1980-10-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 in connection with the tragic event of yesterday when eight servicemen lost their lives in the performance of their duty, in this case a search for a lost aircraft. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That this House extends its condolences and sympathy to the families of these young men.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Moved by Mr. McKinnon, seconded by Mr. Ellis:
That this House extends its condolences and sympathy to the families of these young men, meaning those who lost their lives in the performance of their duty, in this case a search for a lost aircraft.
Does the House agree to the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I too seek the unanimous consent of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the decision of the previous government to maintain the west coast weather-ships on station and of Canada's international commitments with respect to weather reporting, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon):
That this government be required by this House to reverse its decision with respect to withdrawing the weatherships from the west coast weather station,
and hold those ships in place until such time as an automated recorder and transmitter are developed and in place.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


WAR MEASURES ACT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that since 1976 Canada has committed itself to comply with the UN covenant on civil and political rights; in view of the fact that the Liberal government keeps in force the War Measures Act, an oppressive and repressive piece of legislation whose provisions, including the right to introduce retroactive legislation in criminal matters, are a breach of this covenant; and in view of the fact that ten years after the abuses perpetrated under this act, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is proposing a charter of fundamental rights which would still maintain all the repressive provisions of the War Measures Act,

I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mr. Waddell):
That this House commends those 16 New Democrats, led by Tommy Douglas, who ten years ago courageously opposed the proclamation of the War Measures Act; and that this House call upon the Prime Minister to announce today his intention immediately to repeal the repressive provisions of the War Measures Act, provisions which violate the United Nations covenant, and support amendments to the proposed charter of rights which would ensure that Quebecois and all Canadians are never again subjected to this reign of tyranny.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
3714

October 16, 1980


S O. 43 FISHERIES SALMON-CONSTRUCTION OF ENHANCEMENT FACILITIES ON FRASER RIVER-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the seriously threatened state of Fraser River salmon stocks, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That the government be directed to stop using its singular lack of progress in renegotiating the Canada-U.S. salmon treaty as an excuse for stalling the implementation of major salmon enhancement facilities on the Fraser River system, and that the government get on with building these facilities which must be designed and constructed now if we are to prevent the destruction of Fraser River salmon stocks by 1990.


Madam Speaker:: For its presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce the following motion:
Considering that it is difficult to trace the amounts represented by the financial participation of the Government of Canada to cost-sharing programs between the federal government and the provinces, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Dion):
That the Council of Canadian Ministers should henceforth invite provincial governments to follow an accounting procedure which would highlight the financial participation of each of the two levels of government for all the budgetary items under the cost-sharing agreements and that, in addition, the financial participation of the government of Canada should always appear clearly in the publicity which is made around those programs.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the hon. member's motion. Under S.O. 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the Prime Minister's extremely insightful conclusion in his essay "The Theory and Practice of Federalism", which says:
There is no reason to presume that the federal government will be more enlightened than the sum of the provincial governments, or even than one provincial government acting alone . . . because a (socialist) province with a planning board might be more likely to plan wisely than a (reactionary) central government with no such board.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House direct the Prime Minister to reread his own writings so that he stops treating provincial governments as second class governments and amends his constitutional resolution to include in it the resource rights upon which is predicated the future economic development of the provinces.


Madam Speaker:: For its presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the October 11 edition of the Financial Post carries an advertisement by Goldfarb Consultants soliciting subscriptions to its 1981 report which would include: "A detailed treatment of public attitudes towards the debate surrounding a new constitution;" and whereas that information appears to come from the polls which the Canadian Unity Information Office asked Goldfarb to conduct and which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) yesterday refused to disclose because, as he said, "disclosure could be injurious to the conduct of federal-provincial affairs", I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the government be instructed to seek an injunction against the publication or distribution of the 1981 Goldfarb report, and that the Minister of Justice be instructed to take the necessary steps to prevent such private and mercenary misuse of information paid for by all Canadians.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: 
TRANSPORT
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the abnormal congestions in country grain elevators located on CP rail lines, and whereas these massive disruptions in the movement of grain are at the loss of millions of dollars to prairie farmers and have been brought about by a minority of union workers who are at this time not in a legal position to strike, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydmin-ster (Mr. McKnight):
That all unions associated with the movement of grain, in the interests of farmers and our national economy, be classified as an essential service.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CREDIT UNIONS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter that is current today, urgent and necessary. In view of the fact that today is International Credit Union Day, which is intended to pay tribute to a long-standing tradition of co-operative financial services, shared by more than 60 million people and
45,000	credit unions and caisses populaires, and in view of the remarkable history and continuing growth of the credit union movement in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That this House pay tribute to the dedicated people who founded and continue the work of expanding co-operative principles in financial services to millions of Canadians through credit unions and caisses populaires.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Oral Questions SEARCH AND RESCUE

Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, the crash of the Canadian Forces air-sea rescue C-130 Hercules with the resulting tragic loss of life points up dramatically the complete lack of policy of the Department of Transport with regard to emergency locator transmitters. Whereas the enormous costs of this and other searches would more than pay for that which I propose, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the Minister of Transport instruct his department to develop an ELT which will work properly and which would capture the export market, and that the mandatory regulations for ELT's be returned but this time with a decent subsidized program for owners.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Yesterday, in a letter to members of Parliament, the minister refused to release three polls which the government conducted subsequent to May 20, 1980. He refused on the grounds that these surveys "could be injurious to the conduct of federal-provincial relations". Given the fact that at least seven provinces are now opposed to the government's measures to patriate and amend the constitution and the fact that the minister has refused to make available polls which would seem to be available elsewhere, will the minister state what is the real reason why he is withholding this information that was paid for by the people of Canada and which the people of Canada through their representatives are entitled to have?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I gave the reasons in the letter. We released 13 polls yesterday. There are three which will be released in due course. I believe that later today we will release something like 117 others. As I said, the polls I will not release relate not only to the constitution but to other questions as well and I think this is not the time to make them public.

October 16, 1980
Oral Questions


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the unity office in refusing to release the polls described one of them which was conducted by Goldfarb Consultants "as Canadians' attitudes towards, and expectations for, constitutional reform". That happens to conform with an ad which appeared in the Financial Post of October 11 sponsored by Goldfarb, and I quote:
In particular, the 1981 edition of The Goldfarb Report will include a detailed treatment of public attitudes towards the debate surrounding a new Canadian Constitution.
It would appear that what is available through Goldfarb for a fee is being scandalously denied this House. Has the minister satisfied himself that what he is denying the House is now available for a fee through a consultant which was commissioned in the first instance by this government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I have checked exactly that point and the survey which has been made for the Canadian government will not be made available through the ads. 1 do think the one they are offering is the one that has been paid for and published, I guess, by the Toronto Star.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I ask the minister, who is a good parliamentarian and is known to be fair, because of the differences that have arisen regarding this ad and the polls he is refusing to release to the House, will he agree to allow this matter to be referred to a committee of the House where it can be duly examined and the House can in fact satisfy itself in this regard?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I am following the rules of the House. I have tabled 13 surveys which have been taken in the last 18 months. I think they have been well received. Of course, I am not ready to release the three I mentioned earlier as yet. When it is possible I will be delighted to table them.
I do not see why we should refer the matter to a committee. We have given an answer to the House. Of 141 polls, 129 will be made public almost immediately.


GOLDFARB CONSULTANTS-REQUEST FOR GUARANTEE POLL INFORMATION NOT USED FOR COMMERCIAL GAIN
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to those directed to the minister. The answer he has given my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East, indicates to me that he has absolutely no interest in the real spirit of freedom of information. Any important information the government has that may be at variance with the policies he is promoting is denied to us, and only that information which is in favour of government policies is released.
I would like to ask the minister a specific question. In view of the astoundingly similar content of the ad to the information that Goldfarb is selling and the material obtained from the poll which has been conducted by Goldfarb on behalf of the federal government, will the minister guarantee to this House that the government poll on the constitution and the
material obtained thereby has in no way been used by Goldfarb for its own commercial gain?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, that is exactly the same assurance I gave the previous questioner, that the polls which have been conducted for the Government of Canada remain the property of the Canadian government and will not be used by this firm for other purposes.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I would ask the minister whether he will verify that the minister is using the provisions of section 14 of the proposed freedom of information act and the spirit of the matter before the House as the basis for withholding the poll in question; and would he agree that it would be more fair, in view of the fact he is following the spirit of the freedom of information law, that there be some opportunity for independent review of that poll or, indeed, a parliamentary reference to a committee so we can satisfy ourselves that the exclusion which he indicates he is now relying upon is in fact valid? Will he not put this matter out of dispute and allow some independent assessment as to what those polls really cover?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, this week we tabled 129 polls taken in Canada over the last 18 months. I think the House will be satisfied since we made a very sincere effort to release the documents we had on hand. There would be a total of 12 only that cannot be made public at this time. We intend to respect the spirit of the legislation on information, and as soon as those documents will be of no more use to us for policy development purposes, we will release them.


INQUIRY WHETHER EMBARGO ON SALES TO U.S.S.R. WILL BE LIFTED
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport who speaks on grain matters in this House. In view of reports from the United States that Secretary of Agriculture Bergland is about to sign a new five-year agreement for grain sales to the Soviet Union, and as this once again shows the lack of commitment of the United States to its once heralded grain embargo, will the minister now state whether the Canadian government is prepared to call off the grain embargo and remove any restrictions to normal trade?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: No, Madam Speaker. We will try to avoid replacing embargoes from the United States, but we will continue to ship to the U.S.S.R. at our normal and traditional levels.
October 16, 1980

I had the opportunity yesterday to meet with the Canadian Wheat Board, which was quite encouraged by the international economics of grain at this time, and we are hoping to reach that traditional level of exports.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, the price decline as a result of the embargo has cost western Canadian farmers an estimated $225 million. In view of the sad state of the farm economy-and we need only see the lay-offs and the decline of farm machinery companies to see the effect of this-can the minister say when farmers can expect to receive the compensation they were promised because of reduced grain prices due to the embargo?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the government acknowledges the principle of compensation. There is a committee led by the Minister of Agriculture working on that, and we expect it will report soon.


DROUGHT ASSISTANCE
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary is to the Minister of Agriculture. We have seen a number of laudable attempts by this government to put money into the pockets of cash-short farmers, but Canadian hog farmers have been waiting over six months for stabilization payments. People in the drought area have seen their payments cut in half. Can the minister inform this House as to the amount of compensation farmers can be expected to receive, and will he assure the House that the government will not change its mind once the compensation formula has been announced?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, we said that we would spend the equivalent of $67 million for drought aid. We have not said we would not spend that amount of money. We met in Regina last week with the advisory group and also with the people who are doing the investigation in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They outlined some of the problems they have. They also told us of the many good comments they have received from the producers. With the other provisions under the legislation we are bound by with regard to crop insurance, etc., no other country in the world is offering the kind of assistance we are offering.
Under hog stabilization I believe we have 26,000 applications at the present time. We are hoping that those can be processed, if not by the end of November, by early December or before the end of the year. We are hiring extra staff to speed up the processing of stabilization payments. Again, we have not received any direct complaints from any of these people. They have said only that they are both very good programs and that they are very satisfied with them.
Oral Questions THE CONSTITUTION


INQUIRY WHETHER AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS JEOPARDIZED BY RESOLUTION
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice, who in this case in particular fortunately is also the minister responsible for social programs. The minister may recall that in June of 1978 there was a very famous case in the United States, the Bakke case, which dealt with affirmative action programs in relation to the bill of rights in the United States. In that particular case, which the minister will recall, the Supreme Court of the United States threw out the affirmative action program at the University of California on the basis that it was discriminatory according to the bill of rights.
I would like to ask the minister whether he has yet sought a legal opinion as to whether social programs in this country- and more particularly, affirmative action programs-are in jeopardy as a consequence of the bill of rights proposed in his resolution.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the particular case to which the hon. member refers. I will look into that, but I think that we have made provisions in the bill of rights which will be enshrined in the constitution to make sure there is no such problem.
In fact, if this House would make up its mind and send the whole resolution to the committee, I would be able to deal on a one-to-one basis with these questions. The matter is before the House, but it is in the committee where we can reply to these questions.


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, like all members of this House, I am aware that section 15(2) of the proposed resolution deals with the question of affirmative action programs as related to the disadvantaged. If the minister will check, he will find that one of the difficulties in the Bakke case and two subsequent cases was that the definition of the word "disadvantaged" caused great difficulty. Right now in Washington- I checked this morning-their own affirmative action programs and many of their social programs are in jeopardy as a consequence of that decision. Would he please undertake to advise the House of the legal opinion which he would seek, and make sure that the House, and indeed all people in this country who are concerned with the matter, are informed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, we did answer this question a few seconds ago. I said that it is before the committee that we will discuss these issues-


Mr. Clark:: You prefer Westminster.

October 16, 1980
Oral Questions
t Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -and ensure that the proposed charter of rights be debated in a rational fashion. I think that during the exchanges we might have in committee between members, myself and the officials of my department we could find the best solution. I do not think that it will be in the best interest of the House to try to score political points at this stage-


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, go to London, avoid Canadians. [Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the hon. member seems to believe there is a serious problem, a problem I would like to solve in a judicial manner as quickly as possible. The best way of doing so is to discuss the proposals of the hon. member in committee, to look at the legislation as it is drafted and amend it if necessary.


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, the minister well knows, and so do his colleagues, that we will be asked to vote on this matter before it is sent to the committee. The people I represent would like to know the answer to the question. It is a very straightforward question. The basis of my question is this: the Minister of Employment and Immigration brought forward a few weeks ago three affirmative action programs dealing with young people, dealing with women, and dealing with Indians. If the Bakke case were applied here, those three programs would not be declared legal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


David Edward Crombie: I ask the minister only one question-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I know the hon. member was about to ask a question, but I must remind him that when I call him to order, he must resume his seat. Will he now put his question immediately.


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I appreciate your advice to me. I should like to ask the minister whether he would undertake to provide the House with a legal opinion that those three programs are not in jeopardy.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, it is my intention to deal with all these problems in the committee-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -and I am profoundly convinced that the best way we can protect the rights of Canadians is to have a good charter of rights-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -and to make sure that this charter of rights is enshrined in the constitution and drafted in such a way that
no affirmative action programs which have been decided on for the good of Canadians will be thrown out because of the charter of rights. Basically, a charter of rights is to protect rights. I am glad that the hon. member wants those rights to be protected and I hope he will vote for a charter of rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is a sad response.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the Government of Canada's conflict of interest guidelines. Commodore Arnott, who was the project manager of the frigate program, was offered a position in March, 1980, by Vickers Stanwick, a subsidiary of Vickers Canada. In June of 1980, presumably while this job offer was being negotiated, Vickers Canada was added to the short list from which they had been dropped in October, 1979. At the end of June, 1980, having received departmental permission, Commodore Arnott resigned as project manager and became president of Vickers Stanwick. What is the Prime Minister doing about this flagrant breaching of his guidelines?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I think that Commodore Arnott has acted in conformity with the procedure established under existing guidelines on conflict of interest. I am well aware of all the details which the hon. member for Victoria has given me and I have asked privy council to co-ordinate the review of the case to make sure that all these guidelines have been observed according to the existing regulations.


ALLEGED BREACH OF GUIDELINES BY VICKERS CANADA
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I put my question to the Prime Minister because I wanted an answer from someone who knew something about what is going on in the Department of National Defence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I will direct my supplementary to the Prime Minister and perhaps he would be kind enough to take an interest in this matter. Scan Marine, one of the other competitors, has wisely registered a complaint regarding this matter. Will the Prime Minister now consider rejecting the bid by Vickers Canada in view of the unfair advantage the company has achieved by this flouting of his guidelines, which his Minister of National Defence either condoned or about which he was shockingly ignorant?
October 16, 1980


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I reject completely the premise of the question posed by the hon. member. I do want to point out that I am in complete agreement with what the minister has said, that we have ensured that the guidelines were followed by the hon. gentleman, that he followed the guidelines to the extent of asking advice, as the guidelines provide, before accepting this job, and he adhered to the guidelines in every way.
Nonetheless we are, as the minister said, reviewing the case. It is possible that the guidelines might have to be changed if this gives rise to any unfair advantage. I just want to point out that the guidelines were not changed during the period when the hon. member was part of the government of this country. They kept the guidelines, we are keeping them now. We are always ready to review them if they lead to some unfair advantage.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker,
I have a very serious question for the Prime Minister. All parties in the House support the concept of bilingualism and I trust that all members are doing whatever they can in support of bilingualism during these very crucial and historic times. However, in some parts of Canada at least, bilingualism is in jeopardy at this time. If one assumes that education is the cornerstone of a successful bilingual program, the federal funding for bilingual education has been curtailed in the last couple of years, last year from $200 million to the present year-


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


Nelson Andrew Riis: My question to the Prime Minister is: in the new budget will the Prime Minister assure the House that adequate funding for bilingual education will be provided so that school districts with active programs can have them maintained and expanded?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I hope the hon. member will accept the notion that it is not only the federal government which is responsible for bilingualism; in the spirit in which he asks the question, every province which has jurisdiction over education should be concerned with that. We have been funding substantially education systems in the provinces to the extent of an amount in excess of $2 billion a year for various aspects of post-secondary education which is given to the provinces. The spirit in which we help bilingual education specifically, or education in the other official language, was that the provinces themselves be prepared to accept some responsibilities, and it is in that sense that we hope the provinces will continue to show interest in the matter and that the federal government will not always have to
Oral Questions
continue supporting them in areas which they claim very strongly are within their jurisdiction.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am really disappointed to hear that response. Perhaps on another matter, certainly related to the forthcoming budget, may I ask the Prime Minister if he could use his good offices to work with the powers that be to ensure that adequate funds are set aside so that staffs of members of Parliament can have the opportunity for second language education to carry on in the tradition that we do as members.


An hon. Member:: Ask Francis Fox.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. This is a matter which is under my purview. We are looking at this question and if the hon. member wishes to discuss it, he can come to my office. We might do that after the question period.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and has to do with ports policy. In view of the fact that Bill C-60 died on the order paper some time ago, I wonder if the minister could inform the House as to his own plans in terms of the planning, construction and expansion of port facilities with respect to the National Harbours Board, and particularly in ports in northern New Brunswick?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is referring to Bill C-50, I think. This was a bill the intent of which was to bring the whole of the port structure in Canada under a single umbrella. This was well received by some but not by others, and as my friend said, the bill was not passed.
In recent months I have received a great number of representations and I have consulted with a great number of people. What the press indicated a few days ago was that we were now moving toward the recognition of a greater element of diversity in our future port policy. The idea would be to have the national harbours commission bill as it is and to try to improve on the National Harbours Board Act in order to allow for a different kind of structure. I will soon be introducing these ideas to my colleagues in cabinet before doing so in the House of Commons.

October 16, 1980
Oral Questions ENERGY


REPORTED ESTABLISHMENT OF WESTERN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT FUND
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I would address my question to the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, if I could break into his conference for a moment. Will the minister confirm the announcement made four weeks ago by the liberal Senate leader from British Columbia, who said that the federal government will be establishing a $4 billion western energy development fund to be spent over the next ten years, on who knows what? Will the minister agree that $4 billion is substantially less than one-fifth of the $25 billion to $30 billion which the federal government seeks to raise over the same ten-year period by invading the natural gas revenues of British Columbia and Alberta?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam speaker, in spite of his very often erroneous allegations, the hon. member knows I always pay attention to what he says. I think today is another example of his flying by the seat of his pants on a lot of issues at the same time.


An hon. Member:: You run the government that way.


Marc Lalonde: When the Prime Minister met the Premier of Alberta at the end of July, he indicated that it was the intention of the federal government, in addition to all its new energy expenditures and initiatives, to set aside a western economic development fund which would be used to help the economic development of the western provinces to the tune of $4 billion. That was the offer the Prime Minister made at the end of July in his meeting with the Premier of Alberta.
As hon. members know, this offer was turned down by the Premier of Alberta. I have indicated that in the next few weeks the government would come out with a global energy program and also that there will be a budget in the next few weeks. I invite my hon. friend to wait patiently and he will see what happens in that respect.


INQUIRY WHETHER PROPOSED TAX ON NATURAL GAS AND HYDROELECTRIC EXPORTS WILL BE ABANDONED
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I can presume, then, that we should take pronouncements made in recent days by the Senate leader from British Columbia with a large grain of salt.
My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Recognizing that more than 20,000 British Columbians have now signed a petition expressing their absolute rejection of any attempt by the federal government to expropriate provincial resource revenues through the unilateral imposition of a federal export tax on natural gas and hydroelectric power, is the Minister of Finance now prepared to announce that the government will honour the election promises made to British Columbians by Mr. Gordon Gibson and the same hon. Senate leader, Mr. Perrault, by abandoning here
and now all plans to impose this discriminatory export tax against the residents of British Columbia and Alberta?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, at this time I am not prepared to rule out any option that is available in framing my budget.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF MINES AND ENERGY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Madam Speaker:: At this point I invite hon. members to join with me in signalling the presence in our gallery of the Honourable Roger Goldsworthy, the Minister of Mines and Energy of South Australia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I believe last April the minister informed the House the AHOP program was 95 per cent successful. Will he then explain why, in the region of Peel-that is, Brampton and Mississauga-where 40 per cent of all AHOP units built in Canada were erected, 40 per cent of them have been returned to CMHC and are being returned at the rate of 50 to 75 units per month? Will the minister now admit that the AHOP program has been a complete and total disaster? What is he planning to do to alleviate the problem?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, the question is a repeat question and the answer is the same as I gave. In my opinion and in the opinion of CMHC officials, many municipal councillors and many people knowledgeable in the field, in large part the AHOP program was successful. It accomplished many objectives, such as employment in the industry and accommodation to people who can afford it, and I stand by the figures I gave earlier.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, that answer is ludicrous. I might remind the minister that the five-year program-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is not seeking information, he is giving it. Will he please put a question?


John Horton McDermid: Now that the 8 per cent mortgages are up and these people are required to pay 14.5 per cent for a first
October 16, 1980

mortgage and 13 per cent for a second mortgage so as to pay back the government to reduce that interest loan, what will the minister do to alleviate the problem faced by the people who are leaving these homes in droves? The minister should not ignore this problem and he should not tell us that it is 95 per cent successful, because it is not.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the answer to the second question is much easier. I am sure my hon. friend has forgotten that in March of last year, in response to the problem that he indicated, CMHC through the ministry indicated that we will accept on an individual basis requests in hardship cases to ensure that that portion of a person's income which exceeds 30 per cent would be reviewed, and that those hardship cases would have the same availability to the earlier program. That was the design of the program when it was announced five years ago.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A year and a half ago, the House of Commons unanimously passed a motion introduced by the hon. member for Matane concerning the situation in Cambodia. It proposed that all members of the Canadian Parliament express their horror at that genocide, which is one of the worst crimes in the history of mankind, and asked all parliamentarians and governments which maintain relations with our country to protest against that slaughter which has astounded the entire world.

On Monday of this week Canada voted at the United Nations in favour of seating representatives of the infamous Pol Pot regime, apparently following the advice of our Southeast Asian friends who see the Pol Pot guerrillas as a means of keeping Viet Nam off balance.
My question is directed to the minister. By what norms of human decency has Canada seen fit to follow the faulty and self-interested advice of our friends in Southeast Asia and not Canada's collective conscience on this vote, the only practical result of which will be to prolong the agony of the Cambodian people? Will the minister at least undertake, in the circumstances, to hear the other side of the story from representatives of the Heng Samrin regime and Vietnam?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, Canada frequently has condemned the human rights abuses of the Pol Pot regime. I can state quite plainly in the House, as we have stated before, that we would not want to see a Pol Pot government again in power in Kampuchea. But we voted this week in the United Nations for
Oral Questions
the Pol Pot regime for a very limited purpose, and that is to continue its seating in the United Nations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: I wonder whether members opposite who have been applauding are applauding for the Heng Samrin regime or for Viet Nam, the aggressor.
The reason we cast this vote for representation is precisely because any alternative would be far worse. To approve the Heng Samrin regime and the Vitenamese aggressors in Kampuchea who are supporting that regime certainly would not be an improvement. We do not condone such aggression. We are working with the nations of Southeast Asia in the hope of reaching a political solution which will see another government eventually in power in that country.


GARRISON DIVERSION
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have here a copy of the tender call for construction of the New Rockford Canal portion of the Garrison Diversion Unit, construction of which will be of benefit to North Dakota only if the entire project is completed, which will, of course cause irreparable damage to Manitoba's fisheries and environment.
Since diplomatic channels have clearly been unsuccessful in protecting Canadian and Manitoba interests in this matter, is the minister now prepared to explore more convincing tactics in bilateral negotiation, such as face-to-face lobbying by an all-party Canadian delegation that could forcefully and convincingly show our friends to the south how seriously Canadians are concerned about this matter?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, we have accepted the support of members of Parliament of all parties with regard to any lobbying on the subject they would wish to do with American legislators. In fact, over the past week we have made representations to the government of the United States with respect to the way in which they propose to spend this money that has been allocated by congress. We have the assurance of the U.S. government that the money will not be used to advance the construction in any way that would harm Canadian interests. However, we submitted an additional diplomatic note to request details so that we may be assured of this.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, in 1977 the International Joint Commission handed down its report on the trans-boundary implications of the Garrison Diversion, a report which was very sympathetic to Canadian interest. Over three years have passed since then. Is the minister now in a position to tell this

October 16, 1980
Oral Questions
House when he expects that bilateral negotiations on the terms of the 1977 IJC report will begin?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, this is part of the same picture. We have the assurance of the U.S. government that no money will be spent in a way which will advance the Garrison project detrimentally to Canada.


Mr. Knowles:: Do you believe that?


Mark R. MacGuigan: I say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that we are seeking details so that we can be publicly assured as to how the money is being spent and be able to judge for ourselves whether or not this is the case.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration, but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. The recent strike created havoc in unemployment insurance offices and the current backlog is creating problems for those who are entitled to unemployment insurance and who are still waiting for their cheques. In view of the estimation which the department did, no doubt, of the situation, can the parliamentary secretary tell us whether special measures will be taken in the next 24 hours to help those who are still waiting for their benefits?


