investigation and research in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As a result, it is possible to advise the House on a number of steps this inquiry has followed.
The inquiry commenced in 1973 when the then director of investigation and research received an application pursuant to section 7 of the act applying for an inquiry into the conduct of a number of oil companies. This application was made by the Consumers Association of Canada, which informed the media of it. Subsequently, the director exercised his full formal powers to conduct searches of the premises of a large number of oil companies pursuant to section 10 of the act. The director removed documents deemed to be relevant to his inquiry. In
Adjournment Debate
addition, hearings before the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission were held where company officials were examined. The director also requested that oil companies respond to a detailed request for information and has also interviewed many individuals and petroleum trade associations who wanted to provide information.
It has also become public that during the course of this inquiry Petrofina Canada Limited commenced proceedings in the Federal Court questioning the validity of the procedures. The Federal Court denied this challenge. However, the Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal this denial, so it would be inappropriate to make any conjecture on the outcome, which is expected later this year, or on the effect of the challenge to the inquiry.
The director has pursued his investigation in an exhaustive manner while at the same time fulfilling his statutory obligations under the act as other matters have arisen. Given the nature of this inquiry, the effort already expended and its current stage, the governement believes that the public interest will best be served by allowing it to follow its course as prescribed in the Combines Investigation Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Wednesday, October 8, 1980