1980-10-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise according to the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) admitted in his television performance a week ago that his original constitutional proposals included the right of free movement of goods and services, and in view of the fact that such rights would declare as unconstitutional such policies as prejudicial freight rates and a quota system, which prevent large-scale western industrialization, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman):
That the Prime Minister at his news conference today or in a statement on motions explain why he wants to lock the country into today's industrial pattern and prevent natural and well-deserved industrialization of the west.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RESCISSION OF RIGHT TO WORK PROVISIONS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to put a motion of urgent and pressing importance. In view of the mobility provisions described in section 6 of the government's proposed charter of rights which would guarantee the right to work to any Canadian citizen anywhere in Canada, and recognizing that such federal intervention would clearly frustrate the present power of provincial governments to enact provincial labour laws which guarantee and protect the right of free association accorded to trade unions, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
That the government be directed to rescind its proposed right-to-work legislation, which would clearly supersede the right of every province to pass provincial labour laws which are, in fact, designed to protect the interests of the labour force and labour unions operating within each province.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENTRENCHMENT OF RIGHTS OF &quot;THREATENED SPECIES&quot;- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas Canadians living in Ontario have been subjected to a twin onslaught of advertisements, one telling them to "preserve it, conserve it"-and presumably to vote Conservative-and the other a series of Trojan beavers, geese and clipperships-and presumably to vote Liberal-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House urge the entrenchment of the rights of two apparently threatened species, the non-Conservative Ontarian and the non-Liberal national symbol.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In keeping with the spirit of Thanksgiving and recognizing Canada's tremendous contribution in alleviating human suffering in Southeast Asia, and in particular the willingness of the people of Canada to sponsor and give opportunity to 60,000 homeless refugees, I move, on behalf of the refugees still in transit camps awaiting passage to Canada, seconded by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Berger):
That the House of Commons accept for public display in some suitable location, such as the Library of Parliament, a beautiful hand-made replica of one of the many small boats that carried thousands of Vietnamese to freedom, a

October 10, 1980
replica made in a refugee camp and given as a gesture of gratitude to the people of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the government, by virtue of its majority, intends forcing the referendum process on Canadians in its constitutional package, and in view of the fact that the government now has apparently adopted the principle of referenda, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek):
That the government give an undertaking that it will hold a referendum on capital punishment in order that the people of Canada may express their views on the subject.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that there has been an increasing number of serious incidents, including hostage-takings and deaths, in Canada's federal penitentiaries in recent months, culminating in the present unfortunate incident at Dorchester, and in view of the fact that the Liberal government has failed to implement many of the important recommendations of the unanimous report of the parliamentary subcommittee on penitentiaries which found a state of crisis to exist in Canada's penal system, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House call upon the Solicitor General to implement as a priority all recommendations of the special subcommittee report on penitentiaries in Canada, and to immediately strike a special committee of this House to
determine the reasons for the renewed atmosphere of crisis in Canada's federal prisons before further outbreaks of violence and possible deaths occur.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. Whereas the Canadian Transport Commission rejected an application to abandon the rail line between East Coulee and Rosedale and between Kneehill and Carbon in 1979, and whereas these continual applications to abandon these lines by the CNR and CPR are driving potential industry from these areas, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That once an application to abandon a rail line is rejected, no further application be entertained for at least five years, and probably ten years.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I apologize for not taking time to raise this matter with the House leaders of the two other parties prior to this.
Considering that all members of this House endorse the concept of bilingualism and support its continued development, I am certain that we all wish to do what we can to ensure that funding for second language education be maintained, if not expanded. This type of education is the keynote of bilingualism in Canada. Considering the historic moment we are experiencing and considering that federal funding assistance for minority language and second language education programs has been reduced from $200 million last year to $170 million this year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett):
October 10, 1980

That this House request the Secretary of State to negotiate a new funding agreement which would at least hold federal funding assistance to last year's level.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the recent statements made at the Dubin inquiry into air safety, which stated that the federal government is to blame for most safety problems at airports and that new commercial pilots are not receiving adequate training to be considered safe, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to make an immediate statement on motions as to what steps he will be taking to ensure that safety procedures will be updated and to give immediately a firm commitment to the Canadian people and Parliament regarding what measures he will be taking to ensure the safety of commercial and private air travel in Canada.