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, as I told the hon. member for Manicouagan last week, the problem has nothing to do with the distribution of cheques, as it may be the case in the province of Quebec in connection with welfare and the postal strike. It is a matter of issuing the cheques. While the clerks were on strike, unfortunately, no cheques were printed. Since last week they have been working overtime and most of the cheques were issued or will be within hours or days. I am quite confident that before the weekend or the middle of next week most cases will have been dealt with. In cases where serious financial problems are being experienced, the social affairs department in Quebec can help out the people concerned, but on an individual basis.


ESTABLISHMENT OF EMERGENCY FUND
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I have received an important telegram from Montreal; it is selfexplanatory. The emergency committee receives hundreds of requests because the responsible social bodies cannot meet the demand, which means that the people concerned are penniless. Can the parliamentary secretary at least indicate to us whether he is willing to recommend to the minister that a very special emergency be set up, in view of the unbelievable problems those people are now up against, not only in Montreal but throughout the province of Quebec as well as in my riding?


Dennis Dawson: As we know, Madam Speaker, all the welfare services of the province of Quebec are authorized, and have the necessary funds, to meet urgent problems. With regard to the unemployment insurance benefits, as those cheques are not sent out on a regular basis like pensions, or in a fixed monthly amount-some employees receive a cheque for $150 one month and $75 another-it is impossible for our department to say it will put out cheques in an equal amount for everyone. Each case has to be dealt with individually. That is the cause of the delay in some cases. But in all cases of hardship, the Quebec social affairs department must meet the needs. Other volunteer organizations, other sources of financial assistance, can help out those people in cases of emergency. Unfortunately, our department is not set up to solve that type of problem: that is a provincial responsibility.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the minister responsible for Canada Mortage and Housing Corporation. I understand it is government policy that in order for an individual to be eligible to apply for a CMHC mortgage loan, all the house plans must be in metric. Does that regulation apply to all the provinces or are there currently certain sections of the country that are exempt from such a regulation? If, indeed, there are certain provinces which are not bound by the regulation at the present time, would the minister explain to the House why some provinces are bound by the regulation while others are not?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, my information is that the requirement of the corporation is one that is national in scope. I stand to be corrected, and I will look into the matter. I might add that I have received praise as well as criticism as a result of the difficulty caused. On the other hand, people and groups in the industry, associations, builders and so on, have said that it is a good move and they have complimented the corporation on that course of action.


Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, the minister is undoubtedly aware that not all those in the business of selling homes have plans available in metric. Many of them have plans that are only available in the imperial measure. Is the government prepared to make concessions at all for those dealers who do
October 16, 1980

not have plans that are available in metric? I would also add that in my earlier question I meant to include the territories as well as the provinces.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, my information is that the corporation is attempting to persuade and encourage the industry to follow the course of using metric in all plans that are submitted. I understand that this has taken a little bit of time. I understand as well that the industry, through its associations of builders and so on, is attempting to encourage builders and the industry itself to equip itself to comply with the regulations.


COAL-SUPPLY TO SYDNEY STEEL CORPORATION
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Would the acting minister immediately cause to be investigated the circumstances whereby the reserves of coal supplied by Devco to the Sydney Steel Corporation have become precariously low on site, and any unexpected interruption in production would cause this already troubled corporation great difficulty. Could I have that undertaking?


An hon. Member:: Where is the acting minister?


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Who says there is one?


An hon. Member:: There isn't one.


An hon. Member:: Someone answer the question.
[ Translation]


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I shall be happy to take notice of the question and refer it to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I shall see to it that the hon. member receives a reply as soon as possible.


Madam Speaker:: Does the hon. member have a supplementary question?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Yes, Madam Speaker. This time 1 will direct it to the government House leader. Perhaps the House leader will also take under representation the fact that there appears to be more money being made from sales to the Sydney Steel Corporation, which is very close to Devco, than is being made on sales to customers such as Stelco or on export sales. In view of the fact that these corporations are both vital to Cape Breton and that maximum co-operation between them is necessary, would the House leader convey to his colleague the request to make certain that Sysco is receiving all the benefits of its close proximity to Devco for the mutual benefit of the
Oral Questions
area and not being charged a price that is unreasonable, having regard to all the circumstances?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I shall certainly tell the minister responsible about the comments made by the hon. member in his question.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (London-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Following allegations of a slow-down in grain movements from southern Alberta, is the minister able, through his own office or through the grain transportation co-ordination office, to bring pressure on the railways in Alberta and British Columbia to implement measures which will correct this situation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, a number of entities have tried to help the parties to reach some conclusions, to come to some agreement, but this has not yet proved to be successful. The parties themselves have negotiated quite hard and the Department of Labour has also sent a negotiator. He came to an agreement which the labour side could not accept. Then the Canadian Transport Commission for the western division has been around, the Canadian grain co-ordinator has been around, all kinds of people have tried to help but have not yet been successful. I am trying on my own now.


ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and is a follow-up to questions asked earlier about polls taken by the Canadian Unity Information Office. In a statement in his letter to members of Parliament the minister said that he could not possibly release three of those surveys because they could be injurious to the conduct of federal-provincial affairs.


Charles Joseph Clark: What nonsense.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I should like to ask the minister whether he could possibly elaborate a little more on why the results and details of these polls might prejudice the relations between the provinces and the federal government, or why it might be injurious? What possible questions could be asked that could

October 16, 1980
Oral Questions
be harmful? What possible results could the government have that might be harmful to the relations between the federal government and the provinces in a poll that is financed by the taxpayers of this country?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will be able to see for himself when I make the polls public in the next few weeks or months. We have made 13 of them public until now. Everyone can see the kind of questions we have asked in the past, and I am convinced that the hon. member will understand when these polls are made public that the questions do not deal only with the constitutional problem.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Justice what can possibly be so harmful about public opinion? It is the Canadian public opinion that he is trying to hold back from the House.
The minister says in his letter that later on these polls will be made public. I should like to ask him now for a commitment that the three polls referred to will be made public before the joint committee on the constitution meets. If he cannot do that, can he at least assure the House that those three polls will be made public before the committee has to make a final recommendation to this House on the resolution on the constitution? 1 think we have a right to know, as opposition members of Parliament, what information the government has.
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I have made public 13 of the results of the polls taken during the last 18 months, and from the response of hon. members it seems that they might have preferred that none of them had been made public. In any case, Madam Speaker, our policy is very clear. When we are through using the polls for policy development purposes, we shall make them public. At this time, these polls are being used to develop certain policies which have not yet been finalized by the government in many areas, and we shall make them public when the policies have been announced.


REQUEST MINISTER RECONSIDER REFUSAL TO RELEASE POLL RESULTS
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, there is no thinking member in this House of Commons who can accept the garbage we have just heard from the Minister of Justice.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Not one. To say that is to say that it is wrong for people to be informed of what the collective opinion is on a public issue. Would the minister
reconsider what he has just said in the spirit of freedom of information-this freedom that was talked about in Toronto a few days ago by the Minister of Communications. Would the minister reconsider what he is saying in terms of the damage he is doing to this whole process in this Parliament?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I am very surprised by the attitude of the hon. member. We shall make public today or tomorrow 129 of the 141 polls made by the government during the last 18 months, some of which were taken by the Progressive Conservative administration and not made public at the time, which we will now do. As I have said, we shall also make public the three others which are under my control in due time. As a matter of fact, the Freedom of Information Act provides for a certain lapse of time between the application and the moment when the minister must make the information public, and we shall follow the spirit of the law.


PRIVILEGE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege relating to a matter that has recently come to my attention and that, in my judgment, constitutes not only a breach of the privileges of this House but also, I regret to inform you, an indication of contempt by the government for the Chair and your responsibilities as Speaker of the House of Commons.
The House will recall that there is before your Honour for your decision a question of privilege raised and argued in this House at some length in relation to government advertising, having to do with the matter which is under discussion by the House of Commons and on which the House of Commons has not yet reached a decision, that is to say, the contents of the draft resolution proposed by the government. That is a matter on which Your Honour has not yet rendered judgment.
Between the time the question was raised and before Your Honour's decision, an advertisement has begun to appear in newspapers across the land. This appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail, this morning, on page 17, under the title "Something to Think About". It is sponsored by an organization called Publications Canada, which I can only assume is the successor to Information Canada, of infamous renown in the House of Commons and the country.
This advertisement invites Canadians to go to their urban post offices and secure two documents which will give them more information about the matters that are under debate and have yet to be decided in the House of Commons.
October 16, 1980

1 believe, Madam Speaker, that this is a very substantive breach of the privileges of this House and indeed, a contempt of your office by the Government of Canada, knowing this matter has been raised and not decided upon, to commence a new series of advertisements or advertising programs. That is one matter which I think you should judge.
The other matter which is equally important, is that the information in at least one of these documents is false information. I have not had the opportunity to read all the documents in extensive detail, but I can draw your attention to at least two statements in one of the documents which are false and one statement which is very seriously misleading.
A statement which is false in the document entitled, in English, "Highlights of a Proposed Resolution Respecting the Constitution of Canada", appears on page 1 and states that this proposal would provide as follows:
An amending procedure will ensure that all changes to the constitution can be made in Canada.
That is not true, Madam Speaker. What the Government of Canada is trying to do, what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is trying to do, is not to have all changes made in Canada but, instead, to take certain changes which he proposes and smuggle those through Westminster so that they will be beyond the reach of this Parliament and will be decided, instead, by a foreign parliament in a foreign country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Therefore, Madam Speaker, the statement in this document does not reflect the attitude of hiding in the skirts of Westminster that is being evinced by this government in relation to certain of the amendments that it prefers. That statement is false.
The second statement that is false also appears on page 1 of the same document, and reads as follows:
If the proposed resolution is endorsed by Parliament, the Government of Canada will submit the joint address to the Queen-
It is our understanding, Madam Speaker, that what would be endorsed as a basis for a joint address to Westminster-is not the resolution but simply a procedural motion-a motion of concurrence in a committee report. It will not at all be an endorsement of the substance of the resolution; it would simply be the vote on the procedural question. That, too, Madam Speaker, is a matter that is false.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please, I shall put this in the form of a question because I need to be enlightened on what the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is leading to. If he is raising a question of privilege that flows from today's deliberations, that is one thing, and that is why I have listened to the right hon. member, because what he was saying was very close to it. But he seems to be asking about something which took place outside the House. The right hon. member could raise a question of privilege concerning something which occurred outside the House if he wished to, but I would need to have notice. The only question of privilege that I can hear from the right hon. member is if it flows from the
Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn
deliberations of today's question period. Therefore, I would ask the right hon. member to argue on something which has been discussed today rather than something which happened outside the House. Otherwise, I will have to ask him to give me notice.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I will naturally take your guidance on the matter. I thought a question of privilege could be raised without notice, either if it arose from the proceedings in the House or if it came to the attention of a member during the proceedings of the House. But if you are ruling otherwise, and I gather you are, I stand to give you notice of an intention to raise this question of privilege substantively tomorrow.
I would say in passing, before I resume my seat, that I think it would be appropriate for the Government of Canada, on a matter regarding which a decision has to be rendered by the Chair, to stop these advertisements until Your Honour has made a ruling.


MR. HNATYSHYN-PUBLIC OPINION POLLS-ADVERTISEMENT SPONSORED BY GOLDFARB CONSULTANTS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I have given written notice to Your Honour. It is with respect to a matter raised in the question period today. It was originally raised under a point of order yesterday by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).
It relates to the question of the polls which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has refused to deliver and disclose to members of Parliament. In the course of developing the basis upon which my question of privilege is made I might just point out that we have an offering, as you will know from the question period, from the Goldfarb Consultants organization. This advertisement appeared in the Financial Times for October 11, 1980. It was a full-page ad in which it is pointed out that the Goldfarb organization will publish a report to include a detailed treatment of public attitudes toward the debate surrounding a new Canadian Constitution. On the other hand, the polls in question which are being refused to us as members of Parliament by the Minister of Justice covering polling by Goldfarb Consultants Ltd., deal with Canadians' attitudes toward and expectations for constitutional reform. The similarities, notwithstanding the excuses given by the Minister of Justice, are quite outstanding.
These particular studies seem to be upon the same topic and the same subject matter, so we are faced with two particular problems. One is the whole question of the basis upon which the minister has refused to give and disclose those particular polls. The minister has apparently referred to and used the spirit of the freedom of information bill which is now before the House of Commons. Even though he was aware that this matter was going to be raised as a question of privilege, he has left the House, as my colleague has just mentioned. The fact is that the spirit of that particular bill which is now before the House is being used by the government as a basis of exclusion to disclosure of these documents. On the other hand, we, as

October 16, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn
members of Parliament, do not have available to us the recourse or the remedies which would be available if the bill had been passed. Therefore we do not have the ability to go to an independent arbiter, information ombudsman or a commissioner, nor do we have the right to make a judicial appeal on that particular decision.
The importance and urgency of this matter are that we are now dealing with a momentous debate. We have a resolution which purports to amend the constitution of our country and to change in a substantial way the Constitution of Canada. So, we are denied information with respect to public opinion by the people of Canada in polling carried out at public expense by the government on the eve of the committee consideration, and indeed during the course of the discussion in Parliament of this very important topic. The second aspect is this: notwithstanding the fact that we have a statement by the minister in the House, the information which is being offered by Goldfarb Corporation for a fee and the information that has been obtained by Goldfarb for the government are amazingly similar. I think we have the right to ask ourselves whether or not there is a principle and question involved here of proprietary interest held by the Government of Canada with respect to the information obtained by the Goldfarb Corporation.
We should have the opportunity, I submit, Madam Speaker, to have a parliamentary investigation of this matter. I think it is appropriate for us as parliamentarians to be able to determine whether or not there has been a breach of the normal guidelines which would prohibit information obtained for the government for a fee, in which the government has a proprietary interest, to be merchandised by the polling company or by the consultants who have been retained to obtain this information. We should be in a position to satisfy ourselves that there is no motivation behind the Minister of Justice in refusing to disclose this particular information on the basis that he wants Goldfarb to come out first and be able to proceed on a commercial basis with this information before it is made generally available to the public.
The problem which concerns me is this: the matter has great urgency. The matter is one which deals with the rights and privileges of every member of this House with respect to the availability of information obtained at public expense for a very important debate in the House at the present time. My rights, and the rights of every member of Parliament in this House, have been seriously and adversely affected.
In introducing this topic to you, Madam Speaker, I simply say that in the event that you do find there is a prima facie case, 1 am glad to provide for your consideration not only the ad in question so that you can have the opportunity to look at the wording, but also the material sent to me from the Minister of Justice, together with the listing by him of the polls carried out by Goldfarb which have been denied to us. If you see, on the basis of information that I have supplied to you and the representation I am now making, that there is a prima facie question of privilege and my privileges have been adversely affected, I would ask you to entertain a motion for a reference, and I have a motion to propose to you.
However, I have one final point before I move the motion. It is a point which I believe was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) the other day. It is not necessary for you to decide whether or not there has been a breach of privilege but whether a prima facie case has been raised by the proponent of the motion. It is up to the committee, once the question has been referred to that committee, to carry out an investigation to determine whether or not there has been a breach of privilege by the actions of the minister in this particular instance.
I simply want to submit to you that you are considering whether or not there is a prima facie case, but not deciding the issue itself as to whether or not there has been any breach of privilege by the actions of the minister. I am not asking you to decide but rather to have the committee decide. In any event, Madam Speaker, if you find a prima facie case, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the matter of the offering for sale by the Goldfarb organization of polling data denied to the House of Commons by reason of the federal-provincial exclusion clause of the proposed freedom of information legislation constituting a breach of the privileges of the House be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Madam Speaker:: Before I hear other members on this question, I must say that it is very close to two other questions which I have under advisement. The additional question which is raised refers to the publication of certain material. The hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has raised this question. He indicated that the material which was published is very similar to the kind of information or the title of the information contained in documents transmitted to him by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). However, he has not to my satisfaction described in what way the substance of the material published by Goldfarb constitutes a breach of the privileges of this House. The fact that something is published does not in itself constitute a question of privilege. The substance of it might constitute a privilege.
I will hear one other member because I have seen one rise on this question of privilege. I remind him that he must address himself to that particular point because, at this stage, I do not see a question of privilege in the matter that has been raised.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I will try at the outset to address myself specifically to the issue which you have raised because I think there is a very serious question of privilege here.
What my colleague the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), has questioned is whether it is proper, if in fact it has taken place, for commercial subscribers to the so-called Goldfarb report to have access to information paid for by the Canadian taxpayer and which is denied this Parliament. Surely nothing would be more fundamental when looking at the rights of members of Parliament than that they should be entitled to have access to information prepared for the Government of Canada at the expense of the taxpayers of
October 16, 1980

this country by a commercial company which is offering the information for sale for private gain to its customers.
What my colleague from Saskatoon West has asked is how we can possibly determine whether this is the case or not as long as Parliament is being refused access to the information. As long as we do not know what is in those polls which tax dollars have financed, there is no way we can make this comparison. We are not able to decide whether in fact Mr. Goldfarb is selling information which was paid for by the taxpayers for use by the Government of Canada. If, indeed, Mr. Goldfarb is selling such information for private gain, it would constitute, in my opinion, a very clear breach of the privileges of members of Parliament to have them be denied by the government, on whatever grounds, access to this information.
At the present time, Madam Speaker, you are taking under advisement a question of privilege that was raised on Friday. You are looking at the whole question of whether it is proper that public opinion in Canada should be classified. Only this government would feel it had the right to classify public opinion and treat it as something secret, and treat the results of studies carried out at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada as materials to which it alone should be privy, and Parliament and the people of Canada should not have access.
At the same time I would like to mention, arising out of the remarks of the Minister of Justice in the House today when he commented on the question of the release of polls, that the Minister of Justice misleads the House, I hope unintentionally, when he indicates, if that was the implication of what he was saying, that there was a policy when we were in government of withholding information gained through polls paid for by the taxpayer. In co-operation with my colleague from Joliette I was the minister who had responsibility for co-ordinating the government's activities on advertising and upon public opinion research. I can indicate to the House that our government's policy from the outset was that any poll paid for by the taxpayer should be made freely available to the people of Canada.


Mr. Ouellet:: How many polls did you release?


Henry Perrin Beatty: I say to the minister that we did not believe it was necessary to even enunciate a principle that should be so straight forward, that you do not classify public opinion polls paid for by tax dollars. These are matters which belong to the people of Canada.
I want to indicate to the government, as strenuously as I can, that if any of these polls which are being withheld by the government were taken during our tenure in office, I call upon the government today to release those polls. In doing that, I do so with the support of my leader. I invite members opposite to indicate if any of them at any time during our tenure in office requested these polls and were refused, because the policy was clear from the outset, that every single poll of this sort financed by tax dollars would be made available to the people of Canada, and certainly to the Parliament of Canada. If they have changed that policy and are classifying public opinion
Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn
polls, and in particular any that were paid for during our tenure in office, they have the responsibility to declassify them and make them available to Parliament and the public as soon as possible.
Let me return to the point you asked me to deal with, Madam Speaker. This is a very serious breach of the privileges of members of Parliament if tax dollars are used to develop public opinion polls and then those polls are classified and withheld from the Parliament of Canada at the time when they are critical for a debate which is taking place in Parliament this very day. If they are withheld from us, they are withheld from the people of Canada by the government, but this can be achieved through the backdoor by paying money to Martin Goldfarb, subscribing to his Goldfarb report for which he is taking full-page ads to try to sell. He points out in there that he has done extensive work for the Government of Canada.
The only way in which you, Madam Speaker, and members of this House, can make an informed judgment as to whether there has been a very serious breach of the privileges of members of the House of Commons is if the government is required to declassify those public opinion polls which they are keeping secret at the present time. That must be done.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, this is a good example of the lack of interest of Progressive Conservatives in the constitutional debate. Every excuse and every means, even if they show a complete lack of respect toward the population and toward Parliament, seem to them completely justifiable to raise a matter which certainly does not constitute grounds for a question of privilege. What the hon. member has just stated and suggested is the complete opposite of what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) said today in replying to certain questions. As you will see, the whole issue concerns a difference of opinions about the facts. How then can anyone conclude that the privileges of the members of Parliament are affected if, basically, the facts that should have been proven to your satisfaction, Madam Speaker, are denied on this side of the House?
Obviously, the member who spoke before the last speaker tried to give you a procedural lesson by saying, "Do not be afraid, all you have to do is to say that we are right and decide whether or not there is a prima facie question of privilege, and it will be up to the committee to examine the whole matter and determine whether you are right or not." I am sorry, but this is not procedurally correct. The hon. member was wrong. According to the procedure, you must decide, in light of the facts which are stated, whether there is a prima facie question of privilege. However, it is the House of Commons as a whole which must decide whether or not there is a question of privilege.
For you to conclude that there is a prima facie question of privilege, Madam Speaker, you need some facts. It is not just a matter of stating high principles. These must be supported by

October 16, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn
facts which show that members of Parliament have indeed been prevented from doing their usual work, fulfilling their duty as members and representing adequately their fellow citizens.
In the present case, there is absolutely no alleged fact which shows that members of Parliament seem to have been prevented from fulfilling their duty. On the contrary, the alleged facts have been expressly denied by the Minister of Justice. This is therefore a debate. This is what the members of the opposition want. They want a debate on the question, even though there has already been an overly lengthy debate last week on the same matter following a question raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. This is the second point of my argument, Madam Speaker, which shows how much the members of the Progressive Conservative Party are afraid to deal with the constitutional issue within the normal boundaries of the debate which has been going on recently. That fact is, there is already a question of privilege which has been reserved by you, Madam Speaker, on exactly the same matter which had been raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and I suggest they are abusing this institution and wasting the time of Canadian taxpayers as well as of hon. members of this House. By so doing, they are showing a lack of responsibility, and if Progressive Conservative Party members take advantage of every opportunity other than the debate on the constitution to play the game of petty politics, they deserve to be denounced, and I denounce them publicly. They are seeking every possible way to prevent the debate on the constitution from progressing normally.
To conclude, Madam Speaker, they are wasting the time of the House. There is absolutely no basis for raising this question of privilege, and I say that they are showing disrespect by rising on a question of privilege which has already been reserved by you, as introduced by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I wish to begin by agreeing with you that what we have before the House today is very similar to a question of privilege raised on Lriday and, indeed, a previous question of privilege raised in respect of government advertising on Thursday of last week.
If I may, I want to refer you to a ruling by Speaker Jerome back on December 10 last. This was referred to in the House last week by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who quoted from page 2180 of Hansard for that date. I should like to quote it again as follows:
The support of public funds, where applied to parliamentary activities, ought, I think, to apply across the floor of Parliament-
That was a ruling he made in respect of a different issue where the government of the day had established task forces made up of members of only one political party. The ruling was that where public funds apply, those public funds should
apply equally across the floor of the House when dealing with parliamentary activities.
What I want to suggest to you today is that we are dealing with an issue here that is as relevant, in terms of a constitutional committee, to a parliamentary activity as it was last September in relation to the task forces on grain movement, beef and so on, established by the government of the day. I think the same rule should apply here as applied at that time.
Another interesting comment made by Speaker Jerome on the same day, as reported at page 2181 of Hansard, is as follows:
I hope the House will take the sense of the argument, which I think is a very serious argument, and the sense of the Chair in this respect, that it is a practice which ought to be considered very carefully before it is entered into again. If it were to be attempted again, I would think the House ought to be consulted.
In other words, the House ought to be consulted before that type of activity is entered into again. One may say it was a different kind of activity because it involved task forces made up of members of only one party using public funds. I point back to what Speaker Jerome said when talking about parliamentary activity. We have before the House today a resolution on the constitution. We are not talking here at all about the substance of that resolution. We are talking about a resolution being before the House, regarding the constitution. It will establish a special committee of this House and the other place to study a document relating to the constitution. That, in my opinion, is a parliamentary activity. If the government of a previous day could not spend money for its MPs on task forces, it seems to me you can apply the same argument, that the government of the day should not have access to public funds to carry on a public opinion poll to the results of which the government alone will have access.


An hon. Member:: How about paying public servants? Can we not do that?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais), I believe, talks about paying civil servants.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You don't pay them very well.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I want to say to him that this is a totally different argument because public servants are involved in administering programs of the government from day to day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And there is parliamentary approval for it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They are running departments and, as my friend points out, there is parliamentary approval for that. Their jobs are defined by Parliament and we have approved them. We have passed acts, and they are administering those acts. Once Parliament has passed an act that is a totally different story. I see nothing wrong in principle with government advertising if the act has been passed and is the law of this land. What we are dealing with here today is something totally different. We are dealing with a proposal of the Government of Canada, and be it good or bad is immaterial and irrelevant, which is now a proposal of one party, a party which happens to be in the Government of Canada and which, in
October 16, 1980

preparing its argument for Parliament and the committee, has access to public opinion polls about how Canadians think their country should be organized. We do not have access to those polls and we do not have access to those funds as opposition members.
We are all elected as equals, and until a law is passed in Parliament, until public servants have been told what to do by Parliament, then I maintain that, as Mr. Speaker Jerome ruled, for any parliamentary activity, access to the funds should apply equally to members on both sides of the Chair, equally across the floor of this House.
I would like to ask you to take a serious look at that and the intent, because the Speaker said, as it appears in Hansard of that date, that before we enter into a practice of this sort again it should be given very serious consideration. He said the House ought to be consulted. 1 think we would be very wise if we were to refer this matter of polls, the matter of government advertising on proposals that are not the law of the land, have not been enacted, and where public servants do not have the direction of the Parliament of Canada, to a special committee. I think this is a question that strikes possibly at the very essence of the democratic system, of freedom, of equality of votes in this country, be they cast by members of Parliament on the government or on the opposition side of the House.


Madam Speaker:: With leave from hon. members, I would now interrupt debate on the point of privilege raised this afternoon. I would not like to anticipate on the two decisions I will give tomorrow, because they are very close to this one, and 1 submit to hon. members that evidence of this lies in the arguments heard in the House this afternoon. They are almost identical with those raised on the two points of privilege I have taken under consideration and on which I will rule tomorrow.
On the point raised today, I have not been satisfied up till now-although I reserve decision on this-as to what information in the studies, surveys or submission from Goldfarb Consultants is not included in the studies the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien) decided to make available to hon. members by a procedure he chose himself and that may not please all hon. members. I have no authority whatsoever to force the minister to table documents in this House. He selected a procedure, a way of his own to make available studies that in my view are very bulky. That is his business, and if hon. members are not satisfied with the way the minister made these documents available, they of course will have opportunities to debate this some way or other.
Therefore I reserve judgment on this point of privilege. 1 will render tomorrow the two decisions I took under consideration and also my ruling on today's point of privilege. I am not saying that they are all identical, not at all. They concern slightly different aspects. They are not identical, but they are similar enough, they are based on the same matter, and I shall rule tomorrow on all three.
Business of the House
[English\


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order and I must confess to you that it relates to the matter you have just reserved upon and, therefore, have not decided upon. This is something I feel should be brought to your attention. I raise it because of answers to questions in respect of this whole matter of polling. If you had not reserved decision I would not be raising this matter, because I do have respect for the Chair, and I think you understand that.
What 1 am concerned about is that in answer to a question put yesterday, as reported at page 3685 of Hansard-the question having to do with the tabling of the results of the polls-the minister decided that he would not table those results. He can make that decision. I will ask my friend the government House leader a little later about that, but he can make that decision. I will tell you, Madam Speaker, as a matter of record, that he is adopting a process by which the poll results can be obtained. The raw figures and the questions asked can be obtained.


Yvon Pinard: That is not a point of order, Walter.


Walter David Baker: We know that there was a detailed analysis of those polls. That detailed analysis is not being released. It is the analysis which is referred to in the Goldfarb ad.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I thank the hon. member for bringing this fact to my attention. I think I referred to it when 1 was telling the House that I was reserving my decision on this question of privilege. I did say that perhaps hon. members are not satisfied with the mechanism the minister chose to make these studies or polls available-


Walter David Baker: That was not the point.


Madam Speaker:: -to the members of this House, but that is the mechanism he chose. If hon. members want to discuss that on some other occasion or while raising some other point, I can entertain it, but since I said I am going to reserve on this question of privilege the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) really has been relating his remarks to that question of privilege. In any event, I have heard him, but I will not entertain any other interventions on this particular question of privilege.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the government House leader could tell us his plans for the end of this week and into next week.

October 16, 1980
Business of the House
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: With pleasure, Madam Speaker. If we can conclude the debate on the motion to refer to committee the resolution on the constitution fairly soon, perhaps even tonight, we could, pending the budget speech, proceed with consideration of three bills which are quite important and urgent, as my hon. colleague well knows. We could proceed with consideration of the motion to refer to committee, as soon as possible, Bill C-42 to establish the Canada Post Corporation. As my colleague will recall, the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) raised the matter just before the summer recess. He is no doubt well aware that postal employees are anxious to see this bill passed by Parliament, and I am certain that he will show his customary sense of responsibility so that the special committee can discuss the constitution and Parliament can consider important pieces of legislation such as Bill C-42 on the Post Office, and Bill C-43, which these questions of privilege have alluded to and which deals with access to information. The bill is before the House and should be considered as soon as possible, along with the Bank Act, which has yet to be passed at the report and third reading stages, and receive royal assent by November 30 of this year.

I want to take advantage of this situation and to point out to my hon. colleagues that the constitution is very important, the budget will be very important, and the energy matter will be very important, but we still have some 30 bills on the order paper, and three of them are very urgent. I just talked about them, and 1 refer to Bills C-42, C-43, and C-6.
If my hon. colleagues want to co-operate, they should understand that after the committee stage of debate on the resolution there will be a third stage on the floor of the House of Commons to deal with the report of the committee. There will be ample time to deal with the constitutional issue on the floor of this House. It might be useful to agree to the motion to refer the constitution resolution to the committee as soon as possible, hopefully tonight or, at the latest, at the beginning of next week, so that this House can be in a position to deal with the economy, as requested by the hon. member's own leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), to deal with the bills I just talked about and to deal with the other important and major issues this country is now facing.
Next Wednesday will be an allotted day. I had wanted to designate tomorrow, but it will be on Wednesday next. I would like that to be clear. We talked about Friday, but next Wednesday will be the next allotted day.
If my hon. colleague has further questions, I would be delighted to try to provide him with some answers.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that. As the government House leader knows, the government chooses the order of business, and it has chosen to bring a resolution before the House. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) invited all hon. members to participate in the debate. Frankly, as a member of this House, I appreciate that. I am
going to be participating in the debate this afternoon. I look forward to that, and I know there are other hon. members who look forward to it. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) set the parameters of this debate in the course of his speech when he indicated the importance of this particular stage.
I just want to make the record clear that the government can choose the business of the House as it wants to, and we will deal with it. I know the position the government House leader is in. I sympathize with him completely, and he must know that.
As far as the opposition day is concerned, the remarks of the government House leader were quite in order. However, it would be helpful to the business of the House, and I ask the minister this as part of my point of order, if he would prevail upon the Minister of Justice not to leave these polls, with such information as they contain, at the Canadian Unity Office and at every other government department around town so that we have to go all over town to get whatever information is available. The press has to do that. There is no gathering together of it. I wish the government House leader would prevail upon his friend, the Minister of Justice, to do what is normal, to come into the House, table the questions, the polls and the results, and also table the analyses of those polls which were referred to in this matter as being available for commercial purposes by Goldfarb. 1 wish the government House leader would prevail upon the Minister of Justice to do all those things, table them here and then end the dispute.
I think it is important that the government House leader should know that this matter is not merely procedural. He may regard it as such, but it is not. If these are attitudinal polls with respect to the attitude of the public of Canada about the issue before Parliament, then they go much further than that, and if he wants to facilitate business he had better do a bit of facilitating himself.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, on the first part of the remarks made by my hon. colleague, this is the first indication I have had that his party intends to prolong the debate on the first phase.


Mr. Paproski:: Oh, come on, Pinard.


Mr. Nielsen:: It is what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) told us.


Mr. Cousineau:: We listened to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). Wait until the minister has finished.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Did you speak in the debate, Pinard? We want the same right.


Yvon Pinard: Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. member. Perhaps hon. members opposite intend to let it go fairly quickly. If so, I appreciate that, because what the Prime Minister said, and what I am also saying-and I wonder why hon. members opposite are crying about it-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
October 16, 1980


Yvon Pinard: If hon. members do not feel well, they may get out. I do not mind.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Did you speak yesterday?


Yvon Pinard: I will send the hon. member a copy of my speech.
What I am saying to my hon. colleague-and I want to be serious with him because I think he was serious-is that what the Prime Minister said, and what we have been saying all the time, is that we certainly do think this is a very major and important debate, and as many members as possible should participate.


Erik Nielsen: That is not what the Prime Minister said.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, that is what he said. The Prime Minister did not specify one particular stage. My hon. friends will understand that participation in a debate can mean during the committee stage or even at the third stage when this resolution will be back.


Walter David Baker: What is the third stage?


Yvon Pinard: I would be glad to inform my hon. colleague of what is going on here. I thought he understood.
We are debating now a motion to refer the resolution to a committee. Once the committee receives the resolution, it will have a limited period of time in which to look at it, until December 9. The committee will then report to the House, and the House will then be in a position to look at the report of the committee which will deal exactly with the resolution.


An hon. Member:: Will we debate it?


Yvon Pinard: That is exactly what is going on.


An hon. Member:: And debate it?


Yvon Pinard: And debate the report of the committee, yes.


Mr. Kempling:: The report, not the resolution?


Yvon Pinard: The report will deal with the resolution. It will not talk about the World Series.


Walter David Baker: No tricks?


René Cousineau: You are filibustering.


Yvon Pinard: I am trying to explain what seems to me very obvious. When a committee reports to the House, what is considered by the House is the report of the committee. We do not intend at the time to deal with anything else but the report related to the resolution which is pertinent to the constitution. I think my colleague knows about that. If he wants us to talk about anything else, he had better tell us. What I am saying to him is that the House will have full opportunity at the third stage which I have just described to speak on the resolution which will be dealt with in the report of the committee.
Business of the House


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Yvon Pinard: I suggest hon. members ask their House leader, who is very knowledgeable and who will be able to provide them with further details. I do not wish to take up the whole time of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Yvon Pinard: We like to talk about the constitution.


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


Yvon Pinard: That is my answer to the first point raised by the House leader of the Tory party.
On the second point, I do not know if I should answer a question which I consider to be a prolongation of the debate which the hon. member started with Madam Speaker after she had decided to take some questions of privilege under consideration. I certainly do not intend to tell the Minister of Justice what to do. I think he answered the questions today very well. What he is doing, I think, is right. There is absolutely no breach of privilege of any sort in the way he is acting, and in a few moments I will be delighted to table the many, many polls that have been taken in the last 18 months.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), if I understand him correctly, has made it clear that if there is House time between the point when the debate on the present motion has concluded and the budget is to begin, that intervening time will be used to deal with Bill C-42, Bill C-43, and the report stage and third reading of Bill C-6. Can he tell us in which order those three bills will be dealt with, if there is a gap between the consideration of this resolution and the budget?
In connection with the budget, may I remind the government House leader that yesterday his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), in reply to a question about the budget said:
I will attempt to do that after I have had a chance to confer with my colleagues tomorrow.
Well, that tomorrow is today. The Minister of Finance has left. Is the President of the Privy Council in a position to tell us what the date of the budget is to be?


Yvon Pinard: May I say in reply to the second part of the question that, yes, "tomorrow" is today, but it is not yet over so I am not in a position to provide any indication on this. I had expected that perhaps a question would have been put to the minister today. Obviously the hon. member had no question on the matter, and I cannot answer in the minister's name at this stage.
With regard to the first part of the question as to the order in which we would like to deal with the three bills I had mentioned, it all depends on the length of the gap. If it is a long gap-and I understand the NDP would like to see this resolution go to the committee as soon as possible because they

October 16, 1980
Business of the House
understand that they will have ample opportunity to debate the matter later on-we would like to look first at the Bank Act because of the great number of amendments which will have to be discussed. But if the gap is short between the end of the debate on this motion and the beginning of the debate on the budget, then I suggest that we start debate on Bill C-42 which is related to making the Post Office into a Crown corporation. As I said earlier, there is much pressure, I understand-and I recognize that kind of pressure-and we should show some responsibility and deal with the matter as soon as possible.
We have the opportunity of dealing with all those important matters and at the same time continuing the debate on the constitution, because the committee will consider the resolution on the constitution and at the same time the House of Commons will be dealing with the bills mentioned, with the budget, and with the energy measures, just as the leader of the Tory party has asked be done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have two other questions which I should like to put to the government House leader under the heading of the business of the House. It is now 13 years since a special committee recommended to Parliament that a regime of collective bargaining for employees on Parliament Hill be established. The minister's predecessors promised several times that this matter would be considered. Can he say whether consideration has been given to the introduction of such legislation during this session?
My other question relates to the fact that there are thousands of veterans' widows who are disturbed and unhappy over the fact that they are having to wait four, five or six years for the pensions which were authorized earlier in this session. Will the government House leader discuss with his colleague, the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs, the possibility of bringing in another bill in this session to amend chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1980 to shorten or eliminate that most unfair waiting period?


Yvon Pinard: With regard to the first point, Madam Speaker, there is nothing in the Speech from the Throne dealing with the request made by the hon. member so I would be surprised if, in this session, there would be an opportunity to look at legislation related to the matter raised by the hon. member.
With regard to the second point, it is not the first time that the hon. member has shown some interest in the matter. I will be glad to speak to the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs but I cannot guarantee that we will agree to amend our legislation at this point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You will hear from me again.


Mr. Dick:: Madam Speaker, still speaking on the business of the House, I wish to make a point on the question which was brought up. There was a misrepresentation of facts which I think should be clarified at this time. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) paraphrased what he thought were the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). In fact, I have the transcript in front of me and the words do not convey what
he thought was the interpretation. On that occasion the Prime Minister said:
The Speaker has asked that Parliament return on Monday to begin debate on that resolution. Every member of Parliament from every corner of this land is asked to participate in this historic act.
By this he meant the debate on the resolution.


Yvon Pinard: I just want to say that we agree with that fully. As I was saying, the debate will not end with the acceptance of the reference of the matter to the committee; it will go on in committee, and the resolution will come back to the floor of the House where it will be debated. So every member of Parliament will have the opportunity to speak, not necessarily on the first stage but throughout the three stages. That is what I was saying, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Taylor:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. After the resolution comes back from the committee it is too late. We have representations to make. Only a few members go to the committee. We have representations to make on behalf of the people who sent us here and we should not be denied the right to do so.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, it is the hon. member's leader who, while in power, advocated the creation of a great number of committees to deal with subjects of importance. I believe in this institution which includes the committee system. As I was saying, it will not only be the committee which will look into the matter. The House is now looking into it, the committee will look into it, and it will be back on the floor of the House, so the hon. member should feel much more secure now that he knows he will have sometime the opportunity to speak, either at this stage, in committee, or when the resolution is back on the floor of the House.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I do not feel secure at all. I want to make my representations first.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have not recognized the hon. member.
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, during that exchange of views by the parliamentary leaders of the three parties in the House, reference was made to the legislation setting up the Post Office Corporation. I would like, therefore, to recall that my friends opposite have given their support in principle and said that they wished to hasten the passage of the legislation. I hope that the good will shown a few months ago is still there and that it will be possible to find the necessary time to pass that legislation. The unions which have to renegotiate collective agreements in the near future would like to do so under the Labour Code rather than under the public service legislation.
Therefore, it is necessary to obtain the co-operation of all political parties in the House and I hope that we will find the
October 16, 1980

time to do so even if we have to ask our hon. friends opposite to give up one of their allotted days to discuss that bill.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I took part in the discussion with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaser General (Mr. Ouellet) with respect to the postal corporation bill. I would suggest that he speak to his House leader and that his House leader can help him to decide which is the best time to bring in the bill. There is nothing that I said in the exchange we had in the earlier part of the year from which I would back away.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['Agreed.\nThe Constitution']
Madam Speaker:: Routine Proceedings. Presenting Reports from Standing or Special Committees. Tabling of Documents. Statements by Ministers.
Order Paper Questions QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
(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. 761, 1,285, 1,352, 1,486 and 1,494.



Mr. Shields: Since August 1, 1978, how many (a) administrative (b) policy consultants were under contract to the Department of Employment and Immigration and/or any boards, commissions or corporations reporting to the minister and, in each case, what amount was paid to them?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: (a) One administrative contract-total cost
$18,639.98; (b) Nine policy consultant contracts-total cost $22,375.39.
See report below.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I wish to table some papers. Do I have leave to table them?	Name
David Zifkin


Madam Speaker:: Order. With the consent of the House, we will now revert to tabling of documents.
Administrative Contracts August 1, 1978 to May 2, 1980 Number of
contracts	Cost
1	$18,639.98
Policy Consultant Contracts August 1, 1978 to May 2, 1980 Number of
contracts	Cost


TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Yvon Pinard: presume that hon. members have no objection to my tabling the polls. Under the provision of Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table a copy in both official languages of lists of public opinion surveys either conducted or planned since March, 1979.
Thomas Sloan John H. Tory Charles King Pierre Allard Walker Zimmerman Consultants Team Enterprises Ltd. Bill Shead Allan Ross
1
1

NIL*
NIL*
NIL*
NIL*
Total:	$22,375.39
* As of May 2, 1980, no payment had been made on this contract.
In so far as the Immigration Appeal Board is concerned, the reply is: none


NATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park) moved: that the first report of the Special Committee on a National Trading Corporation, presented to the house on Tuesday, October 14, 1980, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Schellenberger: Were plans for the new meat research building at the federal agricultural station in Lacombe, Alberta, submitted to the Treasury Board and, if so (a) what is the projected cost (b) on what date will construction begin (c) what is the anticipated date of completion?


Eugene Whelan: Yes.

October 16, 1980
Order Paper Questions
(a)	The Treasury Board approved this project at the department's preliminary estimate of cost of one million dollars.
(b)	Dates for commencement and completion of construction have not yet been established.
(c)	As in (b).


AGRICULTURE-MONETARY ASSISTANCE-CONSTITUENCY OF OXFORD
Mr. Halliday: 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1977-78 (b) 1978-79, how many (i) beef (ii) dairy (iii) poultry (iv) pork (v) egg (vi) corn producers in the constituency of Oxford, applied for assistance and received monetary assistance from the Department of Agriculture?
2.	For the same years, how many persons in the constituency of Oxford applied for a loan and received a loan from the Farm Credit Corporation?


Eugene Whelan: 1. None.
2. Farm Credit Corporation advises that statistics are not maintained on a constituency basis. The constituency of Oxford is made up of two field areas, which results in an overlap into the constituency of Brant. However, based on the foregoing, the answer is:
1977-78	1978-79
(a) Applied for a loan	120	109(b) Received a loan	110	83


ST. LAWRENCE ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Cossitt: What is a full description of the methods and procedures for hiring of (a) permanent (b) temporary or seasonal employees in the St. Lawrence Islands National Park?


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: St. Lawrence Islands National Park conducts its own recruiting only for administrative support (clerical) and operational (maintenance, etc.) positions.
(a) Hiring of permanent employees Closed or open competition
In the event that attempts to recruit qualified candidates from within the public service are unsuccessful or where it has been determined to be in the best interests of the public service, the responsible staffing officer may, subject to the conditions of delegation, consider recruitment from outside the public service, in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act and Regulations.
(i) Open competitions (open to the public)
The park must go to the local Canada Employment Centre for referrals. Potential candidates are referred by the local Canada Employment and Immigration Centre (CEIC) office in Brockville, Ontario. The region covered by this office extends from Brockville to
Gananoque but the area of the region may be increased to cover Prescott-Kingston if the local CEIC office feels that a wider search is required due to an insufficient number of candidates being available in the Brockville-Gananoque area. The candidates are then interviewed by parks personnel and rated against appropriate selection standards. Qualified candidates are then placed on an eligible list and offered positions as vacancies occur during the time the eligible list is valid, as governed by Public Service Commission regulations.
(ii) Closed competitions (open only to federal employees)
There are two types of closed competitions; local and regional. A local closed competition includes only employees of St. Lawrence Islands National Park. A regional closed competition includes Parks Canada employees, Ontario region, which emcompasses the province of Ontario. The area of competition for closed competitions is determined from the "Area of Competition Guidelines" as issued by the Public Service Commission on the basis of three considerations: the organizational unit within which a candidate must be employed in order to be considered; the geographic boundaries of the area of competition; and the occupational group and salary of employees. Closed competitions for employees of St. Lawrence Islands National Park take place when the number of candidates is sufficient to meet the three considerations listed above. Closed competitions are widened to a regional scope when the park cannot provide sufficient candidates. Closed competitions are extended to other regions and other departments when an insufficient number of candidates is available. The candidates are interviewed by parks personnel and rated against appropriate selection standards. Qualified candidates are then placed on an eligible list and offered positions as vacancies occur during the time the eligible list is valid, as governed by Public Service Commission regulations.
(b) Hiring of temporary or seasonal employees
The methods and procedures are the same as in (a)(i) and (a)(ii).
If there is a requirement to staff positions other than those in the administrative support or operational categories as described above, it is referred to the regional office for action. The personnel advisor in the regional office essentially follows very similar procedures using the Public Service Commission as a central agency instead of the Canada Employment and Immigration Centre.


RESEA RCH-EN ERG Y
Mr. Orlikow: 1. For each of the past three years, what amount did the government spend on research into all forms of energy-oil, gas, coal, tar sands, heavy oil, solar, nuclear and what is the current projected expenditure?
October 16, 1980

2. On a per capita basis, how does Canada's energy research related expenditures compare with other member countries of the OECD?


Marc Lalonde: In so far as the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is concerned:
1 and 2. See lists below. Table I shows the governments' expenditures on energy research for four years and table II shows the per capita comparison to other member countries of the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) for government and industrial energy research.
Tabic I
Canadian $ (Millions)
1977-78	1978-79	1979-80	1980-81	Research Area	Fed.	Prov.	Fed.	Prov.	Fed. Prov.	Fed.	Prov.Conservation	6.7	4.0	11.6	4.8	20.5 4.5	20.5	5.2Oil & gas	6.3	21.8	6.4	34.9	4.0 38.9	3.9	40.1Coal	5.9	7.7	8.4	10.1	9.9 6.1	10.2	10.2Nuclear	100.8	3.7	103.9	5.4	107.6 3.8	107.6	5.0Renewables 6.3 Transportation &	3.8	13.4	9.4	40.3 9.7	40.3	10.1transmission	4.6	28.1	13.5	34.5	7.6 20.7	7.6	40.2Other	.1	.2	-	1.0	- -	1.1	.8Totals	130.7	69.3 157.2 100.1 Table II 1979 data U.S. $ (Millions) Govt. Per R&D Capita	189.9 83.7 Industry R&D	191.2 Per Capita	111.6Population	(U.S. $)	(U.S. $)	Rank	(U.S. $)	(U.S. $)	RankAustralia	14.434	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/AAustria	7.506	31.9	4.25	12	-	-	-Belgium	9.860	97.7	9.90	4	-	-	-Canada	23.691	233.6	9.86	5	236.9	6.00	4Denmark	5.120	31.0	6.05	11	-	-	-Germany	61.337	1,048.0	17.09	2	329.0	5.36	6Greece	9.444	4.1	.43	17	-	-	Ireland	3.256	4.7	1.44	16	-	-	-Italy	56.888	213.2	3.75	13	124.4	2.19	9Japan	115.880	919.3	7.93	8	512.7	4.42	7Netherlands	14.030	111.7	7.89	9	108.6	7.74	3New Zealand	3.160	8.5	2.69	14	2.4	.76	10Norway	4.074	39.5	9.70	6	46.1	11.32	2Spain	37.554	79.3	2.11	15	16.9	.45	11Sweden	8.296	108.5	13.08	3	-	-	-Switzerland	6.318	52.6	8.33	7	192.4	30.45	1UK.	55.783	389.2	6.98	10	267.0	4.43	7US. [English]	220.415	3,783.4	17.16	I	1,309.1	5.94	5


David Michael Collenette: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The Constitution



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration from Wednesday, October 15, 1980, 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 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.
Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate which is, as many members of the House have recognized, an important and historic debate and one which has been of very high quality. I have not been able to be here for all the comments of members of the House, but I have followed closely their remarks as reported in Hansard. It is clear that members on all sides of the House participating in the debate have raised questions of serious and thorough interest.
Also I am rather glad to have had the opportunity today to listen to the crossfire before we reached this stage. I was somewhat surprised by the puzzlement, concern, or almost astonishment which has just been expressed by some mmem-bers opposite about the course we have proposed to deal with this resolution because clearly it has been known to them for some time. I should like to refer to the remarks of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), as reported at page 3290 of Hansard of October 6, which read as follows:
The significant debate will come when the resolution itself is brought directly before the House some time after the committee has made its report. Only when that resolution is presented will we know if the government has taken any account-

October 16, 1980
The Constitution


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the minister, but I want him to understand that what we were talking about was a resolution debatable and amendable in this House in the form of an address to Her Majesty the Queen and to the British Parliament. We were not talking about the concurrence debate which was referred to by my friend. Precisely that is what the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was referring to at that time, just so that he understands.


John (Moody) Roberts: I think I understand the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), but it does not seem to me that that is the clear purport of the remarks made by his leader.


Walter David Baker: Resolution.


John (Moody) Roberts: What is referred to is not the resolution before the House, but a resolution which has gone to the committee. It refers to the report made by the committee. His leader said:
Only when that resolution is presented will we know if the government has taken any account at all of the views that are expressed by members of this House of Commons-
Clearly the reference is a report coming from the committee after it has been referred by the House to the committee. This procedure, which seems to have elicited so much surprise today, is one that has been perfectly well known to members opposite for some time.
As I said, I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate.


Walter David Baker: We welcome you too.


John (Moody) Roberts: 1 am glad the hon. House leader opposite welcomes my participation in the debate which clearly has gone on for some time.
I hope to discuss seriously some of the points made by other speakers in the debate. Inevitably in a debate which has gone on this long there is a certain redundancy of argument and a certain reference to what has already taken place. Of course in a debate which has ranged so widely, inevitably there are things that appear to be consistent and some seem to be inconsistent. It seems to me somewhat surprising when we proposed a charter of rights for individuals, which is a common element in virtually every federal system in the world, that critics should accuse us not of supporting federalism but of abandoning British tradition. When we propose an amending procedure with an attached referendum, they falsely accuse us of establishing a unitary system of government which is characteristic of the government of Great Britain. They do not condemn us for accepting the British unitary system but they accuse us of abandoning federalism.
Perhaps it is even more surprising that provincial governments attack us for suggesting that an appeal to the courts should be permissible to protect the rights of the people, and then themselves appeal to the courts to protect the rights of provincial governments, as if somehow it is more important that the courts protect the rights of provincial governments rather than the rights of individual citizens.
Of course in our proposals we have neither abandoned the British parliamentary tradition nor the principles of federalism; we embrace them. In our proposals for reform we do not alter the distribution of powers between two levels of government, the essential of any federal system, nor do we propose to abandon the traditions of British government, the linkage between the executives and the legislatures which is common to the tradition not only of this House but to the legislatures of the provinces. We are not suggesting to change any of that. Indeed we have preserved in our proposals both the desirable aspects of the parliamentary system and the balance of federalism.
I should like to refer essentially to two speeches made at the beginning of this debate. First I refer to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in which I think we dwelt largely on a marginal or peripheral-I do not say unimportant-concern with section 42 of the amending procedure.
I would also like, perhaps a bit later, to refer to the remarks of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), partially because I believe that he stated very clearly to the House the two essential questions which confront the House and upon which the House must at this stage decide.
Let me first refer to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. While he did refer to the inappropriateness, as he believes it, of the government proceeding in the fashion which is described in the joint resolution that will be forwarded to the Queen, and therefore to the attention of the British Parliament, a large portion of the Opposition Leader's remarks dealt with the effect of the amending procedure which we have proposed for the consideration of the House. I would like to refer in passing to the hon. member's remarks suggesting that we were following what he called a "unilateral" procedure. Clearly, it is not a unilateral procedure because we have the support of others, and it is not merely the government.
The unilateral approach to the constitutional amendment is one which he described as contesting the validity of the approach. I think it is undoubtedly clear that what we have proposed is the proper legal approach. The British North America Act is an act of the British parliament and therefore amendable by that Parliament. Clearly, the procedures under which that amendment will take place through the British parliament are well known.
It is contested that constitutionally the precedents which underlie an address from the House of Commons and Senate of Canada may not have been fulfilled in this circumstance. It seems to me that there is confusion as to what are those precedents. Therefore, I would like to dwell on the question of what the constitutional conventions have been in the past as they relate to amendments of the constitution of Canada, the British North America Act.
One can judge differently the number of amendments which apply. Strictly speaking, there are 18 amendments to the BNA Act and, if one includes the Statute of Westminster, there are a few more. In only four instances-five, if one includes the
October 16, 1980

Statute of Westminster-out of 22 of those amendments has the unanimous agreement of the provinces been asked for and obtained. They were in relation to the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940; the Old Age Pension, 1951; retirement age of provincial superior court judges, 1960; and the addition of supplementary benefits to old age pensions in 1964. As I say, if one includes the Statute of Westminster, 1931, that is another precedent of consultation.
However, in all the other cases, that extensive consultation agreement did not take place. In 1907 amendments requested by the Canadian Parliament were consented to by all the provinces but British Columbia. The British North America Act of 1930 which transferred resources to the four western provinces had the consent of only those four provinces. The British North America Act of 1949 confirmed the terms of the union between Newfoundland and Canada, and it had the consent of that province only. None of the other constitutional amendments in 1868, 1871, 1875, 1886, 1893, 1895, 1915, 1916, 1927, 1946, 1949, and 1950 involved the securing of provincial consent, unanimous or otherwise.
In view of the historical record, it is very difficult to contend that the precedent has been established that unanimous consent, or even substantial consensus, is a requirement for triggering the legal process which is clearly within the authority of the British parliament to enact. However, it was not on that issue which the Leader of the Opposition essentially concentrated his remarks. What he referred to again and again as the preponderant aspect of his speech was the amending formula which is contained in section 42 of the proposed resolution. This he describes, for instance, as something that "breaks that partnership" which is the essence of the federal system. He went on to say, according to Hansard at page 3291:
-the central government would have the authority to deprive unilaterally-
And I stress that he uses the word "unilaterally".
-the provinces of their powers . . . because this authority would not be limited, this central government could, if it chose to, deprive the provinces of all their powers for all time.
On page 3292 of Hansard, the opposition leader is reported as saying that section 42 is the:
-greatest menace to rights ... this provision allows rights to be removed by referendum, and any day when there is a fever in this land against a particular group of people, against a particular group of rights, this government, by the power it seeks in section 42, coultt invoke that power to have a national referendum-
And he says that the government could hold that referendum any day. Again, on page 3295 of Hansard the Leader of the Opposition is reported as having referred to:
-the power to amend unilaterally the constitution by way of a referendum and in so doing going over the governments and the legislatures of the provinces.
Unfortunately, in his description to the House of this section, the Leader of the Opposition is guilty of both sins of commission and sins of omission. First of all, it is not accurate to describe section 42 as one which permits the Government of Canada to act unilaterally. Section 42 does not permit the government to act alone.
The Constitution
Section 42 requires co-operation or support in one of two ways, either by the participation and support of the provinces on the basis of the Victoria formula, or on the basis of the support of the people of Canada. It certainly does not enable the Government of Canada to act without either the support of the provinces or the people of Canada. Clearly in his remarks to the House, the opposition leader-and I do not suggest that it was intentionally, but inadvertently-mischaracterized what is said in section 42.
He is also guilty of sins of omission. He not only describes inaccurately the requirement for consultation and acceptance either by the provinces or the people of the country, but he describes a national referendum as if it alone were the key to triggering the support for an amendment if an appeal were made to the people of Canada. Not once in his remarks did the Leader of the Opposition touch upon the fact that what is required is not simply, if there is to be a referendum asking for constitutional change, a national majority of support, but a majority of support in each of the four major regions of the country. We are not talking, as some readers of his remarks might gather, of a situation in which two or three regions of the country could come together and impose their will over a fourth region of the country, where a majority across the country might impose its will on a regional majority. Section 42 describes a rather complicated referendum procedure which requires that there be strong regional support in every region of the country if there is to be the use of this mechanism.
The third thing I would say about section 42 is that it is not an extraordinary and unusual provision. Upon occasion members opposite have somehow described it as a tyrannous mechanism. I find it very puzzling that democratically elected politicians would regard an appeal to the people as some tyrannous mechanism. It is the kind of approach which we find, for instance, in the United States federation. There it is possible to get support for constitutional amendments, not simply through the support of state legislatures, but also through the provisions for conventions which can take place so that the people themselves may directly participate in having that kind of constitutional change result.


Paul Wyatt Dick: That is misleading.


John (Moody) Roberts: The purpose of section 42, on which the Leader of the Opposition spent so much time, is to arrive at a mechanism by which, if there is a deadlock between the views of the national government and the views of the provincial government about what constitutional changes might be required, there is a mechanism for resolving that deadlock.
No longer, after the House presents these proposed constitutional changes to the British government to put before the British parliament, will we be in a situation in which, in dire emergencies, the British parliament would bail us out. There must be some way to solve the continuing conflict between provincial and federal governments on constitutional change. Surely, in a democratic country, the best way to resolve that conflict is through some form of appeal to the people of the country.
3738

October 16, 1980
The Constitution
I know that there are members opposite, and perhaps others, who are concerned about the effectiveness or adequacy of this method as a procedure for breaking the deadlock. All I can say to that is, "Les us get the bill into committee and let us have changes proposed as quickly as possible". Clearly, in the resolution we have brought forward, the series of provisions which we think command public support would be the most publicly acceptable. We are anxious to see if improvements can be suggested and if improvements are suggested, the proper place for that to take place is in committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question at this point?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would permit, I would prefer to take the question at the end of my remarks, and I shall try and leave a minute for it. 1 shall not go on too long. 1 think he will be rather pleased with the next stage of my remarks and I do not want to deprive him of the pleasure of that. My reference is to the point of view expressed by the leader of his party during the debate, and that is what I wish to turn to now.
I suggested that the point of view expressed by the Leader of the Opposition in the opening days of debate was peripheral- and 1 do not mean that in any slighting way-but it seems to me that the leader of the hon. gentleman's party cut through to the essential questions that should preoccupy the House.
The amending procedure is something that can be discussed adequately in committee.
1 am going to cite the words of the hon. member for Oshawa because I think they put the question before the House very well. As reported at page 3296 of Hansard for October 6, he said:
The first question is-is it legitimate, is it appropriate at this time, for the Parliament of Canada, alone, to be supporting a resolution that would change the constitution of this country.
I want to discuss that question. He went on to say:
The second question to be answered, whatever one decides on the first, is whether the particular package we have before us on a range of matters ... is one we should support on its own terms-
1 wish to say a few things about that as well.
The first question relates to the legitimacy of acting now in the way that we have proposed to the House. My argument would be that if one examines the history of attempts over more than 50 years for Canadians-officials, governments, the people of Canada-to resolve these questions, and if one looks at the urgency of the question now, given the regional discontents in our country expressed and dealt with most recently in pressing fashion in the Quebec referendum campaign-if one looks at the history, if one looks at the present crisis, if one looks at the opportunity, now is clearly the time to act.
On the final day of the first ministers' conference when provincial premiers were summing up their points of view, some of them remarked how wonderful it had been because it was such an educational experience and that they were finally
getting to see, in substance, all the dimensions of the constitutional problems. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, we have been educating ourselves for well over 50 years. It is time we graduated. There have been a whole series of attempts, all of which ended in futility-attempts to change and resolve the problems dealt with by the resolution presented to the House.
There was the dominion-provincial conference of 1927 because at that time Great Britain wished to relinquish its powers of direction over Canadian law. Discussions were held with the provinces to try to arrive at some sort of amending procedure. The proposals reached were rejected by a number of provinces.
In 1931 we tried again as a result of a request from Ontario when a dominion-provincial conference was held in the spring of that year, but no agreement was reached.
A special committee of the House of Commons was established in 1935. Between February and the end of June it held 11 sessions but could not reach agreement.
A dominion-provincial conference was called in 1935 and a continuing committee was established on constitutional questions which sat well into 1936 and reported on March 2. No further action was taken because World War II intervened.
After the war, in 1950, there was a fourth attempt to try to reach agreement, but the committee could not reach agreement and a conference convened in Quebec in September to discuss the findings of the committee equally could not come to a successful conclusion.
In 1960 the conference of attorneys general convened. It met four times before September, 1961, but failed to come to any conclusion. A draft bill was prepared for the House of Commons but it did not receive the approval of the provinces and that initiative was dropped as well.
In June, 1964, discussions were reopened, but in January, 1966, the Quebec government indicated that it would not accept the proposals put forward, so that failed.
In February, 1968, the first ministers came together and began discussions which culminated in the Victoria conference of 1971. Again, the provinces were unable to agree on constitutional change at that point, because of the disapproval of the province of Quebec.
In April, 1975, there was a federal-provincial conference, an eighth attempt to find an amending formula which would suit the country. Again, in October of that year, the provinces informed the federal government that they would not agree to the patriation exercise but wished to have a much wider ranging discussion on constitutional reform.
The ninth attempt was in 1978-79. This led to the presentation to the House of Commons of Bill C-60 at the end of October, 1978. As most hon. members know, this was the subject of very considerable discussion and controversy.
Earlier this year, from June to September, my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), and I participated in an attempt to find a common basis of agreement with the provinces on constitutional reform.
October 16, 1980

So, Mr. Speaker, since 1927 there have been ten attempts to achieve patriation and an amending formula. Two have been on provincial initiatives, in 1931 and 1968; there have been 21 meetings of first ministers on the constitution; 43 meetings of ministers; a minimum of 17 meetings of officials alone to discuss patriation and an amending formula, and a host of other informal meetings throughout that period.
Looking at this 50 years of attempts, one is tempted to paraphrase Shaw's St. Joan-"How long, how long, O Lord, how long before Heaven is prepared to receive thy saint?"
This long history of attempts and, I think, the frustration of that process, were brought home clearly to the people of Canada by the televised proceedings earlier this year, and this history of frustrated attempts to reach agreements, I think, has some simple explanation. Partially, it reflects the divergent views on what the nature of Canada is, but also it reflects tactical considerations. 1 do not say this out of any disrespect for provincial governments. One expects that when the provincial governments encounter the federal government there will be hard bargaining. Clearly, in a situation where one argues, with credibility, that there had to be unanimous approval of the provinces for change, every province had an incentive to hold out for some accommodation of its specific and unique view. Every province, in a sense, would feel under that kind of tradition, that it was a hammer-lock for twisting out yet more concessions from the federal government. Clearly, in those circumstances, it is extremely difficult to bring the eleven governments together in agreement.
What we have proposed now, by removing that hammer-lock of the necessity of unanimous consent, will place the continuing negotiations of the provinces and the federal government on a much sounder, more equitable basis of discussion and negotiation.
To this long, sad and, in some ways, almost tragic history of attempts to meet the needs of constitutional reform, we have to add new elements which are clear to most of us. They were certainly clear to us last spring when we were considering the effect of the referendum debate in Quebec, that is, the urgency of the situation we face flowing from the referendum debate and the decision made by the people of Quebec at that time.
Not only did federal politicians on both sides of the House go to Quebec at that time to say they were prepared to undertake significant and thorough changes to the constitution but, 1 believe, each of the provincial premiers outside Quebec made the same kind of commitment. With the successful resolution of the Quebec referendum debate, we on this side of the House and, 1 believe, hon. members opposite as well, accepted the urgency and the need to respond-the need to fulfil the commitments which had been made to Quebeckers at that time.
I regret to say that after the summer's discussions with provincial governments, and as the summer wore on, the sense of urgency and priority which had animated discussion, began to disappear from the point of view expressed by the provinces.
The Constitution
To us on this side of the House, however, that urgency is still there. It may be that within the next few days the people of Quebec, through a general election in Quebec or whatever, will again be asked to comment and reflect upon and express again the decision they made last spring. We believe on this side of the House that it is urgent, and that we have a sound commitment to the people of Quebec to provide them with the kind of significant change that we believe they wish to have.


An hon. Member:: What about other provinces?


John (Moody) Roberts: The hon. member asks about other provinces. I shall return to that in just a moment.
There is one other aspect which leads me to believe that we must act now. Clearly if we are to act now it cannot be with the kind of unanimity that 1 believe the Leader of the Opposition has suggested we should have. It is because there is-at least I believe it to be so-a sense of impatience and urgency throughout the country, not simply on the part of Quebeckers but throughout the country, that we deal with and solve these questions. There has come into the Canadian consciousness a sense that the time really has come to decide whether Canada is to be simply in a sense the sum of its parts, cumulative regions of the country, or whether there is a society based on a strong national economy and a strong national government which is much more above and beyond the parts of the country.
In relation to that question I would like to cite at some length-1 hope not at too great length-some of the comments made by one of Canada's most distinguished historians, Professor Arthur Lower, before this debate began and before the resolution was presented to the public and the Parliament, but after the conclusion of the last federal-provincial conference. I think he expresses in his words the kind of concern which I have just tried to express, that sense of impatience that the governments of Canada and the people of Canada resolve their views on the fundamental nature of this country. I cite from an open letter which I believe is addressed to the Ottawa Citizen. In it he is referring to the federal-provincial conference. He says:
It seems obvious that agreement will never be reached between the federal government and ten demanding provinces. Future conferences will probably find more disagreement than this last one. The cause lies in the very nature of things, for there will always be at least one province out of line. It is hardly the same as a jury trial; you cannot keep provincial premiers locked up until they come to an agreement. One could probe deeper still, for the ultimate cause lies in the dilemma we face over the nature of Canada.
He then goes on to draw some parallels with the situation in the early years of the United States when he describes the United States as having dodged the question of sovereignty for three-quarters of a century. He then says this:
It seems to me that the point for Canada is quite clear. No more than the Americans shall we be able to go on with the question of sovereignty completely unsettled. The way out that we have tried is of course federalist, but surely federalism assumes that the last word lies somewhere. The recent conference has shown that we are trying to tell ourselves that it lies nowhere, that a country can

October 16, 1980
The Constitution
go on without making all-important decisions. I think this is impossible. The power of decision there must be, and it must lie at the centre.
What we have proposed is that that centre of authority ultimately should lie with the people of Canada, by being able to appeal to them to resolve disputes about the constitutional order and amendments to it.
To revert to Professor Lower, he goes on in his letter to say:
The plain fact is that if a so-called country does not have the power of decision in one set of hands, that is, one government, it is not a country at all but merely a league of states. Remember the fate of the League of Nations. No member would abandon its sovereignty and the league went to pieces.
The moral it seems to me, is plain; we must somehow or another put a stop to the present tendency, a very strong one, to convert ourselves into a league and head back to a federal union. The second moral follows at once; we must have within our borders the right to amend our constitution.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what we have suggested should be done.
My remarks therefore echo I believe those of the Leader of the New Democratic Party on the first question he posed. Is it appropriate for us to act this way at this time? 1 say the study of history and the sense of the present crisis of the country give us no choice but to proceed as we cannot receive we will never receive, the strong support of all the provinces. We must now proceed on the basis of the resolution which the House of Commons and the Senate will, I hope, pass to the British parliament to ask it to resolve once and for all that question.
The second question which the Leader of the New Democratic Party raised was the question of whether this particular package that we have, the one which entrenches a charter of rights, is one which we should support in its own terms, whether it was submitted as a resolution by the Parliament of Canada or whether it came after unanimous agreement between the government of the day and the provincial governments. 1 would say there again the climate of urgency in the country requires us to proceed in this way.
If we are to respond to those interests of French-speaking Canadians, who, I believe, are anxious to see control of the constitution in this country and who are anxious to see minority language rights entrenched across Canada, it is important that we do so urgently. I think we also must respond to the concerns of other Canadians, not simply Quebeckers, who are concerned about the protection of civil liberties in this country, who are concerned about establishing the principle of equalization within the constitution, and who are concerned about rights of mobility across the country. It is urgent for us to respond to those concerns.
It may be tempting to say, "Let us simply accept an amending procedure now and then go through what this rather rigid amending procedure describes as a possible course of action." But given, as I believe we have, the very strong general support of the people across the country; given, as I hope we will have, the support of members from all sides of the House, it seems to me that we cannot afford to go through a lengthy process of the implementation of what those, 1 think, generally accepted rights would require, because the formula is rigid. And rightly so.
What should be, and what I think most Canadians believe to be, and want to have, is the common heritage of Canadian citizenship. Therefore, it is important to act now. It is important to act before the people of Quebec are led to believe that their hopes and their ambitions will be frustrated by the lengthy process of delay. We believe that given the sense of impatience of the provinces; and given, I think, the very evident general support that the inclusion of this charter of liberties within the constitution which is patriated to Canada would provide, this is something which the people of Canada very much wish to see happen.
I recommend this resolution to the House. I urge members to send it to committee so that it can be discussed in detail as quickly as possible. I look forward confidently to their support for what is, I think, a proposal which has the support of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the midst of the minister's speech he indicated that he would accept a question at the end. May I now put it to him?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Please do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I now put a question to him?
My question relates to section 42 of the proposed resolution. I ask my question as one who believes that we would be insane if we did not have in a Canadian constitution some provision for breaking a deadlock. I think if we had a constitution which we could not amend for 50 years, we would ask: why did we ever bring it here from Britain? As I say, I ask it as one who favours something like section 42.
1 have now heard four ministers, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), and the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Roberts), all say clearly and categorically that section 42 is simply for the purpose of breaking a deadlock.


Paul Wyatt Dick: It is not true.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If you look at the resolution, sections 41 and 42 seem to be equal choices. There is no if, and, but, comma or anything else between them. I ask the minister whether the government would be willing, when the resolution is in committee, to make a slight amendment-it takes only a slight one-to put into the resolution the words which these ministers have been giving us, namely, that section 42-that is the holding of a referendum by the federal authority-would come into play only if a deadlock has developed under section 41; only if section 41 has been tried?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the sanity of the hon. member. I am reassured to know that three of my colleagues have expressed the same view that I have expressed. The point
October 16, 1980

which 1 thought I tried to make is that we have brought forward proposals which we thought through carefully and which we believe would command a maximum of public acceptability and support, and, we hope, support in the House. The place to consider amendments clearly is within the committee. We have undertaken to consider carefully any amendments which will be brought forward. When we see what the specific form of the amendment is, then we will be able to consider whether it more adequately meets that need of a deadlock formula than the proposal which we made.
1 want to say to hon. members in all seriousness that we are prepared to consider very carefully and seriously whatever is brought forward. I am not empowered nor am I disposed to say at the moment what our response would be before seeing it in explicit terms. 1 can quite easily give the assurance that whatever amendments are brought forward, we will consider them with the utmost patience and the utmost openness on the part of the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I put this supplementary question to the minister. In view of the fact that four ministers have now clearly said that this is a deadlock provision only, will the government consider bringing in its own amendment so that it puts into the resolution the words which four ministers have uttered in this House?


John (Moody) Roberts: As I said, Mr. Speaker, we brought forward what we thought, after reflection, was the most appropriate mechanism. I do not know, therefore, why in a sense we should take on the burden of trying to do even better what we already thought had been done best.


Paul Wyatt Dick: You have all been wrong.


John (Moody) Roberts: If we are wrong and it is not the most appropriate mechanism, I urge the House to let the proposal go to committee so we can see what better mousetrap they can give us. If they provide a better mousetrap, we will buy it.


Mr. Neil:: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if the minister would entertain another question.


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I would appreciate if I could respond to only one more.


Douglas Charles Neil: My question is simply this. Early in his remarks the minister indicated his support for the principle of a referendum. I presume he was expressing the views of his party when he made the comment. I wonder if he personally would agree to the use of a referendum to determine the wishes of the Canadian people vis-a-vis capital punishment and, if not, why not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I do not think that question can be entertained during this debate.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his courtesy in indicating that he has a
The Constitution
problem and must leave. 1 understand that completely. I promise to be as kind to him in his absence as 1 would be if he were here.
I listened with great interest to the minister's speech. I listened with much greater interest to the straightforward question put to him as a minister of the Crown, fourth in order of having made representations about the matter of a deadlock with respect to the change in section 42. The question was asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The question deserved a straight answer. Instead, there was equivocation. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) was in the chamber, but he did not rise to his feet to clarify the matter. Having had that opportunity, the government has done what I hoped it would not do. It has confirmed the provisions with respect to section 42, confirmed the concerns expressed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), and compounded it by saying that we can move an amendment in the committee.
Anyone who has been here for a period of time knows there is no right in committee to move an amendment to the proposal before the House. We can talk about it and even recommend it, but unless the resolution comes back to the House of Commons in the form of a resolution or, as the Leader of the Opposition described it, an address to Her Majesty the Queen, there is no right of any member of Parliament to make an amendment. I intend to deal with this later, but it is so fundamental to the rights of Parliament I felt 1 should make some comment on it now.
When I was elected to this House is 1972 I thought we would be dealing with a number of things. I did not look that far ahead to know that we would have an opportunity to take part in a debate on something so fundamental as the constitution of one's country. It therefore goes without saying that this is an important debate. This debate deals with the fundamental issue of confederation which heretofore has always been the relationship between the federal and provincial governments, not the relationship between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the premiers.
The history of this country has been one long series of federal-provincial negotiations, some of them successful and some not. All were carried on in a consultative way. The feeling was expressed by Mr. St. Laurent, Mr. Pearson, Mr. Laurier before them all, and Mr. Diefenbaker, that all of this would be carried on having in mind the concept of consensus. This is the first time in our 113-year history that we have abandoned the seeking of a consensus. This makes it doubly important for all members of Parliament to express themselves with regard to this matter.
While this is an important debate, 1 want to say that I am sickened by the atmosphere of it, not here in the House of Commons because we often have differences of opinion. I am sickened and saddened by the tragedy which has occurred within this debate, the spectacle of five provincial premiers, who may be joined by two more, threatening to bring action in the courts. It does not matter whether they win or lose. That is

October 16, 1980
The Constitution
irrelevant. That is the stuff which law students worry about. It is not the concern of members of Parliament.
The existence of an atmosphere in Canada that would cause provincial premiers, for whatever purpose, to bring an action is a tragedy. We have never before come to this point. It is therefore important that the government consider what it is doing. For the first time, in a grand litigious way, a number of the provinces are bringing an action against the federal government for something it is doing.
Juxtaposed and set against that is the Prime Minister who, if he is to be likened to anything in this debate, is obviously the head of the family. He has decided not to send the document in dispute to the Supreme Court of Canada with the hope that the dispute can be ironed out as to the legalities and requirements of the law and what are the jurisdictions. That was the purpose of the question yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. He suggested to the Prime Minister that if there is this dispute, it should be settled quickly. Why not settle it outside this place, outside the provincial conferences, at least in so far as to how far the Government of Canada can and should go? What we had tossed back was that this is apples and oranges, baloney, as someone called it, comparing one thing with another. That is not the real issue.
We in this House and the government ought to be looking at our capacity for finding ways to settle the dispute, not to continue it and not to exacerbate it, because while we are involved in these things what I worry about, and what affects the people of my riding, is that provincial and federal governments are occupying their time and their energies in this regard while the country suffers an economic downturn and economic problems that should require our full attention. It would be an excellent thing if somehow or other this could be diverted. The government may choose not to stop this debate, and I am not suggesting that it should. I am suggesting that the court be used in the midst of it to settle some of those issues. I hope the government will reconsider its decision not to take this matter to court.
Let me make it very clear that the issue here is not patriation. It is being cast that way, as if opposition parties, members of my party and members of others, were opposed to bringing the constitution home. That is not so. I travel as widely as does the government House leader, he more widely in his province than in mine, and I more widely in my province than in his, but I say that is not the issue. There is no problem I have found anywhere among the people 1 represent in this regard. There is no one anywhere in Canada who thinks it is a great idea for us to go trotting off to Great Britain, hat in hand, and stand at the skirts of Margaret Thatcher and ask her, "Please, Margaret, pass a little bill for us so we can have our constitution at home." Nobody would suggest that is so.
I think it is degrading, though, if I may say so with respect, to have the Prime Minister of Canada go to Great Britain and say, "Do not just bring my constitution home and give me an amending process so I can deal with it myself, but do a few
things here that 1 cannot do in my own country." That is an admission of failure.
The real issue is not whether we recognize certain basic rights in a document or code of civil rights. That is not the real issue. I always thought I was a citizen of a free country where rights existed whether or not they were in a code. I always felt I had a right, as a citizen, to have the Supreme Court protect me in the event an action was brought against my person, my family or my property. I have felt those rights would be protected whether or not they were written, because that was part of my tradition as a member of a free society.
That is not the issue, whether or not we are in favour of a statement of rights. The issue is not whether or not we are in favour of something within a constitution which says we are our brother's keeper in this country. 1 have looked upon the whole issue of regional disparity before this document ever came to Parliament, and before it was ever thought of as necessary to be entrenched in the constitution. I never thought that was necessary, but I do not object to it being there, because in fact all of the programs show that we are our brother's keeper; that I have a duty if 1 live in a "have" province to assist those in the "have-not" provinces of Canada; to assist areas in respect of employment, job training and all of the other things. 1 have a duty to assist the people of Nova Scotia if an infrastructure is necessary there, just as the people of Ontario have an obligation.
The suggestion that this be entrenched in a constitution did not arise out of this resolution. I should make that clear. When the Leader of the Opposition was prime minister of Canada that was the first time the suggestion was made that there be entrenchment of those rights within a constitution, and I refer to those rights that affect the ability of Canadians in another part of Canada to bring or have brought to them a standard of living and a standard of service that is appropriate. We agree in that regard, and there is no issue there. There could not be an issue there if you live in a federal state.
The real issue in this matter revolves around the amending formula. As I said, for the first time we have before us a proposal which is simply unacceptable to large groups within our national community. That is the situation. No one is arguing about patriation. No one is arguing about the necessity to really spell out rights. That is not a problem. Nobody is arguing about whether rights exist, and that is not a problem. No one is arguing about regional disparity. There is encased in this document a formula which is unacceptable to large groups within the national community whose consent until now was considered obligatory by every prime minister before this one.
1 must say that an amending formula is absolutely essential in a federal state. A federal state has as its hallmark something written and something set down. In most federal states they have something which sets out the legal rights, powers and dimensions of authority of the different levels of government. If you are going to do anything with that I think it is inappropriate for there to be patriation without an amending formula. I am not concerned about patriation as an issue, but I think that would be inappropriate because we could not deal
October 16, 1980

with it. We would be better off not to patriate if we did not have an amending formula because we have demonstrated our inability on most occasions to agree unanimously, all 11 governments as they now stand in the country.
If that view is shared as to the essentiality of the amending formula it is the attainment of that formula which is the real significance of patriation. The real significance in the attainment of that formula is Canadian political leadership, and that is what we have lacked here in this country, in spite ot what we have tried to do in the last little while by way of obtaining what is obviously wanted by the government, a desire shared in some respects by people across this country. We have lacked real political leadership.
Members opposite should not deceive themselves. The fact that this proposal comes before us at this time under these circumstances does not represent a triumph for the Prime Minister. It is a signed, sealed and witnessed testament to the Prime Minister's failure. He and his Minister of Justice may say with conviction that we, as a nation, have failed to find an amending formula. The truth is, however, that he as a prime minister, and as chairman of a range of federal-provincial conferences, has failed and failed again.
If anything, the provinces are now more suspicious than they were ten years ago. They are more hostile to federal policies and they are less interested in speculation about the national good. In side-stepping the chaos he is creating in Canada, and that is what he is doing, the Prime Minister may be bowing to the inevitable, but I tell him he ought not to be bowing to applause. There is no doubt that it is getting increasingly difficult, perhaps now impossible, to achieve consensus among the provinces and the federal government. That would take a skilful leader, and I see no point in pretending now that the right hon. Prime Minister is a skilful leader or that he fits that description.
I also see no point in joining hon. members opposite in pretending that failure has been transmuted into success by their enthusiasm for this measure, because that is just not the case. It is a failure however we look at it. Because it comes to us under these circumstances, it is a testament to the failure of Canadian political leadership. It was important to achieve a consensus because the histories and the perspectives within this country are so diverse that no one man can rely on his own convictions to reflect accurately all the emotions and aspirations of all Canadians. That is a Canadian fact, and it is a fact that the Prime Minister has not come to grips with.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I want to thank the hon. member for calling it six o'clock, but if he does not mind, we will call it five o'clock.
Grain Transport



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty); Computers-Use by government of databanks; the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight)-Forest Fires-Plans to alleviate hardship suffered by victims; the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly)-Consumer and Corporate Affairs-Call for investigation into reason for B.C. Telephone rate increase.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, Notices of Motions (Papers), Private Bills and Public Bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Item number one, the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt); shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


STUDY OF GRAIN TRANSPORT IN WESTERN CANADA
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved:: That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest completed study on grain transport in western Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the response to this motion on April 14 of this year by the parliamentary secretary was that the document in question was too voluminous. In fact, and I will quote the answer:
The document requested is of a voluminous character and would require an inordinate cost and length of time to prepare. I have however sent today a copy of the requested document to the hon. member.
That is so, Mr. Speaker. I did receive the document. Then the question is, why am I asking for this debate today? It is because I have several questions which I want to put on the record. The first question, of course, is accessibility by the public.
The reason I wanted the document tabled is that once it is tabled I know it is accessible to every member of Parliament, and it is also accessible to the public.
I had a second and allied question, and that was whether this document, which I consider of some importance, was also

October 16, 1980
Grain Transport
prepared in the French language so that it could be available to those of our Canadian citizens who do not understand, or easily understand, the English language.
This debate also arises from a question which I raised in 1978 and which had to do with the Crowsnest Pass rates. The answer I got at that time, December 15, 1978, was to the effect that the total subsidy on the Crowsnest Pass rates in 1977, the last year for which figures were available, was some S239 million. The same answer also stated that the 1974 subsidy in total was $141 million, illustrating that between 1974 and 1977, some three years, there had been a 70 per cent increase. The matter concerns me for two reasons, I suppose. One was the fact that this was an amount which was being paid either by the taxpayer or the consumer and which was not particularly visible. It also seemed to be an amount which was increasing very rapidly.
On September 29 of this year the Canadian Federation of Agriculture stated that the federation supported a policy that would fairly compensate the railways for the movement of grain by rail and, it added, "while retaining the statutory rate structure" which is known as the Crow benefit.
Let us look for a moment at this particular item and put on the record precisely what we are talking about. The Crow benefit comes from an act assented to on June 29, 1897. It was an act to authorize a subsidy for a railway through the Crowsnest Pass. I will quote one sentence, as follows:
-no higher rates than such reduced rates or tolls shall be charged after the dates mentioned on such merchandise from the points aforesaid.
So from 1897 until today we continue with the same rates.
Turning back to the cost to the taxpayer and the consumer for a moment, the 1977 variable costs incurred by Canadian National exceeded the revenues by $110 million, an increase of 40 per cent over the 1974 shortfall of $79 million. The 1977 variable costs incurred by CP Rail exceeded the revenues received from the users of the service by $124 million, an increase of 62 per cent over the 1974 shortfall of $76 million.
In 1977 the total revenues received by CN and CP from the statutory rates did not even cover the variable costs incurred in the maintenance of running and yard track and roadway property. This explains the railways' reluctance to expend maintenance and capital dollars on the grain dependent lines and capital dollars on the equipment required for the transportation of grain traffic. For the year 1977 to bring the railways to a state wherein the revenues received are equal to the variable costs incurred, the users of the service would have had to be charged an additional $10 per ton.
If the government were to make up the 1977 revenue shortfall experienced by the railways, a total subsidy payment of $239 million would have been required.
In addition to the branch line subsidy payments, the federal government also incurred the ownership costs associated with the 8,000 Canadian Wheat Board hopper cars in service and the ownership and maintenance costs associated with the rehabilitation of the prairie branch lines. If the government had subsidized the railways to the break-even point in 1977,
the government would have picked up 70 per cent or more of the total costs incurred in the 1977 transportation of statutory grain.
I should add that this information is contained in the Snavely report dated September, 1978. The Snavely report emphatically maintained that retaining statutory rates for the movement of prairie grain by rail would not help the system become more efficient, and the federal government could become the major financial participant in the grain-handling system. The commission said the railways should be allowed to charge market rates for moving grain so that they would have the incentive to modernize the system.
Keeping statutory rates would leave the system virtually devoid of monetary incentives for efficient use of the transportation resource and, perhaps even worse, monetary penalties for inefficient uses of that resource.
Last month, September, 1980, in the last grain transportation authority commentary produced by Dr. H. M. Horner, the federal grain co-ordinator, reference is made to a variety of factors that affect Canada's efficiency in handling grain, including reduced performance due to labour unrest, lack of suitable grain, a two-week audit of a major terminal, switching difficulties, the capacity of the tracks, and unnecessary and costly interchange of cars.
The statutory rate issue is perhaps the most significant factor in that the pricing structure for goods and services is a major determinant of any system's operating efficiency and capital investment levels. The existence of statutory grain rates confers an apparent financial benefit on producers of export grain and contributes significantly to the lack of railway system renewal and expansion. The lack of flexible rail pricing systems does not provide incentives for more intensive or efficient use of the system.
There is a broad area of agreement that much has to be done to ensure the most efficient use of our transportation resource. It must be remembered that attempting to bridge the gap between the railway's cost and their recompense under statutory rates with federal subsidies would leave Ottawa picking up 60 per cent of the tab for the annual grain movement.
Another related matter concerns me. On May 14 of this year I received an answer to a question which informed me that the total number of cars owned by Canadian railways on April 30, 1979, was some 157,000, of which Canadian owned cars on American lines were in excess of 27,000. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bocksta-el) added that neither the government nor its agencies were taking any steps to expedite the return of Canadian rolling stock from the United States. I must admit, when we are talking of the shortage of rolling stock, that I would like a better explanation of why some 27,000 of our total numbers of
157,000	cars appeared to be permanently in the United States, not necessarily the same cars.
October 16, 1980

Thus, faced with reports of huge government subsidies and inefficient operations, 1 felt it was necessary that the latest government attitude to the movement of grain in western Canada be made public, hence my motion for the production of the latest study. As is recorded in Hansard, the requested document was sent to me. It is entitled, "Report for the Grains Group, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce." It is contained in two volumes dated July, 1979. It was prepared by Booze, Allen and Hamilton Inc., transportation consultants, and the IBI group under the direction of the grains group of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The report contains the results of an operations analysis of grains transportation and handling in western Canada carried out during the period from August, 1978, through June, 1979.
Specifically excluded from the terms of reference were possible changes to the statutory rates, that is, the Crow rates for grain. However, a recommendation in the report shows no hesitancy in suggesting another massive input of public funding. It recommends that, in addition to the 2,000 covered hopper cars now on order by the Canadian Wheat Board, 1,900 hopper cars be ordered for delivery in each of the following years, 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, and 1983-84 crop years, and a further 1,700 cars for delivery in 1984-85. A total of 9,300 cars over the six-year period will be needed, requiring an investment of about $400 million in 1979 dollars. It is estimated that up to an additional 4,000 cars costing about $173 million may be necessary.
The report goes on to comment that there is a substantial body of opinion among major participants in the production, handling and transportation of grain in Canada, that some way must be found soon to provide a compensatory return to the railways for moving grain. Failing this, the lack of capital renewal of relevant rail facilities will become critical, vitally affecting the grain industry, the railways and other important industries.
The report also states that improved information, planning and control systems are required to direct the right grain to the right terminal at the right time.
To move Canadian grain it will be necessary to ensure an adequate number of boxcars. An inventory of the Canadian grain car fleet indicates that the number of serviceable cars regularly in grain service at the end of 1978 was about 22,000 units. The fleet currently consists of about two thirds railway-owned boxcars and one third government owned hopper cars. The boxcars fleets are old, with an average age of 29 years for Canadian Pacific and 33 years for Canadian National. As a result, the anticipated attrition rates for boxcars are high. Projections to 1985, based on railway company attrition estimates, indicate that the total number of cars in grain service will decline to 13,200, or less than 60 per cent of the 1978 inventory.
In addition to the existing number of cars, there will be in service the 2,000 covered hopper cars which have been ordered by the Canadian Wheat Board for current delivery.
As I have said, it is estimated that a cumulative total of 9,300 new cars will be required by 1985-86, and that the
Grain Transport
cumulative car total would cost about $400 million, based on a price of $43,000 per hopper car at 1979 prices.
It is interesting to note that in another government document produced by the commission on the cost of transporting grain by rail, which has only recently been received here in Ottawa-in fact, the date stamp on this document is October 14, 1980-it is stated that the cost of cars just three years ago was between $22,390 and $22,710, the variation in the two prices apparent between Canadian Pacific and Canadian National not being explained. But essentially we are talking about between $22,000 and $23,000 per hopper car, meaning that at the time, the agreement to purchase 2,000 hopper cars was worth some $46 million. Now we are talking about cars costing $43,000 per hopper car at 1979 prices, and we are talking about purchasing into the 1985-86 year at which time undoubtedly the price will once again have doubled. So that the figure that I have mentioned of $400 million based on 1979 prices should be taken with a pinch of salt. In addition, 125 locomotive units will need to be added by 1985-86 at a cost of $106 million in 1979 dollars.
The report recommended that a task force be established with strong leadership and an effective mandate to implement needed changes in the grain transportation system. The report also emphasizes that the institutional, operational and capital improvements recommended, while essential to the realization of Canada's grain export potential, should not be seen as a substitute to resolution of the Crow rate issue. The railways no longer have the economic or physical capacity to underwrite the grain drain. If the Crow issue is not resolved, the problem outlined in the report will not be completely overcome and grain will suffer due to its low priority.
I find the issue to be quite relevant today, Mr. Speaker. It is something of a pleasure-maybe that is not the right word-to be able to talk of the assistance that is going to the western grain farmer which is being paid out of Canadian taxes and by the Canadian consumer, therefore the share by which the easterner is participating in helping the western farmer. It is an example of something which I do not oppose, but I think probably it needs to be said these days that everything does not flow from west to east. In this particular case there is a considerable flow of dollars from east to west.
I have several questions for the parliamentary secretary who, I assume, will reply on behalf of the government. The questions are as follows: when the government removed the subsidy on bread, why did it not also eliminate the heavy subsidy to the western grain farmer, the subsidy paid jointly by all taxpayers and by all consumers? Is the report of which I have been given a copy available to the public? Is it available in the French language? Is any thought being given to coordinating the interests of the four ministers concerned, the Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board), Senator Argue, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), so as to reduce their
3746

October 16, 1980
Grain Transport
overlapping activities? Will the recommended task force be established? Will the report we have discussed today be referred to a standing committee of this Elouse for study?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments in relation to grain transport in western Canada because the motion before us directly addresses an issue which has preoccupied federal governments so much in recent years and because I believe this is an opportune time to put in perspective our achievements in grain transportation.
There has been considerable activity in this area in recent months. The present minister has participated actively in dialogue and discussions with western transport and agriculture ministers on several occasions. He has consulted with industry leaders, including representatives of the producers, of the pools and of the grain companies. In fact, just yesterday the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) was in Winnipeg discussing the future of the office of the grain transport authority and a possible successor to Dr. Horner who recently resigned. This interest on the part of the government is not newly found. Indeed, there has been a number of studies and several major programs undertaken in the last decade. I should like to touch on these briefly and try to assess the impact of each.
We can trace the beginning of the current approach to grain transportation issues to about 1969. In that year two significant moves were made. One was the establishment of the grains group as an interdepartmental advisory body drawing its staff from the Departments of Agriculture, Industry, Trade and Commerce, and Transport. Its creation stemmed from the recognition that grain production, transportation and marketing were integral parts of a whole system which could not be dealt within isolation and that a central unit was required at the policy level to maintain contact with the many organizations involved in the grain industry, ranging from farm organizations to provincial governments, from the Canadian Transport Commission to the Canadian Grain Commission, to name only a few.
The other significant move was the establishment of a basic rail network of 12,500 miles. This enabled elevator companies and producers for the first time to make sound financial planning decisions. It was recognized, however, that a number of branch lines were uneconomic, and a branch line subsidy program was introduced. It might be worth mentioning the amount that has been disbursed under this program, as it often seems to be sidelined in the discussion of more recent programs. Since the first payments in 1971 through to 1980 the CTC has paid the railways-that is the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Northern Alberta Railway,-$779.1 million in branch line subsidies.
The branch line subsidy program, however, was a piecemeal approach. It was soon recognized there were more fundamental problems with the grain handling system that were far larger than simple uneconomic branch lines. Canada's exports were not keeping pace with world grain trade. This was more a symptom than a cause. The most alarming fact was that the railways were allowing their grain-related capital plant to
deteriorate rapidly in favour of more profitable traffic, and grain transportation was suffering.
The first full-scale inquiry into these major problems was the commission on grain transportation and handling in western Canada, commonly called the "Hall commission" after its leader. Established in 1975 it held hearings across the west and its wideranging recommendations in 1977 had a major impact. I know a number of members who were involved in the debate at that time and will tell you how controversial many of the Hall recommendations were. There are still people in the west, and members of Parliament who will come and say, "Adopt the Hall recommendations lock, stock and barrel!"
Now many of the Hall recommendations were in fact adopted. Others, for better or worse, have been overtaken by events but not before having a very real influence on the course of action which was eventually taken. One critical area was the whole question of the prairie rail network. The Hall commission had recommended adding some 1,800 miles of track to the 12,500 miles already guaranteed in the basic network. The commission also recommended some 2,200 miles for abandonment and a reassessment over a 12-year period of the remaining 2,300 miles of the total branch line network. This was followed by PRAC because a 12-year wait left producers and companies with a great deal of uncertainty. Urgent action was needed in the form of a speedy reassessment.
The Prairie Rail Action Committee was given the task in 1977 and was told to report in 18 months, which was an early candidate of the sunset clause concept. As a result of the work of this committee a further 1,000 miles were added to the basic network and about 1,300 miles were recommended for abandonment subject to normal CTC review. PRAC was unique. Not only did it report in 15 months, or three months before its deadline, but it released recommendations as it progressed rather than waiting for a final report. This allowed elevator companies to announce over $10 million worth of improvements to their facilities before the assessment was completed. As hon. members know, this was not the end.
An election came along and we found ourselves with yet another study under way, this time by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). Now I would have been glad to give the member proposing the motion a copy of this study but we on this side of the House have not had the privilege of seeing it. This is a bit of a shame because, as a result of the study a number of lines recommended for abandonment by PRAC suddenly were included in the basic network. So it must have been an interesting study. But that is history, for another election came along and the present minister inherited the legacy I have just described.
Simply for the record, I mention the minister's announcement of August 6 this year. After his own review of a number of the lines involved, he decided the uncertainty which had lingered for years had to end and that a strong case had been made for retention of the lines. About 630 miles were thereby added to the basic network bringing the total mileage guaranteed to the year 2000 to about 15,900 miles representing
October 16, 1980

approximately 83 per cent of the branch line network which existed in the 1930s.
Let me go back to the Hall commission and pick up another aspect of federal study and action in grain transportation. It was by this time generally accepted that the railways were losing money. But how much? There was no common understanding of the magnitude of the losses, nor was there complete acceptance that the railways were in fact losing money on grain despite the findings of the MacPherson Royal Commission on Transportation.
Perhaps the most significant study on grain transportation was the one done by Mr. Carl Snavely, head of the commission on the costs of transporting grain by rail. The Snavely commission identified for the first time in a systematic, quantitative way the losses incurred by the railways as a result of the statutory grain rates. The proposer of the motion has been provided with a copy of this study.
The results of the study, first released in 1976, then later updated, showed that railways in 1977 experienced a revenue shortfall of $175 million on grain transportation. It is generally estimated that those losses are in excess of $200 million per year at the present time. While there are different estimates of these losses by the railways themselves and by western provincial governments, the Snavely report still provides the most independent assessment available. Whatever the actual figures, their magnitude made it clear why the railways were forced to allow their capital plant to deteriorate.
Three major initiatives have been taken to bring railway rolling stock and infrastructure back to the condition they need to be in for efficient movement of grain. The first, begun in 1973 and later accelerated, was the purchase of modern, heavy-load hopper cars. The federal hopper car fleet now numbers 8,000, purchased at a cost of $258 million. A further
2,000	cars are in the process of being acquired on long-term leases at a cost of approximately $11 million to $12 million per year. We were pleased to see the provinces get involved in this question with the acquisition of some additional hopper cars of their own.
The second initiative was the repair of the existing boxcar fleet. By 1974, when this program began, CN and CP boxcars, many of them 30 years old, were in deplorable shape. The federal government has provided over $22 million to the railways to share the cost of rehabilitating some 7,400 boxcars.
Between boxcar rehabilitation and the acquisition of hopper cars, the grain car fleet is beginning to respond to the demand placed on it. Results can be seen this past year during which grain deliveries to export points were up almost 20 per cent over the previous year.
The third and most substantial initiative was the program to bring the condition of prairie branch lines up to standard. Announced in 1977, the program involves over $700 million total expenditures, of which $240 million has already been spent. Already there are noticeable results in the condition of
Grain Transport
prairie branch lines, and, again, Canada's grain trade has benefited.
I could talk about a number of other improvements in the grain transportation system, including the expenditures at the port of Churchill since 1968, the elevator modernization at the port of Montreal and the recently concluded agreement to proceed with construction of a major grain terminal at Prince Rupert. But we have been talking primarily about studies and there are a couple of recent one I want to mention.
As I mentioned earlier, the problems of the grain transportation system were recognized as widespread and deep-rooted. Studies had indentified major institutional and economic difficulties in specific aspects of the grain industry. Significant improvements were under way, at a substantial cost, in the areas of rolling stock, rail network rationalization, branch line upgrading, and port modernization. But what was needed was a look at the system as a dynamic, interrelated structure, and recommendations on immediate action to relieve bottlenecks.
This was the study undertaken by the consultants Booz-Allen, completed in July, 1979, which, as requested in the motion put forward by the hon. member, was forwarded to him. The recommendation of their report which received the most visible follow-up was that a grain transportation improvement task force be established, headed by someone of stature in the industry, with an action-oriented mandate to propose, oversee and monitor improvements in the grain transportation system. As members know, this led to the creation of the office of the grain transportation co-ordinator.
So you see, Mr. Speaker, there has been no shortage of studies. Nonetheless, I think it is clear that this government is firmly committed to making significant improvements to the grain transportation system. Not only studies have taken place, there has also been action on a number of fronts, involving large expenditures. In fact, approximately $1.3 billion has been spent on grain transport related projects since 1970.
The government recognizes, first and foremost, the vulnerable position of the producer, particularly in such areas as a crop diversification and further processing. But now there is also a realization of the magnitude of the railways' losses, with the result that Canada is not achieving its potential in grain exports.
The debate on grain transportation is now a rational, realistic one. Different ideas are emerging, and it is our challenge to hear these and develop proposals which will be beneficial to the grain industry and acceptable to westerners. In concluding my comments on this motion, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that this government will continue to place a high priority on improving the Canadian grain handling and transportation system, and that the country as a whole will benefit from the improvements.
The hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) asked a question relating to the latest report. The latest report is available to all hon. members and the public by request. At this time it has not been translated into the second official

October 16, 1980
Grain Transport
language, and that is the reason it has not been tabled in the House.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, 1 will try to keep my remarks brief so that the hon. member from the NDP will have a chance to contribute to this debate. Prairie farmers are sick and tired of studies; they want to see action. The first light at the end of the tunnel came for hundreds of prairie farmers when the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski) was the minister of transport. He gave the farmers some hope by appointing Dr. Hugh Horner to the position of grain transportation co-ordinator.
Farmers have become rather depressed because this government's lack of action has set them back ten years. The parliamentary secretary stated that the government wants action and that is what we on the prairies want as well. I would now like to outline some of the concerns of the prairie farmer, Mr. Speaker.
The stage was set for improvements at Prince Rupert to be well under way by this time. The contract was not signed until September, however, so it is questionable how much work can be done over the winter. The entire summer season was lost through the inaction of the National Harbours Board and the lack of aggressiveness on the part of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). Now that an agreement has been signed and the first contract let, I hope we will see action and be able to reap the benefit of that eight million ton bushel terminal on Ridley Island.
I should like now to deal with the problem of the railways losing money. When the original contracts were made with the railways, in many instances they began the construction of branch lines. The elevators, coal mines and so on, resulted from that. The railways were also given $1 million to provide the country with passenger and freight service. As well, they were given one million acres of land and all of the mineral rights. Today, when the railways claim to be losing money, they count only the money from a particular branch line and refuse to include the vast amounts of revenue from mineral rights, hotel concessions and the other businesses they operate. Because they now separate one section of their business from the others, they claim to be losing money.
In particular, the CPR received ample compensation for the Crowsnest rate. Prairie farmers will be very reluctant to give that rate up unless they are offered something comparable. They have given up concessions too many times without receiving anything in return and have suffered as a consequence. I think the government should require the railways to include in their profit statement the vast sums of money made from mineral rights. That item should not be kept separate from others in the operation of the railway. The railways were given those mineral rights with the understanding that they would give rail service to the country but now they separate the operations as though they had no relationship whatsoever. I know that divorce is common but this divorce should not be permitted. The mineral rights were given as a concession for
operating the railways, and that is what they should be required to do.
Prairie farmers have a few complaints about the Crowsnest rate as well. It is now being used as a means of cheap transportation of feed to the east, particularly Quebec where the provincial government subsidizes the production of hogs and feed. This means that the western cattle and hog producer cannot compete. The Crowsnest rate, combined with the subsidy, makes for unfair competition and the federal government should do something about this.
A lot should be said about branch lines, Mr. Speaker. On Friday I presented a motion under Standing Order 43, regarding the branch line from Rosedale to East Coulee, serving a coal mining operation, the one from Kneehill to Carbon, a grain operation, and one that I did not mention, from Strathmore to Langdon, which is also a grain operation and is required by the town. The CTC heard the applications from the CPR in connection with the Carbon line and the Strathmore line in 1978 and now they are applying again. Just yesterday, the mayor of Strathmore told me that potential business is being lost to the town because it is not known whether the railway will be there next year or not. This is a trick on the part of the railways-to keep applying and applying until they wear down the resistance of the Canadian Transport Commission. It just is not fair. When the railways branch of the CTC makes a decision after a full investigation, that should hold good for at least five years, preferably ten, so that there can be some stability in the situation and industry can be attracted to particular areas.
I hope the Minister of Transport will ensure that these repeated applications by the railways every second year will not be tolerated. It keeps potential industries out of the communities. I have mentioned three cases and I can only guess how many more there are across the country.
In Vancouver, the port will not accept grain from large transports. In the United States, large transports travel a few hundred miles to take clean grain to the terminal right at the seaport where it is loaded. But the Vancouver port refuses to accept grain from some transports. This leads one to wonder whether there is a connection with the railways to make sure that it is hauled by them. If the transports can offer fair and reasonable competition they should be permitted to do so.
There should be facilities at inland elevators to clean grain. The Rockyford Terminal Association was formed by a large group of farmers who put up their own money to show what can and should be done to clean grain and get it to the market, given a fair chance.
This leads me to another grievance that the farmers have, Mr. Speaker. They have no say in how long they must wait to load the grain on a ship. They have no say about whether the workers at the Vancouver port will go on strike tomorrow or next week, as they have gone on strike so many times over the years. A few years ago the pearl barley market was lost to the United States and we never got it back. Strikes were intended to hurt the ruthless employer, but today they are hurting innoncent people like the prairie farmer whose livelihood is
October 16, 1980

being jeopardized. Some people think that the Canadian government or the taxpayer bears the cost of demurrage while the ships sit and wait but it comes out of the pockets of the prairie grain producer. Last year S18 million was lost because of the lackadaisical handling of ships in Vancouver.
There are several other things I would like to mention, Mr. Speaker, but I shall close with some remarks about the Neil report because I know my hon. friend to my left would like to have a little time to speak on this. The Neil report saved many branch lines. To some degree, these branch lines had been built with public money. They should not simply be torn up. 1 come from a coal mining area. I have seen a coal mine where the tracks were removed three times and built over again, each adding to the price of coal. When we have these rail lines built, surely we can leave them there even if they are not used at present to full capacity because they will likely be required in the future. We need some stability with regard to our branch lines so that we will not be driving industry away and almost forcing grain companies to close their elevators.
The prairie farmers are tired of studies. They are tired of putting money in other people's pockets. 1 hope the changes made by this government will put a few more dollars into the farmers' pockets, the people on whom we depend to grow food for this nation and for many other hungry people.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, 1 understand from the intent of the motion that the mover is proposing to make public the Booze, Allen and Hamilton report prepared by a firm from Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A.
1 think the point was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bockstael) that the report is in effect public. Certainly all of the farm organization leaders that I know of and a great many private individuals now have the report, though, granted, it is not printed in French. I think the report was published, as it says on the front page, in June, 1979. The reasons for the report go back to the crop year of 1977-1978. At that time the system appeared to find it impossible to move all the grain for which there were sales. The wheat board in a conservative estimate estimated they had forgone over half a billion dollars worth of grain sales because of the inability of the railways and the system to move the grain. What was even more galling to farmers was that after having seen that half billion dollars in sales, so to speak, go down the tube, they were asked to pay an additional $18.4 million in demurrage payments because the system was unable to perform according to requirements, and the ships were waiting.
It is interesting that the report itself was very action-oriented, and in spite of what was said in the House today, the rate structure and the compensation issue was specifically left out of the terms of reference of the Booze-AIlen report. The recommendations of the report were recommendations that would be effective whether or not the rate problem, if it is a problem, was addressed. 1 also find the report interesting because a number of the recommendations, along with the key
Grain Transport
areas where the board saw problems, were being acted upon even before the report was published. A number of the findings of the report were fairly general knowledge to those who were interested in watching the operations of the grain trade before the report came down.
It was public knowledge that the system was not producing enough grain cars; that there would be an annual shortfall of
2,000	hopper cars until the year 1985 and that a shortfall on this scale would still continue if it were not for the intervention of some of the provincial governments, the federal government and indeed the wheat board on behalf of the producers themselves.
The report deals with a situation that has arisen because the direction of the grain trade has reversed in this country of ours. The bulk of the trade no longer moves from west to east but to where the markets are in 1980 and 1990, that is to the west, the Orient. Because of this shift we have seen the phasing out of some of the facilities at Thunder Bay because the volume of storage no longer is required. We see that the railway capacity to the west is perhaps not always adequate for the amount of traffic required of it. We are seeing very clearly that the terminal capacity at the west coast is not adequate to handle the amount of grain now available for shipment through those ports in order to meet existing markets.
Consequently, it was no surprise that the Booze, Allen and Hamilton report suggested that Prince Rupert be developed further. It pointed out the fairly obvious problems that exist in Vancouver with regard to space and the possibility of expanding the storage facility there. It pointed out there is still a very real need for terminal space at the ports. The reasons, 1 thought, were fairly obvious reasons. You cannot rely on ships always arriving in port on time. We have early arrivals. We have bunching of ships around the Christmas season. Captains try to get their crews to Vancouver, or any port for that matter, for the Christmas holiday, so they arrive ahead of the supposed loading time. As a result we get this bunching effect at the port of Vancouver on occasion. It is usually reported in January, but sometimes it carries over to the early part of February. The situation is exacerbated because this is also the time of year when the railways have trouble getting through the mountain passes. The report seems to be cognizant of those facts.
I think most people in the grain business are cognizant of the fact that the railway line which goes to Prince Rupert is not so subject to weather disruptions during winter. That is another of the reasons for expanding facilities at the port of Prince Rupert.
Because 1 have only two or three minutes before the debate is interrupted and I am not sure whether it will carry on for a full 90 minutes, I will bring my remarks to a conclusion, temporarily, and make a few points about the over-all system since we do not have time to analyse the seven or eight points in the system where problems can occur. I simply say that the report finds no problem with capacity in the country. The country elevator system has plenty of capacity. The railways are short of cars. That is a known situation and it is being

October 16, 1980
Grain Transport
dealt with. As 1 say, the report did not deal with the compensation aspects. But within the industry I think there is a consensus that the Crow rate is important and necessary if producers of grain are going to continue in existence. The report did not deal specifically with this, but it is fairly obvious that the wheat board is the linchpin in the system. Whether or not the transport authority is within or outside the jurisdiction of the wheat board really does not matter. The data come into the wheat board. The computer system is in place as well as the lines to connect the system. It could make the system work better.
I think the railways are giving cause for concern-1 suppose we can say two and a half railways because we have small regional railways in the country-when it comes to exchanging cars. Those cars are tied up for another day or two simply because CN wants to take its own cars and CP likewise. If we combine the two railways into one system, which makes sense for a great many other reasons, we could increase the turnaround and the efficiency of the system, putting more of the grains under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board. This would improve the efficiency of the system. Rapeseed, in particular, has been a bugbear in terms of handling arrangements. Cars must be specially sorted out to separate terminal elevators. There are no switching arrangements and no pooling arrangements for rapeseed.
If issues of this kind were looked at objectively and acted upon, the question of rate could then be judged in the proper context.
It is interesting that the Booze-Alien report even looks at the national economy when it deals with costs because the board talks about just two or three crop years paying for the extra costs of keeping the system big enough to handle large crops. Booze-Alien, at least, has not fallen into the trap of some of the previous studies of analysing the system on a corporate basis to see whether it will show a profit or not. It is simply dealing with the system as it should be dealt with, as being able to provide a service. That is the basic way of looking at grain transportation. The first question to ask is: can it do the job or can it not? Most of the basics are there if we simply reorganize the structure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock, the House took recess. [DOT]


[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 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. Deputy Speaker:: When the debate was interrupted at five o'clock this afternoon, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) had the floor.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the adjournment to which you referred, I had made the point that no one person in this country can rely on his own conviction to adequately and accurately reflect all the conflicting and contending emotions and aspirations of this country.
I put it to the members here, is there any one man who can come before this House and at the same time speak for Newfoundland with its trans-Atlantic traditions which were just changed some 31 years ago or about the frustrations of the seafaring provinces of the eastern part of Canada? Can he fully comprehend and fully understand those things? Can that person fully comprehend and understand the struggle of the people of Quebec to retain their pride of history, language and culture against successive waves of military invasion, commercial displacement and social and industrial change? That is a tall order for any man. Would he understand the Ontario of Toronto or the Ontario that is divorced from Toronto, such as the small town I grew up in which is about as remote from Toronto as is Medicine Hat?
October 16, 1980

If that one politician could grasp all at once the significance of being a maritimer, a Quebecker or an Ontarian, would he at the same time be able to grasp the experience of western Canada, its settlement at times seeming to be only for the exploitation of central Canada and to understand how much that means to a westerner? Could he understand how far British Columbia really is from this House and many of its debates? That is the essence of this country.
That is why in 1867 and all the conferences ahead of it it was decided that the only way this country could operate was by way of federation. It was impossible otherwise. It would have been more convenient for a unitary state, but it could not operate any other way.
Any person may think he comprehends this country in all its variety, but such understanding is not given to man. We are all shaped by our own particular view and our own particular version of the national heritage. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave up meeting with the premiers and the provinces, he substituted one man's vision for a vision accommodating the perspective of all Canadians. He has either endowed himself with supernatural understanding or he has come to believe that consensus is not necessary. The Prime Minister makes light of consensus because he could not achieve consensus, not because it is worthless in Canadian terms. He must now embrace the dangerous fiction of the national will. He must now embarrass us as a nation by asking the British parliament to shut its eyes to the dissent he is unable to defuse and pass a Canada act. He sends his ministers to England to make sure that the British parliament does not make a qualitative judgment about the political process in our country.
If the Prime Minister persists in his unswerving course, he will leave behind him his constitutional settlement without the breadth of support which is required in a federal democracy. He hopes to settle this question forever. We can only hope he has not doomed this country to perpetual fractionalism, and that is the essence of this debate.
No consensus has been reached with the provinces. We are told it was impossible, and if it was not impossible then it is likely impossible now. If common sense ruled this debate rather than impatience, this package could have been taken to the provinces because when you look at it you will see it is not the package that was rejected in September. Many of the contentious issues which were there at the conference in September are not in that package now.
I have to be realistic. It appears that the Prime Minister is committed to pursuing his package here in the House of Commons and only here. I ask him and 1 ask his colleagues: will they use the House of Commons to build a more firm settlement for their constitutional arrangements, whatever is finally decided upon? Will they listen to and reflect on the views expressed by MPs who together represent a greater proportion of the population than the government majority
The Constitution
does? It would be in the best interest of this country if they did.
I want to turn to another point, and that is a matter which was raised earlier in the course of the day with regard to a procedural matter, particularly in questions put to the government House leader. My party has raised a number of questions about the procedural process we are to go through in adopting this resolution. Procedure bores people but it protects the rights of members to properly debate and amend a proposition before them.
What exactly do we now have here before us? We are debating whether we should set up a special committee to study, not a resolution, but the subject matter of a document containing a proposed resolution. When the committee makes its report, in whatever form, it will be suggesting amendments that should in its opinion be made when the resolution itself is brought back into the House. If the House concurs, the House will be concurring in the committee's report as to whether a resolution should be brought before the House and, if so, with what amendments. Never in this entire process do we deal directly with the resolution, and as a result of the procedure which has been outlined today we cannot any of us propose direct amendments. To fulfil the requirements of the rules of this House the government will have to introduce the resolution directly, have it debated directly, and pass it directly.
When this debate began we were told there would be no tricks. It looks to me as if the whole process is a pack of tricks. We have tried to get a clarification in this House of the process of passing a constitutional resolution; none has been forthcoming. However, last week a brochure was published by the government entitled "The Canadian Constitution: Explanation of a proposed Resolution respecting the Constitution of Canada". On page 18 of this booklet there is a statement which the government did not have the honesty to give in this House. It reads:
If the committee recommends the adoption of resolutions in the form of the proposed resolution, with or without changes, and both the House of Commons and the Senate concur in that recommendation, those concurrences will constitute a joint address. The government will then transmit the joint address to the Queen.
Let me make it clear that that will not constitute a joint address. Let me make the position of my party clear on this prostitution of the rules of the House of Commons. First, nothing can constitute a joint address unless it is a joint address. In the past such addresses were passed directly as resolutions and they must be now.
Second, we do not believe the House can deal indirectly with the subject matter of a resolution and then be deemed to have passed the resolution directly. If the government wants to change the rules it can introduce a temporary standing order to do that. It cannot sneak in through the back door.
Third, we do not accept that a majority of the House has the right to truncate the process of debate on this question any more than it can arbitrarily eliminate third reading of any particular bill.

October 16, 1980
The Constitution
Fourth, we believe that this procedure is being advanced to deprive the opposition and, indeed, Parliament of its full rights of amendment and debate. We do not accept that a process accepted by the House as suitable for amending its own internal rules can arbitrarily be deemed appropriate for an address to the sovereign.
Fifth, we believe our practices are quite clear-that concurring in the report on a subject matter outside the House itself leaves the implementation for a later stage.
Sixth, we believe it would be highly improper for the government to go to the Speaker and ask that she sign and engross as a joint address something which is not a joint address. It would be even more improper of the Speaker to sign such a document and thereby put the sign of approval on a misrepresentation of the House's actions.
Finally, we believe that the constitutional soundness of this whole process is extremely dubious, to put it at its mildest, and that an attempt to proceed in this manner will put the Speaker and possibly the Governor General in an invidious and dangerous position.
This is a question of due process, minority rights, the duty of the Speaker to protect minorities against an abuse of the rules, and of possible misrepresentation of the proceedings of this House. We are not prepared to accept the idea that our rules are whatever the government wishes those rules to be.
This proposition, if 1 may say so with great respect, is sickeningly two-faced. The government has said it would not be acceptable to limit a constitutional debate. The Prime Minister has said that. In reality the government is saying, the longer we debate, the less committee study there will be. It has said there would be no tricks. Behind the backs of the members it published a document laying out the procedural dirty tricks it would not admit to in the House. We are told by Liberal members that this is just a committee reference. In reality the government plans to rewrite the rules once this so-called document reaches the committee. Suddenly the resolution will be born of the reference of the subject matter. I protest this process; we protest this process. It is unconstitutional and what flows from it is doubtful. I hope all members of the House will remember what I have said as we proceed further in this debate.
There are questions about the propriety of section 42. There is a feeling around, and I share it, that the referendum is not dealt from a straight deck, and this is borne out by the answer or non-answer the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) received from the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Roberts). It is being passed off as if the debate was on the bill of rights. I said at the outset that there is no real problem with a statement of rights in Canada, and there is not, but would it not be wise of this House to ensure what particular rights we want to entrench, because if we entrench them those rights cannot be changed quickly or easily. That is important for us to remember.
I had some early troubles with the idea of a bill of rights, and 1 confess there are feelings in this House among lawyers
and others, as there are among judges and legislators all over Canada, and as there are among legal commentators, about the idea of a bill of rights at all. I had a little difficulty with it; I confess that to you, Mr. Speaker I could as easily argue the case against a bill of rights as I could for a bill of rights.
I know how this argument comes about. There is a tendency in civil law to codify. As the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) said the other day, we have adopted, in the good old Canadian way, two processes. Some rights are codified and some are not codified. Frankly, I do not hold that to be the real issue, but I do say it is important, if we do entrench, that we know what we are entrenching and that we really do entrench protections which not only spell out what the law is, but what the law should be and what we would like the law to be, we must buttress and augment what rights we have always felt flowed from our living in a free society.
Clause 24 of the bill relieves me of the problem of the casting aside of certain rights as a result of the codifying of other rights. My mind is relieved, and it is my belief that if we are satisfied with the wording of the clause we want to entrench, the process of entrenching can be construed not as an abandonment of the common law tradition but as a method by which the common law traditions can be strengthened.
At least that is what I hope we would want. However, given the inflexibility of entrenchment, the wording becomes extremely important.
I want to take a look at clause 1 of the bill, if I have a few moments. Clause 1 of the draft bill is the so-called guarantee of rights. It says:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits as are generally accepted in a free and democratic society with a parliamentary system of government.
Any lawyer or anyone else could drive a freight train through that so-called guarantee of rights.


An hon. Member:: Amend it!


Walter David Baker: My friend says, "amend it," and he is right, but let him not stand in this House and say that what is written here is the last word. If we look at native rights and minority language rights, we find that they are imperfection personified. I said to one of my colleagues that they look the tough sections, in any event-as if they were written on an envelope in haste somewhere between Ottawa and the northern parts of Canada when this document was taken up to be reviewed by the Prime Minister.
That is the problem, and I do not have the time to go into the detail today. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) said he favoured the view of the Canadian Bar Association on rights. Then why was the right to own property left out? That is part of the Canadian Bar Association's view on rights. Why was that right left out? Is there some reason or other?
The minority language rights reference is not what I thought it was and not as it was represented by the Minister of
October 16, 1980

Justice (Mr. Chretien). It creates two kinds of Canadians, and they are not French and English. Subclauses (1) and (2) discriminate with respect to rights. They create two classes of Canadians, and if we are going to talk about rights, Canadians are one class whether they are French or English and whether they live in Manitoba, Quebec or Ontario. This is not something 1 would fee! proud of as a draftsman in terms of protecting rights. If we are going to have these rights, then let us entrench what we consider our best efforts rather than our first efforts. That is a problem we have.
We have talked about the problem of an amending formula. The hon. member for Rosedale laid out the objections, gave an alternative to the government with respect to the Vancouver formula and gave an undertaking on behalf of our party which I am prepared to repeat on behalf of our party.
The referendum in this bill is not a neutral device.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this country is more than the sum of its parts, and I believe we cannot have deadlock forever. There is a time to act, as there was a time to act in the deadlocked Canada of 1864, and I hope that Canada as a nation will be the focus of our loyalty and the essence of our hope. I have no illusions about the provinces. They operate in a different political context than I do.
We had a message.
[ Translation]
In the speech he made on Monday, the Minister of Justice was kind enough to draw my attention and that of my colleagues to the comments made by Premier Davis. I would like to do likewise and quote the comments made by Mr. Ryan, his leader, if Mr. Davis is mine, as reported in the newspaper Le Devoir on Monday, October 6.
Mr. Ryan wrote and I quote:
-the federal system has been based up to now on the principle of equality between both levels of government, each in its own jurisdiction; there was no question that one level of government be dependent on the other or have preponderance over the other. With the system introduced under the federal project, the preponderance of the federal government over the provinces is acknowledged. It is a new political principle which, in my view, gives an entirely new aspect to constitutional law and political development in Canada. And we do not believe that it is the proper way in which to lead Canada at present. We maintain that the constitution is the common property and responsibility of the two levels of government. For major changes affecting the constitution, it is necessary to obtain the consent of both levels of government. Neither of those levels can assume the privilege or the right to act alone in those matters which may indeed alter federative relations.

Mr. Speaker, the government has come to this House of Commons. In doing so, the government has hurt the cause of confederation in the way in which it has come. If the government wants to help the cause of confederation, then people on the government side should understand that there are representative views in this House which are different but which are nonetheless Canadian, and they ought to listen to those views. 1 want to give them every chance to do that.
The Constitution
Therefore, in closing I wish to move an amendment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty):
That the motion be amended by adding thereto after the Fifth paragraph the following:
"That the committee shall be deemed to have the resolution directly before it for the purpose of discussion and amendment, and that the committee shall report the resolution as amended in a form which will permit both Houses to directly consider and amend the said resolution".
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, before we debate the amendment-and I understand that my hon. colleague will seek the floor in a few minutes-I wonder if the opposition House leader would grant me a question, just as I granted him one yesterday after my speech.


Walter David Baker: Oh, yes


Yvon Pinard: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) just mentioned that he doubted the legality of our process. As I understood him, he believed that some premiers would go to the court to contest the legality of our procedure in the House on the matter of the patriation of the constitution. 1 should like him to explain to me how it is that the premiers could not even agree unanimously on this matter? They could not even reach unanimity on this fundamental question of the legality-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has an amendment before it. I should simply like to note at this point that the Chair would like to take the amendment under advisement before ruling whether or not the amendment is in order. The Chair will now proceed to recognize the next speaker in the debate.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When I spoke previously it was on a point of order. You had recognized me on a point of order when I asked for permission to ask a question, and 1 understand the hon. gentleman accepted my request. If you will recognize me, Mr. Speaker, 1 will ask the question, but if you do not, I will not.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has expired and the minister can only ask a question with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Yesterday I granted the hon. gentleman a question. My question is as follows: How does he reconcile his views on the legality of our action if the premiers cannot agree on this, because only some of them say they will contest our action, and what does he say about Premier Davis subscribing totally to our action in the House?


Walter David Baker: 1 suppose 1 could answer that by asking my friend a question. What does he say about

October 16, 1980
The Constitution
his leader in Quebec totally disagreeing with the action that the government has taken?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: 1 answered the hon. member's question yesterday and 1 wish I could repeat that answer. It is a problem. This is the position and it has nothing to do with legality or illegality. What I said at the outset stands. I said that I think the regrettable situation which we find in this country, and that is putting it mildly-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect to the minister, it seems to me that we are now entering into an exchange between two hon. members. With the consent of the House, the Chair would now like to recognize the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais).
[ Translation]


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to express the tremendous pleasure I feel at being able to take part in this historic debate. 1 listened with great interest to what the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), who must now take leave, had to say. 1 congratulate him on his efforts in trying to speak the language of Moliere. It is the first time I have heard him, and I hope that the opportunity will present itself again only in a very distant future, after he has had a chance to take lessons. Now, that being said, Mr. Speaker, 1 can assure you that this afternoon-

This afternoon when I was listening to the preliminary debate before orders of the day were called, I thought this would be a very long debate indeed because a number of members in the opposition rose on a number of points and I had the distinct impression, this being my first full day in the House during the debate on the constitution, that this debate would be prolonged unduly. However, I was comforted by the fact that, as hon. members will recall, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, in effect, eliminated a large number of issues which I felt would have been debated otherwise. He indicated that patriation was not an issue. He said that patriation was generally agreed to by the people of Canada and by members of this House. I concur with that and I congratulate him on his perspicacity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Blais:: He then said that he had no difficulty with the bill of rights. He repeated this statement just before concluding. He said that there was some details with which he perhaps took issue but generally he believed in the entrenchment of a bill of rights. That again is one of the areas which I thought would have been the subject of considerable controversy, but he did away with that one and again I congratulate him on his co-operation.
The third issue was the question of the amendment. He admitted that we needed to bring the constitution home with
an amending formula and he agreed with the principle which was being advanced. I felt very comforted by that particular agreement, and indeed there is very little else left for him to debate at this time. But when he started dealing with the amending formula, 1 could see very well that he was unable to understand what the government was attempting to do. He stated in effect that we attempted to advance the amending formula without consent from the provinces, and he even accused the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of lack of leadership when he introduced this particular amending formula.
I wish to point out to the hon. gentleman that if he reviewed the whole historical context of the debates and discussions which took place between the federal governments and the provincial governments since the statute of Westminster in 1931, he would recognize that every possible attempt has been made to secure a consensus among the provinces. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) this afternoon gave chapter and verse on every one of the meetings, federal and provincial, prime ministerial and ministerial, which took place. He indicated that in spite of all those meetings, we were unable to reach consensus.
I do not think there is a more striking example than that of the Victoria conference in 1971. Reviewing the events of that conference, it will be recognized that in 1971 the provinces and the federal government under the leadership of the Prime Minister had agreed on an amending formula, a formula which made eminent good sense. Following that particular agreement, the then premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, went back to his province and stated in effect that he withdrew his consent based on the refusal by the federal government to recognize primacy over social policies at the provincial level. What he said in effect was, "I do not get the power that I want, so you will not get the amending formula." Of course, everyone knows that without the amending formula no patriation is possible.
What happened in Victoria in 1971 is exactly what had happened at every previous meeting and every meeting since, namely, that the patriation of the constitution and the amending formula, which of necessity has to be attached, has been the lever used by the provinces in order to pry out of the central government that concession which was considered proper to its own jurisdiction. So, in effect, what has happened is that every one of the provinces has imposed the unanimity rule in order to secure full consensus which applied to the specific will and desire of each of the individual provinces. In that context it is a physical, intellectual and moral impossibility for a consensus to be reached.
We went through the exercise of drafting Bill C-60 in cabinet. I sat on the cabinet committee which assisted in the drafting of that legislation. We had every hope that that bill would at least permit us to change our own structures at the federal level. That was unsuccessful. I participated in the preparation for the federal-provincial discussions in 1979 when the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) attempted with the utmost flexibility, through every effort he possessed, to
October 16, 1980

secure an agreement between the provinces. That proved to be impossible.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Ele was rigid.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Rigidity is the last word 1 would use to describe that exercise. When we reached that impasse there needed to be a slicing of the Gordian knot. I do not know of any other example or parallel befitting the impasse we reached than the Gordian knot.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton agreed that we had public support. He ought to agree and take heed of it because there is a recognition throughout the country that we are doing what needs to be done and what needs to be done now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Wyatt Dick: You are losing your support.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Hon. gentlemen opposite should listen to their constituents. I have been in some of their ridings and I have received the positive response they do not expect but will wake up to. I have been in Parry Sound, Orillia, Nipissing, Toronto and New Brunswick. People said that we were doing the right thing and gave us the "go-ahead" to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Jacques Blais: 1 have hit a sensitive nerve on the other side. I note the hon. gentlemen who are sensitive are those most open to the representations of their constituents.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton indicated a concern regarding certain areas of the charter of human rights. 1 listened this afternoon to the question of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) who raised the Bakke case and the question of affirmative action. I simply call section 15 to the attention of the House, the non-discrimination section of the resolution. It contains specific provisions so that the non-discrimination rights do not in any way infringe upon positive action programs as reflected through policy or through legislation. That is the type of foresight we used in the preparation of this resolution.
Also, I was somewhat concerned about an article written by Mr. Gwyn in which he quoted the counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association who expressed some reservation about the entrenchment of a bill of rights. I simply point out that the counsel is a hired hand of that particular association, whereas the chairman, Mr. Tarnapolsky, is a strong supporter of the legislation with which we are dealing, including the entrenchment of the bill of rights. I suggest that is the position to adopt. I have never been able to accept the argument that somehow we should be running after 11 legislatures in this country to protect human and civil rights of individuals, in effect something which should be up front. One will notice in the resolution before us that the first section deals with human rights and that subsequent sections deal with rights of
The Constitution
individuals. That is the importance which ought to be given them.
1 am a lawyer trained in the common law as is the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. He expressed reservations about codifying, that is, entrenching. I do not have any of those reservations. While I have a great deal of respect for skilful lawyers who are original and like to hunt in libraries in order to unearth principles of common law which may protect their clients, I do not think the man on the street, the Canadian citizen, is interested in hiring lawyers in order to ascertain his human rights. He wants them up front.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: No greater man recognized that necessity than John Diefenbaker when he saw the common law as imperfect and understood the necessity of codifying those principles and rights up front in the bill of rights he introduced in the legislation. Unfortunately that was interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada in the guise of an interpretation statute; it was never given its intended weight. The entrenchment of a bill of rights, mobility rights and non-discrimination rights will secure for Canadians a recognition of rights recognized throughout civilization. It is time to entrench those rights.
[ Translation]
But there is in fact another reason why I wanted to take part in this debate. It is true that I have been sitting in this House for eight years as a member of Parliament, but I have been a French Canadian and a Franco-Ontarian for 40 years, since I was born. And this really means something. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to study constitutional law when I was in primary school, in the sixth, seventh and eighth grades, because our teachers recognized that it was essential for us to know our rights if we wanted to preserve our identity as French Canadians even though we lived outside Quebec.
I can say, Mr. Speaker, that the issue of the minority language and education rights existed before confederation, as hon. members know quite well. In fact, the last issue to be settled when the confederative agreement of 1867 was passed was the protection of minority rights as concerns education. This appears under British North America Act section 93.
When I was a small boy, I lived in a city called Sturgeon Falls in northern Ontario. My great grandparents settled in northern Ontario with the building of the railway in the 1880s. They had left the province of Quebec because they considered that all of Canada was their country. They and many of their fellow citizens settled in northern Ontario.
In my native city, there were schools right from the start, but unfortunately, then came what was called regulation 17. I do not want to go over this sad moment in our history, but our basic rights were infringed upon by a statutory regulation of the province of Ontario. It was after this that French Canadian national movements such as the ACFO, the movement of

October 16, 1980
The Constitution
Olivar Asselin, and others, were created to strengthen the French language and culture in Ontario.
I had myself the privilege of taking an active part in French Canadian activities in Toronto. First, when I was admitted to the Bar, I sat on the advisory committee for French language education when the Etienne Brule secondary school was established in Toronto. It is hard to imagine that in a city of two million people where there were more than 60,000 French Canadians, we tried for four years to get a French secondary school. Four years, Mr. Speaker! I was there myself only for the last three years, and we were told that we would be unable to get 200 students in our school. Of course, we now have that school and even more because the need has been recognized, but there was already virtually systematic resistance at that time. However, this was in a city where people said: nearly all of the residents of Toronto are English Canadians! There are no French Canadians. Of course, that was not true. But in other Ontario areas where we had a French majority, we had to extract, to tear out French schools from the public administration, as well as we could. I have children, Mr. Speaker, I was fortunate. In fact, I went to an English language public school, but after that I went to Ottawa University and perfected my French.
My younger brother went through all his classes in French schools in Ontario, and is quite happy about it. I would like my children, whom I dragged along into western Canada this summer, could also have mobility, be able to go to western Canada and live as they live at home, as I lived in Sturgeon Falls, as my grandparents lived in Hull and Glengarry-Pres-cott. This is not asking very much. I was brought up with a concept of Canada under which 1 had as much place as a Francophone as any Anglophone anywhere across the land, and 1 am not prepared to accept anything less. I am not being selfish, because my presence is a contribution to the country. I am not talking of my own self of course, but rather the presence of French civilization that contributes to this whole country we call Canada.
Morever, Mr. Speaker, to people who may oppose this 1 would suggest I never forced anyone to speak French. If people want to speak to me in French, they are welcome to do so. But I recognize realities. Being Franco-Ontarian, I recognize I had to learn English. And I had no fear in doing so, because I feel it is an advantage to speak the two most used languages in the civilized world. I have absolutely no concern about this, and I worked hard to learn English. I am not ashamed of it, no more than I am ashamed of speaking French and trying to do so with all the concentration, vigour and imagination I am capable of. Mr. Speaker, this is the nature of this country.
The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton referred earlier to the problem in this country, because of the vastness of our regions like the west, for anybody to understand all that. This is a truism.
Nobody, but nobody, can deny that this country has been enriched by a vast array of human beings who brought their immeasurable wealth to our shores. Every time I attend a citizenship acceptance ceremony I am impressed. The judge always identifies the number of countries that are represented by the new citizens and, on every occasion, I tell them that this is a brand new country in the full process of evolution and development with the strongest potential of any country in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: I say to hon. members opposite that there is no divisiveness in what we are attempting to do. The divisiveness will come from undue delay caused by the other side of the House for no reason at all. Hon. members opposite know full well that after we patriate the constitution, as we will, we will deal seriatim with every issue that has to be dealt with at the federal-provincial level. That is of necessity. But we will remove that very unfortunate lever which was used by the provinces, namely, the very fact of patriation, which has stopped constructive negotiation and discussion.
Constructive negotiation and discussion is essential if this country, with its unfathomable wealth, is to be able to pursue its course as a unified country and as a country which will invite to its shores people to develop its population to a level which was foreseen by our predecessors, including Sir Wilfrid Faurier, but cannot be conceived to the full extent even by ourselves as we sit here debating this essential document.
1 am pleased to have participated in this debate. The details can be discussed at a later stage, and that stage has to be in committee. Fet us send this resolution to committee and we will all be better for it.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, as I stand, I am forced to admit that it is a moving experience, to stand and defend my country from internal assaults. It reminds me of when I was called upon to defend my country from external assaults. It is a very stirring and emotional experience. I would say that it is gut-gripping when so much is at stake.
The best thing I can think of to do in the circumstances is to approach the whole matter calmly and rationally and critically analyse the various proposals that are before us to decide which, if any, are acceptable and what effect each may have on the country which we in this chamber and people throughout the land hold so dear. What then are the proposals? The resolution before us has been there long enough now to allow us to stand back and look at it critically and analytically to determine what it is attempting to do and how it proposes to carry out its purposes.
It proposes to patriate what is called the constitution. I say that it proposes to patriate the BNA Act and other elements of the constitution. It proposes the entrenchment of a charter of rights and equalization principles. Finally, it proposes an
October 16, 1980

amending formula. This whole thing is to be done under a deadline. That is a large package to submit to a deadline. 1 would like to look at each of these areas separately. I will begin with patriation.
1 suppose the process could be called patriation. It is a name which has been invented for a specific purpose, although, the closer one looks at the process, the phonier it becomes. I have no hesitation in accepting the notion that Canada's constitutional forms, documents, acts, whatever, should be amendable and dealt with in this Parliament. But as much as I want to see the constitutional provisions within our grasp here for amendment-in other words, as much as I want to see patriation-I cannot help but be struck by the irony of the way the government is going about it in this resolution.
What we are being asked to do, and 1 find it quite incredible, is exchange one British statute for another. That is not patriation, it is a travesty of patriation. 1 want patriation. I do not want a travesty of patriation.
Let me explain. It has to be explained and it has to be understood not just by you, Mr. Speaker, but by all hon. members opposite as well as by the entire Canadian population. In my view, we are being conned at the present time into believing that what we are doing is patriating the BNA Act and other elements of the constitution.
Let us examine the process closely. We are being asked to approve a joint resolution. The Fathers of Confederation approved a joint resolution and once the context was agreed upon in 1864 and 1866, it was transmitted to the British parliament to be passed into law. It became the BNA Act, a British statute. There is no question about that.
Once the resolution before us today is approved by both Houses of Parliament it will be transmitted to the British parliament, with a prayer, a request, that the content of the resolution, known as the Canada Act, be approved by the British parliament. That is the exact procedure used in 1867 to bring the BNA Act and Canada into being.
We all recognize that the BNA Act is now described as an act of the British parliament which, of course, it is, and some shame seems to be attached to that. If the Canada Act is approved by the British parliament it will also be an act of the British parliament. It is true that the British parliament will not be able to amend it-they withdraw from that-but it will remain an act of the British parliament and it contains elements of the constitution that have never been there before. I suggest we must very carefully look at this notion of patriation and what it means in terms of the statute. It will have been drafted in Canada, like the resolution which became the BNA Act, but it will still have been approved by the British parliament.
Boiled down to its essentials it comes to this, Mr. Speaker: Canada's constitution as set out in the Canada Act-and there is more to it than that-will be an act of the British parliament. We must think about that, Mr. Speaker. We must not allow ourselves to be fooled. I wonder if we are being taken on
The Constitution
a ride down Tom Fool Hill? If the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has his way the British parliament will give us a new constitution. I emphasize this: the British parliament will be giving us this new constitution.
The Prime Minister sent two of his ministers to London. I suggest that in a manner of speaking what we are doing is hiding behind the skirts of Margaret Thatcher and asking her to do the dirty work that we are not prepared to do ourselves- to pass a law so that it will be effective here, and then we say, "Don't ever touch our constitution again." I suggest there is another way, one that has been proposed by this House and a shorter way. We could ask the British parliament to relieve themselves of those provisions of the statute of Westminster which enabled them to amend our constitution and we will do it here. The order of doing that would probably be the other way around-that we do it here and then ask them to deprive themselves of the right to interfere in our constitutional affairs, if you like. Meanwhile, we should not be taken in completely, utterly and entirely by the notion of patriation as it is being put across in much of the literature, printed and vocal, that is being issued across Canada.
Why are we proceeding by way of another British statute when there is a neater, tidier way of proceeding? The cabinet document that was leaked during the first ministers' meeting could give us some inkling why we are being asked to follow this route.


An hon. Member:: It was not a cabinet document.


Donald W. Munro: Apparently that is now being denied.


An hon. Member:: It is not a cabinet document.


Donald W. Munro: There is a document of advice to the Prime Minister as to the question of validity, and this is a very important point. As to the question of validity, the document states as follows on page 50:
-it is the view of the Department of Justice that a law passed by the U.K. parliament to patriate the constitution,-
Note the use of the word again.
-with an amending formula and other changes, could not be successfully attacked in the courts.
"Validity of the move", Mr. Speaker! Are they afraid of it being attacked in the Canadian courts-the validity of their action? They must be ashamed of it to judge by the way they are proceeding.
Of course, this resolution has yet to be passed by the U.K. parliament and therefore, in my judgment, the validity of the proposals could successfully be called into question in the courts before this is passed-not patriation as such, but the process by which this whole operation is being carried out.
Let me proceed to the second point, namely, that the British parliament is being asked to do a good deal more than just patriate the constitution. If that were all, then the British parliament would undoubtedly be delighted to patriate it and have done with it. But much more than that is being sought.

October 16, 1980
The Constitution
Westminster is, in fact, not only being asked to rid itself of the tiresome task of looking after the BNA Act and amending it from time to time when asked; Westminster is being asked, in addition, to amend it for one last time as far as they are concerned, and, in the process, rid itself of that tiresome chore.
In what areas is approval being sought for this final Westminster amendment? Largely, it is admitted with regret, in areas touching on provincial jurisdiction. Entrenched rights, many of which are property and civil rights. Under the BNA Act which is being patriated in a sense under article 50 or 51-the name is changed but it is still the BNA Act, to all intents and purposes-property and civil rights were assigned to the provinces, as was education. Those two elements are being changed in the constitution, presumably at the request of the government. The British parliament is expected to make those changes.
Equally important in the area touching upon the powers of the Senate, an area which itself impinges on provincial or regional jurisdiction, are the prerogatives of the regions or provinces. This is done without consulting with, and certainly without the consent of, the provinces.
In essence what we see first of all is the Prime Minister presenting a resolution to Parliament which because of its attack on provincial jurisdiction will fundamentally alter the federal nature of this country built up over 113 years. In addition, changes have been proposed in the powers of the Senate, thereby producing a fundamental change in the accepted parliamentary nature of this country. I shall return to this matter late in my remarks.
The argument we hear from the government's side asks what can be done after 53 years. We are being asked to do this in 53 days. What is the deadline there for, I should like to know? That is not more than 53 days away. If we cannot do it as a nation in 53 years, is this House expected to do it in 53 days?


An hon. Member:: Two years.


Donald W. Munro: They say it has proved impossible to get agreement short of unanimity on how to proceed with amendments affecting the provinces. I question the absence of unanimity, however. In fact, I suggest that it is not true. It is a downright lie. It is a lie.
The Vancouver consensus was agreed on by 11 governments meeting in Vancouver last fall. This was all governments, provincial and federal. If that is not unanimity, I do not know what is. I ask why it was rejected. Why should we turn our backs on such a prize and proceed by way of the Victoria formula which was rejected ten years ago? One can only speculate. Unfortunately, my speculation, based on 12 years of experiencing the Prime Minister's baneful influence on the public service and Parliament, leads me to the view that it is being done deliberately to provoke antagonism, just as the Pitfield document was deliberately leaked in Winnipeg to provoke dissension in the meetings of the council of ministers,
and just as the other longer 65-page document-whatever it is called-on closure of the meetings on September 12 or 13 was designed to bring about the failure of the first ministers' meeting.
That, Mr. Speaker, is my reading of why we have rejected a prize, a unanimously agreed upon formula, and picked one up which was thrown overboard ten years ago. The reason is that dissension is the way this government plans to govern this country. I am afraid there is something sinister here. I will return to provide supporting evidence of my belief in a minute.
The third element has to do with an equalization provision-as though that were new. Equalization has been a constitutional practice in this country I should say for almost 30 years now. It was suggested by the leader of my party at a meeting and included in a document which has come to be known as the Kingston memorandum, agreed upon by seven premiers and the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). It suggested that the equalization formula be included and entrenched in any constitution that might develop. The form in which it is there requires, I think, a little bit of refinement. There is no problem with the idea.
If I look behind that equalization formula I wonder whether I would find the same musty cupboard with grubs, moths and things that I found when I looked behind patriation. I think I will just leave that one for the time being and on another occasion 1 may have a return to it.
I think you are entitled to ask, Mr. Speaker, why I am so worried about the federal Parliament trespassing upon provincial areas of jurisdiction without consent. This brings us to the question of what is Canada. How did Canada come into being? Here again I suggest we go right back to fundamentals. Not many of us may know it, but the BNA Act-incidentally, despite what television and the billboard ads are saying-was written in Canada by Canadians. It has been ours from the beginning, despite those stupid advertisements which cost us $6 million.
The BNA Act starts out in its preamble in this fashion:
Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion-
This is followed in section 4 by the definition of Canada in these terms:
-the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.
In other words, the coming together of three provinces, which eventually became four provinces, desiring to be united and form a central government.
Who or what then is Canada? Since Canada came into being and is recognized as having been constituted as "Canada" by the coming together of the "Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick", and since the other provinces are regarded, once they have been created as provinces and joined the union, as being equal in all respects to the original partners, it follows, according to any logic of which I have knowledge, that Canada as an entity is a creation of the provinces.
October 16, 1980

1 ask hon. members not to jump too hastily. Do not let our imaginations run too far ahead on this. Let us also remember that the foremost authority on the federal notion, K. C. Wheare of Oxford, in his Federal Government defined the federal principle in the following manner: "By the federal principle, 1 mean the method of dividing powers so that the general and regional governments are each within its sphere co-ordinate and independent".
Canada was indeed created by the provinces-in the final analysis by all the provinces. In the document whereby this creation was consummated, the BNA Act, the powers, jurisdictions and areas of operation of the two orders of government of Canada on the one hand and of the provinces on the other were set forth in relatively clear terms, implicit in which was the notion that each order of government generally speaking would be sovereign in the area assigned to it, give or take a joint jurisdiction.
Following this logic, I think it should be abundantly obvious that any changes in powers, jurisdictions or areas of operation, particularly of the creating provinces, should not occur without the concurrence of those provinces. The resolution before us, however, is barely consistent with that sort of logic because it proposes a contrary form of procedure: that which was created by the BNA Act, namely the central government, now proposes without consultation to set in entrenching concrete limitations on the freedom within which its creators, the provinces, may act. It has bypassed its creators and purports to legislate on their behalf affecting property, civil rights and education.
Do you know what I call that, Mr. Speaker? I call it constitutional cannibalism. The creature has turned on its creator to dismember it, to consume it piece by piece. This is a serious change in the structure of Canada and, Mr. Speaker, Westminster is being asked not only to make the change, but to condone it. Have we no shame in this country? Are we unable to stand on our own feet and write our own constitution? This disposition of the government to bypass the provinces in areas of clearly provincial jurisdiction emerges again in the amending formula set forth in section 42, because here we see enunciated the principle that the amendments to the constitution may, in certain circumstances, be effected through referenda thereby bypassing again constituted provincial authorities. This is again a serious change in the federal nature of Canada and one which gives rise to the deepest misgivings. The basic constitutional nature of our country is being altered without consulting the provinces and, therefore, without the agreement of the provinces; and Westminster is being asked to condone this change.
If I may move briefly to section 44, again dealing with an amending procedure, I suggest that here, too, we find a proposal which upon acceptance would alter Canada fundamentally in that it would change the nature of our parliamentary institutions. Section 44 provides, in certain circumstances, that the House of Commons' views will prevail whether the Senate is prepared to go along or not. Westminster is being asked to put its stamp of approval on this change too. It is clear to me, therefore, and I hope it is becoming clearer to
The Constitution
others, that this resolution contains not just the one Trojan horse mentioned by my leader when he spoke on Monday last, but two. One, and a double one at that-it must be a dromedary-a potential threat to the federal nature of our country, and two, a potential threat to the parliamentary institutions of this country.
In relation to the second of these, the threat to the Senate, I draw the attention of the House to a citation from the Supreme Court in the reference to it in 1978 on this very issue as it arose out of Bill C-60. Eight justices examining this matter held the view, and I quote:
The fundamental character of the Senate cannot be altered by unilateral action by the Parliament of Canada.
That is in the final paragraph of their judgment. What is Parliament doing if it proceeds along the course it is now following? It is asking Westminster to do that which unilateral action by this Parliament is unable to do. I think that is absolutely disgraceful. I am ashamed.
This is where the whole deal becomes very, very sneaky and tricky, despite what we hear. Our friends in the government will say this is not being done by the Parliament of Canada, it is the parliament of the U.K. that is being asked to do it. To that, I think the reply should be a second reading from that ruling, just a little bit earlier in the same paragraph, and I invite hon. members to read the whole judgment. The assembled judges said:
The character of the Senate was determined by the British parliament in response to the proposals submitted by the three provinces in order to meet the requirements of the proposed federal system.
Now we see one order of government proposing that this fundamental character be altered unilaterally by another parliament. I say we have a travesty of law, a shameful travesty because this government is unwilling and unable to proceed by an agreed formula toward effecting all these changes. The Vancouver consensus would make it so simple. It could get these changes done with that formula. I do not like these implications at all.
I am fearful first of all that any constitution for this country built along these lines will inevitably create deeper divisiveness than now exists. God knows, and I seldom use that word in public unless I mean it deeply, God knows how deep those divisions are right now. I am sure the government does not. The government is completely unaware of how deep they have made the divisiveness. I suppose the line is somewhere about Lake of the Woods. From there on they say, "Get rid of that government, get them out." I have had little notes sent to me saying, "Get them out, Don, before they destroy us."
That is divisiveness. I do not like to be able to repeat that, but that is the feeling in the west. It is high time those people over there got wind of it. Apparently the leader in the Senate is unable to get the message across. He probably does not even tell them because he is scared.
We have looked at patriation and have found it a travesty. We have looked at the charter of rights and found it to be an

October 16, 1980
The Constitution
invasion of provincial jurisdiction without consent. We have looked at the amending formula and found it to have a double fault, bypassing the provinces and bypassing the Senate, both assaults on the fundamental nature of this country which set out in its course, and I hope it can be made to continue, as a federal country with a parliamentary system of government.
What about equalization? That is another reason why 1 along with a great many other Canadians have very little trust in the author of this document. I think that underlies a great deal of it. He may not realize this. I have mentioned it already, and 1 feel it needs mentioning again because these warnings fall on deaf ears. In the west there is a deepseated and genuine long-standing mistrust of the present Prime Minister. My own distrust is perhaps more personal, but 1 know that many share my doubts.
I ask myself, for example, whether I am prepared to see the British North America Act patriated, if that is the word, and entrusted to a man who had the effrontery to state publicly, and without a blush or backward glance over his own past, as he did in Winnipeg not too long ago, that a country which has been through two world wars should be ashamed to send its constitution to a foreign country for amendment. What utter balderdash, he above all people uttering even one word about world wars. He is a great one to be talking.
I must also ask myself whether I am prepared to accept at face value the patriation and other formulae proposed by a man who as recently as 1965, before entering the government, wrote as he did in an article published that year, and 1 quote:
Our existing constitution . . . creates a country in which Quebec may call on the support of nine allies to protect provincial autonomy.
He goes on a couple of lines later:
And this is the constitution our innovators want to change.
That was written by the present Prime Minister and is published in English in a book entitled "Federalism and French Canadians", page 44. I again quote:
Their vision of the Canadian constitution mentioned in the mandate of the legislative assembly's constitutional committee-
He was writing a brief for them.
-must be interpreted as taking place over several generations.
That was written in 1965. It is at page 43. Is the present resolution his first step? Perhaps. Finally, and again I quote:
To my mind, this-
That is, a lack of consensus in Quebec.
-only goes to prove that we must not meddle with the constitution yet.
True, he was talking from no position of power in 1965. He continues at page 43:
The real danger is that all these constitutional debates will provide an escape valve for our energies, and useful diversionary tactics for those who fear the profound social reforms advocated by the progressive element in our provinces.
I am also concerned when 1 think of these proposals to confide Canada's constitutional future to someone who was either unprepared, when western civilization including Canada was being threatened by the Nazi tide, or unwilling to go out
and defend it, but not ashamed to have others defend it for him.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You said that once already. Why are you repeating it?


Donald W. Munro: No, 1 did not say that. Moreover, he did his utmost to persuade his fellow Canadians to join him in abstaining from that defence.


René Cousineau: How is it possible that you have so much hatred in your heart?


Donald W. Munro: I also wonder whether I can see my way clear to entrusting my country's constitution to someone who, upon becoming Prime Minister, proceeded almost immediately by pushing through a change in the rules to emasculate this House and Parliament and reduce the role of parliamentarians to total ineffectiveness, calling them nobodies once they are 100 yards away from the Hill. 1 also wonder whether I can put my country's constitution into the hands of a man who did his utmost to get Canada out of NATO and who, when that failed, allowed our armed strength to dwindle from
100,000	to 80,000, a reduction of 20 per cent and, even then in a cunning way, deprived those forces of updated equipment until, as a last resort, all major items had to be ordered at once at tremendous cost. Is that the sort of a man to whom I want to entrust the constitution? My answer is no.
I am not even sure that I want to see my country's future determined by a man who so diluted and dispirited the public service, in which I served with pride up to a point, by riding roughshod over the merit principle, by the appointment of such favourites as Pitfield and Head, that those who remain either feel filleted or are hopelessly beholden to him and his form of government for the preferment and emoluments with which he has bought their allegiance.
I wonder also about the matter of overlooking 12 Liberal years of federal fiscal fecklessness which saw increases in annual budgets from $12 billion to over $50 billion while deficits have climbed from less then $1 billion to over $15 billion. I say fervently: from men such as this may God soon deliver us.
Or again, are we ready to trust the ideas of a man who in 12 years has driven the national debt from $16.7 billion to $53.8 billion on which total public debt charges have increased from about $34 per head of population to over $200? Not necessarily to cap it all, but very nearly, I am not sure l am prepared to see my country moulded by a man who is ready enough to pay $38 a barrel to the Arab and Latin American producers, but begrudges his fellow Canadians an increase beyond $16.75 a barrel. That is a sad, sad litany. It is not a record to inspire confidence in one who aspires to create the constitutional strait-jacket by which we would be bound for the next century.
After all this I am moved to wonder why he is proceeding in this way when other less confrontational avenues are open, and I have shown where those avenues lie. Those avenues are there
October 16, 1980

but he has deliberately avoided them. Why, for example, as I suggested earlier, has he chosen a modified Victoria formula when the Vancouver consensus was accepted by all? I suggest this is confrontation for the sake of confrontation. I am wondering whether, in fact, having courted and invited rejection by the premiers, he is inviting rejection by Westminster in order to say "Ha! I told you, you are just a bunch of colonials.
1 will write your constitution for you and I will make this a republic", as he said he wanted to do when he spoke to the students in Montreal. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, in joining the debate on this motion I feel I am taking part in a very important step forward for Canadians.
Those who drafted the British North America Act of 1867 produced a wise and far-seeing document, but much has happened since then and, as contemporary Canadians in a fast moving world, we are influenced by events which the Fathers of Confederation could not have foreseen. Clearly, the majority of Canadians now wish to have a constitution made in Canada for contemporary Canada and which can be amended in Canada.
In fact, on May 9 of this year the House of Commons approved unanimously a motion proposed and seconded by two Conservative members from western Canada which called on Parliament to submit an address to Her Majesty the Queen requesting "that Her Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a bill to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom to provide for the amendment in Canada of the Constitution of Canada".
We may differ sincerely and profoundly on the division of powers, on an amending formula or on the process but, quite clearly, there is agreement on patriation itself. The resolution before us aims at patriation with conditions on which there is now a fair measure of agreement. The present resolution does not change the division of powers; it gives no additional powers to any level of government, but it does enhance the rights of individual citizens.
The British North America Act of 1867 recognized Canada's linguistic and cultural duality; 60 per cent of Canadians then were of British origin and 30 per cent of French origin. Since then we have seen major changes in our population. In 1971 some 44 per cent of all Canadians were of British origin, 29 per cent of French descent and 27 per cent were of other ethnic backgrounds. This 27 per cent represented more than five million Canadians living in all ten provinces. Today, approximately 30 per cent of the population of Canada is composed of Canadians of neither French nor Anglo-Celtic extraction.
The policy of multiculturalism announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1971 recognizes the equal contributions of all Canadians as nation builders. In 1971 the Prime Minister said:
National unity, if it is to mean anything in the deeply personal sense, must be founded on confidence in one's own individual identity; out of this can grow respect for that of others and a willingness to share ideas, attitudes and assumptions. A vigorous policy of multiculturalism will help create this initial
The Constitution
confidence. It can form the base of a society which is based on fair play for all ... A policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework is basically the conscious support of individual freedom of choice. We are free to be ourselves. But this cannot be left to chance. It must be fostered and pursued actively. If freedom of choice is in danger for some ethnic groups, it is in danger for all. It is the policy of this government to eliminate any such danger and to safeguard this freedom.
Every one of us or our ancestors emigrated to this country and together we have created a unique society, a society benefiting from the sharing of our many cultures, traditions and backgrounds. It is fundamental to the growth and success of this country that we live together in a spirit of mutual respect, understanding and equal opportunity for everyone, no matter what our race or background. That is why I consider the enshrining of the charter of human rights in the constitution essential.
Some have argued that fundamental rights are well protected by our unwritten traditions of freedom and by the legislation of provincial governments. At the beginning of this debate we heard from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) some of the compelling arguments which the Canadian Bar Association has advanced in favour of enshrining a charter of rights in the constitution.
The rights and freedoms in the motion before us include not only human rights such as freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of thought and expression, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly, but also democratic rights-the right to vote and to stand for office regardless of race, national origin, colour, age or sex.
As late as 1909 a member of the House of Lords in England described as "momentous and far-reaching" the constitutional change involved in considering a woman eligible to vote.

Until the privy council of England made a ruling in the famous case known as the "persons" case, women were considered under the constitution to be incapable of taking part in public life.
In 1905, the superior court of British Columbia ruled that a woman was not a person qualified to become a lawyer in that province.
In 1915, in Quebec, during the proceedings launched by a woman who wanted to be admitted to the Quebec Bar, the judge stated that to admit a woman to the profession:
-would be nothing less than a crime against public order and an obvious breach of morality and public decency.
In 1928, five Alberta residents sent a petition to the government asking that the superior court rule on whether women were "qualified persons" to be appointed to the Senate under the provisions of section 24 of the British North America Act.
The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the concept that women were persons, but the case was appealed before the legal committee of the privy council of England. The privy council accepted the concept and the constitutional law now includes a provision to this effect.

October 16, 1980
The Constitution

One of the five women involved in the "persons" case was a police magistrate who, on more than one occasion, heard argued in her court the rather interesting proposition that "women are persons in matters of pain and penalties but not persons in the matter of rights and privileges".
Those who argue that our rights are sufficiently well protected by existing law and traditions would do well to stop and reflect on the severe limitations faced by women even in this century. We can really take nothing for granted where basic rights are concerned.
In Canada, even in this century, laws have been passed which removed basic human rights from groups of citizens in different provinces. For example, in the west, Japanese-Canadians were deprived of their rights. There was suppression of freedom of religion in Quebec and, more recently, the right of citizens to seek employment from one province to another has been limited in Quebec and Newfoundland.
The resolution before the House provides for a Canadian charter of rights and freedoms binding on Parliament and on all provincial legislatures and governments. While it is true that a number of rights and freedoms are provided for by law now in such federal statutes as the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canadian Bill of Rights, the Criminal Code and in various laws at the provincial level, most of these laws are subject to change, and the protection legislated today could theoretically be removed or limited by another enactment in the future. Entrenching the rights contained in this charter would place those basic human rights beyond the ordinary reach of Parliament or a provincial legislature.
I am very pleased to see the concept of mobility rights included in this charter. All citizens, as a matter of right, should be free to live and work anywhere in Canada without discrimination based on the previous province of residence. The situation which we have seen recently of one province refusing employment to Canadians who come from another province is indeed a serious matter. It is understandable, perhaps, that in times of some economic difficulty people become self-protective and more narrow and parochial in their views, but that is all the more reason to have mobility rights entrenched in the constitution to help us maintain our normal generous, open characteristics in difficult times and to remind us that we have one Canadian citizenship, not ten provincial citizenships.
The practice of using federal revenues to redistribute wealth to the less advantaged provinces of this country has existed since 1957, and this equalization principle is also in the motion before us. Equalization payments are now an established convention established by statute so that basic services to citizens can be maintained at a comparable level across Canada. Enshrining the principle of equalization in the constitution is an important recognition of the Canadian tradition of sharing our resources and our prosperity just as we share in certain risks and difficulties.

Parliament and the Government of Canada will have to respect the principle of equalization as concerns the less privileged provinces. Both levels of government will have to undertake to promote equal opportunities among Canadians, stimulate economic development to reduce disparities and provide essential public services of a reasonable quality for all Canadians.

On the question of language rights, the charter uses wording very similar to that agreed on by the provincial premiers in Montreal in 1978. The charter will give Canadians the right to have their children educated in whichever official language is used by the parents where there are sufficient numbers of the minority language group to justify a school.
This, of course, is a very important right when viewed in connection with mobility of workers. If we really want to make it easier for Quebecois to live and work for a few years in other parts of Canada and for Anglophone Canadians to live and work in Quebec from time to time, we must make it easier for people to move their families. Undoubtedly English-speaking Canadians who move to Quebec will want to improve their French and will want their children to learn French in order to take part fully in the social and cultural life of that province. But if the long-term future of the children is in English-speaking Canada, they will also want to ensure that the children maintain and build on their knowledge of English.
Obviously one can make comparable statements about the Quebecker who moves to another province in Canada for a few years as part of his or her career line progression and who wants his or her children to maintain their proficiency in French. Parents may make different choices depending on the ages of their children, their facility in the second official language and so forth, but they should have the right of choice and the educational facilities to make that choice a reality.
An important historical and political reality in our country is that we have an entire province where a vast majority of the people speak French. The legal, religious and social institutions of Quebec are primarily of French origin. This French fact is an important part of Canada, and all of us are richer for it.
At the same time as we adopted a multiculturalism policy we adopted the official languages policy. In these twin and mutually reinforcing policies we were saying that Canada recognizes the aspirations of all its people to participate fully in our society. As Canadians we undertook then to ensure that cultural differences do not bar anyone from full participation.
Not long ago the people of Quebec voted overwhelmingly against separation and for Canada. Let us now move to ensure that it is easier for them to work and to be welcomed in all of Canada.
We live in an essentially tolerant country, a country in which human and cultural values matter, a country in which
October 16, 1980

there is room to accommodate the individuality and legitimate aspirations of all people. These are important values, important enough to enshrine in a constitution.
1 said earlier that the motion before us aims at patriation of the constitution with conditions to which most people agree. These include, first, a charter of human rights, including mobility rights and language rights, and second, a commitment to promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians and to furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities.
The rock on which many previous attempts at patriation have foundered is, of course, the amending formula. The proposal before us is that for the first two years after patriation, constitutional amendments should require the consent of the House of Commons, the Senate and all the provincial governments. Federal-provincial conferences would continue, and at the end of two years the amending formula could be either something new, agreed on by all parties, or the Victoria charter formula. There is also provision for a national referendum, if necessary. It may not be necessary. 1 hope that good will and the Canadian gift for conciliation and civilized compromise will carry the day.
Provincial premiers are elected to represent provincial interests rather than to take positions in the broad national interest, and they have bargained hard for their own regions. Although this has sometimes produced incongruous situations over the past 53 years when ten different prime ministers have tried to get agreement to patriate the constitution, one cannot fault the premiers for trying to get maximum advantage at federal-provincial conferences. Neither can we allow the deadlock to continue for another 53 years. The 282 members of the House of Commons are elected to think and work in terms of the nation as a whole. Many of the speeches we have heard in this debate have reflected that concern and have also reflected what we are hearing from our constituents. First, people are tired of indecision and want the constitution patriated, and second, people want to see this House deal also with the economy, with employment and with energy.

I look forward to seeing the constitutional debate continue in the context of normal, orderly conduct of parliamentary business. I also trust that the provincial premiers will, in the best interest of all Canadians, find more areas of agreement with each other and with the Government of Canada.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I enter into the debate on Canada's constitution. I first came to the House of Commons with patriotic feelings, a sense of Canadianship, wanting to Canadianize some of Canada's institutions and to Canadianize Canada's constitution, and also with a great will and desire to
The Constitution
see Canada's economy fall much more directly under Canada's control.
Many of these things have not taken place, but today we find that the debate on the constitution which is taking place in the House does deal with the Canadianization of our constitution. I note that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in his remarks on Thursday when he first announced the resolution which was placed before the House, stated in part:
Earlier today, a joint resolution was placed on the order paper of Parliament, which, if Parliament approves, will provide a key to our future as a nation. The Speaker has asked that Parliament return on Monday to begin debate on that resolution.
That was a week later than we had originally thought we might come back. The Prime Minister went on to say:
Every member of Parliament from every corner of this land is asked to participate in this historic act.
The words "historic act" can only mean the debate of this resolution in Parliament. Fewer than 12 per cent of the members of Parliament have spoken so far. In fact, as I stand here speaking, I am the thirty-first member to have taken part in this debate. In the past, over 60 members of Parliament have participated in various debates, so I would anticipate that, at the rate we have been proceeding, this debate will carry on for a minimum of two or three weeks longer if everyone in the House speaks.
What has struck me as being fundamental to the debate up to this stage is the amount of agreement which all Canadians, including all members of Parliament, have reached. There is a great deal of agreement, there is consensus, I dare say. I took the opportunity of looking up the word "consensus" in the dictionary on the Table, the shorter version of the Oxford dictionary. It states that consensus in the sense of government and governing does not require unanimity; consensus is the majority view.
I think you will find that of the provincial governments, the government here in Ottawa and the two chambers representing Parliament, of those 12 institutions, the majority concur. In fact, I would say that there is more than consensus, that there is unanimity on the patriation of the constitution. Of course, this resolution deals with patriation. Second, there is consensus that there should be patriation with an amending formula. I think there is consensus, or a majority view, that there should be an amending formula. The amending formula would not be the one which is proposed only by the Fiberal government in the House of Commons, which is the Victoria formula. The majority view which has been expressed by the provinces is that it should be either the Vancouver or the Alberta-Van-couver formula.
Should we be so partisan as to insist on our right to penmanship, or are either of those points of view or formulas workable? I really think that they are. I think that either one is workable, although I happen to believe that one is preferable to the other. The reason I believe that the Vancouver or the Alberta-Vancouver consensus is preferable is, frankly, that although 1 represent a constituency in Ontario which is the largest province in Canada in population, and although my

October 16, 1980
Adjournment Debate
constituency borders on the second largest province in Canada in population, that is Quebec, the two central provinces, I do not think that either of the two provinces should, for all time, have a veto. Two hundred years from now the bulk of the population of Canada might be in Alberta or in British Columbia. How much of the population of the United States was in California, Oregon and Washington 200 years ago? This is something we must consider. When we resume debate on this matter tomorrow, I hope to go into some specifics and more detail.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, on May 9 of this year I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) about an incident where an attempt was made by students of a New York private school, the Dalton school, to enter 21 Canadian computer databanks. As we all know, this work was in fact the work of Grade VIII students. While the damage done was not as extensive as originally thought, although considerable damage was done in some of the databanks they were able to enter, the students were able to enter at least two databanks. If clever grade school students could break into computer databanks with ease, what would computer professionals be capable of doing?
To make matters worse, at least two databanks approached by these students were federal government databanks. Luckily the students were unable to gain access to the computers and no information was destroyed. In response to my question the President of the Treasury Board indicated that no government databanks with sensitive information have dial-in access. However, sensitivity of information is in the eye of the beholder. I asked the minister for a list and a description of those databanks with dial-in access so that the people of Canada could be sure the information contained in government databanks is not sensitive.
1 received that list and it indicates that among the databanks included in Datapac is the computer of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It concerns me that this computer is included in Datapac, a system with dial-in access, particularly if it contains private information about veterans such as medical information supplied for disability claims. I ask the parliamentary secretary or the minister to provide me with information about this databank and to take steps to protect the information contained in it, if it contains any sensitive data.
In the same context, in the Infoswitch system the Department of Employment and Immigration has a computer databank which is the field operational support system for immigration. I should like to know-and I think the House is entitled to know-the substance of that databank. Does it include information which properly should be held as personal and confidential? Are there threats to the personal privacy of individuals on the basis of information being held in that databank?
If the government feels it is necessary to keep certain databanks connected to Infoswitch or Datapac, it should take greater care for the security of its information. Encryption devices currently available at reasonable prices would protect information contained in databanks. I have been told that the government does not use these devices. I think their use would go a long way toward stopping computer vandals and more sophisticated computer thieves. 1 should like to ask if the minister has any plans to introduce such devices.
Also the government should help in developing standards for the private enterprise to protect its computer information. The Dalton school incident earlier this year showed that private computers were more vulnerable than government ones. Although regulation may not be necessary, at least the government could help to provide voluntary standards to assist private industry to cope with this problem.
Equally disturbing as the lack of technical protection against computer theft is the lack of legal protection. Activities similar to those of the Dalton school students are being reported with increasing frequency. Just recently, however, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, in a similar case involving a student at the University of Alberta, that the unauthorized use of computers is not illegal. Indeed its logic was airtight. In matters of theft from telecommunications equipment, it is impossible to convict someone unless the equipment used is defined as a communications device; clearly computers are not.
I should stress that it is not the courts that I criticize. They were asked to interpret legislation which was obsolete and inadequate. I address my comments to the government, for Canada truly needs new legislation on this matter. Many hon. members will be aware that just last month the Canadian Bar Association sent a telegram to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) imploring him to take immediate steps to fill in the gap created by the Supreme Court decision. According to the association, the telegram, which was co-signed by the Canadian Information Processing Society and the Canadian Law Information Council had this to say:
The difficulty of imposing penalties on those who make unauthorized use of computer facilities puts at risk the security of commercial and government operations.
If the Criminal Code redefined communications facilities to include computers, the penalties would have a definite sting. Currently, the code provides for up to ten years imprisonment
October 16, 1980

for thefts above $200 if the Crown proceeds by way of indictment and up to two years if the theft is below $200. That is one option which the government could follow.
But failing support for this option, perhaps the provinces could be persuaded to amend their property and civil rights laws to include computer theft as a trespassing violation. When I posed this question to the minister, he indicated that the government was prepared to take action and that it was prepared, if necessary, to introduce legislation. Too much time has passed already. Canadians are entitled to know what action the government is prepared to take, and they have a right to see this bill put before Parliament without further delay.


Mr. Serge Joyal (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am grateful to the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) for raising this issue, and more specifically for the manner in which he raised it, because it is of such interest that it departs greatly from the party lines which generally dictate our debates in the House. He has raised the much more important issue of protecting our databanks as well as the services which Treasury Board must provide to store the information which the various departments need to carry out their duties under the constitution and their respective acts of Parliament.
The Treasury Board is responsible for the administrative policies affecting databanks, including the protection of computers. During the special audit of the computer operations he carried out in 1977, the Auditor General noticed that the government was more concerned about the protection of its systems than the private sector. The recommendations he made following this audit have been applied to his satisfaction. The hon. member, who was himself minister of state for the Treasury Board a few months ago, is fully aware of the extent to which the board wants to apply the Auditor General's recommendations when they concern security in the public sector.
The RCMP is presently establishing standards covering several security aspects in electronic data processing. In March 1980, only a few months ago, Treasury Board approved the first of these standards which dealt with management and staff. This standard advises against processing sensitive data or furnishing essential services using computers which have other unknown users, as in the case of computers linked to so-called open networks where access is not controlled and where anyone can link up directly through switched lines. It is up to each deputy minister to implement the required safety measures and to ensure the security of data banks. He is the one responsible for deciding the importance of the information and the degree of protection needed in each case by determining among other things what resources will be used to ensure the protection of information, in view of existing risks and possible threats. Furthermore, it is the duty of all departments to make
Adjournment Debate
an assessment of the threat or the risk to security coming from the maintenance of data banks.
The security inspection and assessment group of the RCMP is instructed to give advice, to inspect data processing facilities on the request of the departments and to formulate recommendations to deputy ministers. The latter are then asked to report to the RCMP on the implementation of the recommendations. In turn, the RCMP has to report to Treasury Board on the general conditions of security within government. The security standards on data processing which were developed by the RCMP for Treasury Board are based on the experience of the facilities inspection group which goes back many years, and they represent efficient and sophisticated measurements which allow the government to take advantage of the data processing technology while meeting our concerns in the area of security.
Datapac and Infoswitch are telecommunication services which are offered respectively by Bell Canada and CN-CP Telecommunications. The hon. member for Wellington-Duff-erin-Simcoe referred earlier to both systems when he mentioned the offences made by the students in New York. Those two networks are intended specially for computer systems. Subscribers can send messages from computer terminals through transmission lines to terminals belonging to other subscribers. That is known as an open user group. There is also what is known as a closed group where a set group of users only has access to the network in order to preserve its private character. Because several users share the cost of those installations, those services save from 50 per cent to 75 per cent of transmissions costs. It is therefore obviously financially advantageous to subscribe to those commercial services.
The system known as the closed group-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary but the time allotted to him has expired.


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, I shall send the hon. member additional notes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. That is not allowed during this debate.


FOREST FIRES-PLANS TO ALLEVIATE HARDSHIP SUFFERED BY VICTIMS
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise tonight to speak on a question I raised on May 27 regarding the drought in the prairie provinces and regarding assistance that, I hoped would come from the federal government to producers of cattle and grain in western Canada at a time when it was very badly needed.
Part of my question concerned a press release-or a cabinet document or a memorandum-from Regina which said there was not much the government could do to assist producers in

October 16, 1980
Adjournment Debate
western Canada "but that it was of critical importance that we be perceived to be doing something; that we should arrange and stage a public relations effort" which would be perceived by people in that area as action by the government.
That is exactly what this program is, Mr. Speaker. It has been changed many times. Cattlemen and farmers in western Canada are trying to cut through the red tape but unfortunately they are not able to.
Here are some of the changes that have been made. First of all, they were told that eligibility for assistance meant that a producer must have 75 per cent of his crop insurance or guarantee of production to be eligible and he would receive $70 per cow or bull up to $140 per dairy cow and $16 per ewe, of the basic herd. He was told he would receive one payment in 1980 and another in 1981.
When the announcement was made, it included the province of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and some parts of the province of Alberta. That was changed in midstream. To be eligible, cattle producers are required to be in a designated crop area- in an area where the crop harvested is less than 80 per cent of the average yield and where less than 60 per cent of the rainfall was between November 1, 1979, and May 31, 1980. There has been a great deal of change. When you only receive $35 per cow and you expected to receive $70 it does something to the economy and the supply of cattle feed, which is basically hay in our part of the country. In Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba the price of hay increased $60 per ton after the original announcement that producers would receive $70 per animal in the basic herd. Then that amount was cut to $35 per animal. Also, instead of two payments there will be one and there may be a payment later. There is no commitment to that payment, just a statement that there may be one.
Some producers will receive payment without a check being made of their eligibility and others will not receive the payment until after their eligibility has been checked. This seems to be unfair and discriminatory and omits a lot of producers.
When the precipitation factor was introduced the fact that one part of Sasktachewan and the southern part of Alberta is short grass country was overlooked. Short grass country comprises most of the cattle area in Alberta. If the people who introduced the program have never heard of a winter drought they should start talking to the people who have been in that part of the country for a number of years. Unless the moisture is there in the winter and unless it is there the previous fall, the short grass will not grow. You can get all the rain you want, as that part of the country did early in the year, and it still will not produce the carrying capacity which is needed in the short grass country of southern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta.
Let us take a look at some of the other people who are neglected. For instance, what about the feed lot operators? What about the people who are feeding out the yearlings? That is not considered part of their basic herd, but their costs for hay have gone up again, $60 to $70 a tonne because of the
announcement of this program in its original form and then its withdrawal halfway through.
On September 19, I issued a press release asking that the deadline for applications be extended. I did this because I and my colleagues had received numerous complaints. Producers could not get through to the Zenith number. They were not able to get application forms to apply for assistance and they were afraid they would miss what little assistance was there. Two days later, on September 22, the government announced the deadline for submitting applications had been extended. But many areas are still ineligible. When you look at the border of Saskatchewan and Alberta, you will see that that area too should be considered for assistance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I have to advise him that his time has expired.
[ Translation]


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) for his interest in Canadian agriculture as he is a member of the agriculture committee. I should like to correct some remarks he just made about the question he had put to the House on May 27, 1980 and which appears on page 1436 of Hansard.
On August 27, 1980, in Regina, Agriculture Canada announced that an amount of $13.4 million would be given for the cattle and feed program. This program followed a press release published by the Minister of Agriculture concerning the drought aid program. This program complemented the $41 million federal commitment to the Herd Maintenance Assistance Program announced last month by the Minister of Agriculture and the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and which aimed at ensuring that basic breeding herds would not be sold off because of feed shortages.
Of course, the regional offices in Winnipeg and Regina were administering this program for the cattle producers of northwestern Ontario. A sharing agreement was developed for the Herd Maintenance Program in northwestern Ontario.
The assistance provided through the Herd Maintenance Program consisted of a $70 payment and on this point I wish to correct the hon. member who told us earlier that it was $140. It is $70 for the dairy cow or the steer, $35 for the steer or the cow and $8 for ewes or rams up to 300 steer and dairy cows and up to 1,200 sheep.
On September 19, 1980, the province of Alberta announced the Feed Transportation Assistance Program.
The areas of Alberta considered for this program are the eastern parts of the province, the Peace River, Smith and Hondo sectors. This program was launched on July 1, 1980, and will last until March 1, 1981. On September 15 the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan announced the continuation of their relief program for fodder and cattle.
October 16, 1980

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by saying that advertising leaflets prepared by Agriculture Canada about the programs to be implemented during the periods of shortages in animal fodder are still available in all Agriculture Canada offices and I hope that the help provided by the Department of Agriculture to western farmers will compensate the deficits they are experiencing this year.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS-CALL FOR INVESTIGATION INTO REASONS FOR B.C. TELEPHONE RATE INCREASE
Mr. Ray Skeily (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my statement tonight related to a question I asked on May 6 of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouel-let). I asked whether he would inquire into some of the reasons behind the proposed increase in the B.C. Tel rates which are currently before the CRTC and, if he found that the capital investment program which was associated with those rates was not in the best interests of the consumers, would he intervene in the rate hearings.
I will give some of the background behind my question. B.C. Tel is proposing to spend approximately $2.5 billion in a capital expansion program. They are asking the consumers to foot the bill. What it will do is provide them with an automatic switching system. That is the guts of it.
What the minister has to do in this inquiry, on which we have no information at the present time, is to look into what the subscriber is getting for this $2.5 billion investment. They are getting an automated system which, it is acknowledged, will provide no better service to the consumer. In fact, it can be demonstrated that there will be a reduction in certain kinds of services they now enjoy.
There will 850 lay-offs throughout small communities in British Columbia. This will cause tremendous economic dislocation. It means the withdrawal of approximately $17 million a year payroll from communities which have no other economic alternatives. What is curious is in order to arrive at this economic dislocation, loss of payroll and disruption of their economy, people are being asked to make substantial increases in the amount they already pay B.C. Tel.
Something else they are obtaining for their $2.5 billion contribution is the continuation of a very poor quality of service. Many people in the province of British Columbia feel that the B.C. Tel system provides a service that is of poorer quality than the telephone system in Bangladesh. The CRTC was sufficiently concerned about it to hold quality-of-service hearings in British Columbia. The public was not allowed access. The commission failed to produce the report in time to allow interveners in the present hearing to use that information to argue intelligently against the rate increase currently proposed.
According to the evidence at hand, an extremely poor labour relations package will result. Company-labour management policies will result in a tremendous disruption of service. 1
Adjournment Debate
would not be surprised if at the bottom of it was B.C. Tel's strategy to demonstrate to the CRTC through a rather intricate means that they require more money.
What does B.C. Tel get out of it? They jack up their rate of return from a current 12 per cent to 14 per cent. They get a Cadillac in terms of an automated system without the appendages of employees they now have. They continue a rather healthy profit picture, which was seemed to be in excess in 1976 when they had to return money to the consumers. This investigation is necessary. I firmly believe that the result, if it was done with diligence, would show that B.C. Tel, which is owned by a foreign-owned multinationa1 corporation, is contemplating a capital investment program that is in the interests of the company's investment program, not in the interests of the consumers of British Columbia. In the final analysis, the question the people have to ask is whether the system is needed. The vice-president of General Telephone and Electronics, which owns the controlling interest in B.C. Tel and all the subsidiaries relating to it, basically stated this. Vice-president of finance William Harrison, in a publication put out as an in-house publication of General Telephone and Electronics, stated that basically the electro-mechanical switching which was already in place and paid for by previous rate increases by the subscribers in British Columbia was going to provide satisfactory service into the foreseeable future. Now they want to take that equipment we have paid for, and from which we are obtaining service, and which they feel will be satisfactory, and throw it out and buy a bunch of automated equipment from their subsidiaries and charge us the bill for it. Frankly, I do not think that is an acceptable procedure.
I suspect that if the minister's response follows true to form we will have one of three answers tonight to this particular dilemma-the one they call the oil company response, that is, "we are still looking at it"; or the credit card rip-off response, which is that the company is right, or what I call the automobile secret warranty scam, in which case "it is not my fault or my responsibility." I would certainly be encouraged if they had taken some positive action on behalf of consumers in the province of British Columbia and looked seriously at this problem and intervened by putting some serious questions before the CRTC. Thank you.


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I want to congratulate the hon. member for his question and his concern for consumers and workers in his riding. Coming from a province where there is a strike against the New Brunswick Telephone Company, which is in its one hundredth day, I can sympathize with some of the points raised by the hon. member.
As the hon. member knows, the CRTC regulates in the public interest all federally chartered telephone companies. In the case of a request for a general increase in rates the CRTC usually holds a public hearing to offer the public an opportunity to intervene and test the telephone company's case for an

October 16, 1980
Adjournment Debate
increase in rates. The date for filing an intervention before the CRTC with respect to B.C. Tel's current application was April 21, 1980. The CRTC is responsible to Parliament through the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) and 1 would direct the member to him for further questions on procedures.
The director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act, who is a senior official of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, has a statutory right vested in him through the act to intervene before federal regulatory boards and make representations in respect of the maintenance of competition. For some time the director has been expressing concern about the effects which vertical integration between telephone companies and their suppliers may be having on competition in the telecommunications equipment markets.
The relationship between B.C. Tel and its suppliers is well known to the director who was involved recently as an intervener before the CRTC when that body heard and approved an application which strengthened the formal corporate ties between B.C. Tel and its supplier firms. The director and others, including the Consumers Association of Canada, opposed the B.C. Tel application at that time, and it should be noted that the issue is now under appeal before the Federal Court.
I should also note that the director is pursuing this issue of verticle integration before another forum, the Restrictive
Trade Practices Commissin, which is looking very broadly at the question to determine whether or not the public interest is best served by such close corporate ties between telephone companies and their suppliers.
While vertical integration is an important issue that this department is working steadily to resolve before the CRTC, the RTPC and in the courts, it is not considered that this issue is appropriate to the confines of a general rate hearing, such as the present B.C. Tel application. The director did consider the possibility of an intervention and concluded that one would not be warranted at this time.
In arriving at this conclusion the director was guided by past experience during interventions before the CRTC, wherein it has become clear that the commission does not consider it appropriate to go beyond an examination of the specific rates under review and related cost information. I should note, however, that the director has in the past urged the CRTC to instruct federally-regulated telephone companies to establish competitive procurement practices which would, if instituted, provide the regulator with a better yardstick to measure the reasonableness of equipment costs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Friday, October 17, 1980