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

[Stage Direction]
[English\

Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: My question is for the Minister of Finance, Madam Speaker. There have been a number of forecasts, including the minister's own, the Conference Board in Canada and so on, which have given us gloomy forecasts. I refer the minister to the forecast of the Toronto-Dominion Bank. The bank forecasts a 1 per cent decline in real GNP for this year with very slow recovery next year, that the CPI will be up 10.3 per cent next year, while the Conference Board forecast 10.5 per cent. Unemployment next year will average 8.4 per cent and real business investment is going to go down from a 9.4 per cent real increase last year to 5.5 per cent this year, and decline again to only 3 per cent in 1981.
Oral Questions
In view of these forecasts, could the minister give the House a firm date for his budget? Is it October 23? Will the minister bring in a budget which has the fiscal solutions promised by him and his party last December and January, and, in particular, one that cuts taxes and stimulates the growth of the Canadian economy?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that when the budget comes forward it will implement the pledges made by the leader of the Liberal party on fiscal matters in the last election campaign.
In answer to the other part of the question as to the date of the budget, I have not determined the date but I want to tell the hon. member that it will not be October 23.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, this is the most timid Minister of Finance in our history. If the Prime Minister could be said to be the Lone Ranger, the minister is certainly Tonto.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nielsen:: Get him up, Scout!


John Carnell Crosbie: "Kemo Sabe". The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce spoke to the Chamber of Commerce in Quebec City on September 25. He warned them that it would be "unwise to expect too much too soon by way of economic recovery". He has no faith in his Minister of Finance. He said this: "Circumstances permit no magical fiscal solutions to the cyclical economic downturn", such as a stimulative budget. Does the Minister of Finance agree with his lugubrious colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member wants me to agree that there is no quick solution to the current economic difficulties and that there is no solution solely in injecting a larger deficit into the economy, if that is the burden of the question I certainly agree, Madam Speaker, with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, if the minister agrees with his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and if he agreed with his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce last December, when he said that there were quick solutions, that the economy could be stimulated and that there were magical fiscal solutions, what has caused this reversal, this turnaround, this spinning of the last eight months? Has the minister just come to the realization that there is a problem? Why is he not prepared now to offer the solutions which he offered last fall?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. gentleman is building up in his own mind a series of propositions which he is attempting to put forward as ones that I have in the past endorsed as a way of improving the economic situation. If he looks back, he will find in the Liberal platform during the last campaign that the promises made were carefully thought out, and they will be
3578

October 10, 1980
Oral Questions
implemented in the budget. I do not find myself in the position the hon. member found himself in when he was driven in his budget to implement incredible proposals simply because they had been put into the Tory election platform. I am not in that position.


FINANCE
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, I too wish to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. It is further to some of the projections or forecasts the Toronto-Dominion Bank has made. They are projecting that the balance of payments deficit for Canada in the next two years will grow from $5.8 billion last year to $6.7 billion this year and to $7.9 billion in 1981.
My question to the minister is this. On the assumption that the energy policy, which we hope to receive from his colleague shortly, does not poison the atmosphere of investment relations with other countries and that the inflow of capital that is required for the huge energy projects that are needed by this country is forthcoming, will the minister ensure that the conduct of Canada's exchange rate policy will not undermine the competitive position of the very important manufacturing industry in this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As the hon. member knows, Madam Speaker, the competitive position at present of the Canadian manufacturing industry is quite strong. Only this week I had a meeting with representatives of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. They assured me of the basic strength of the Canadian manufacturing sector and advised me not to take actions which would disturb that particular advantage of the manufacturing sector. I will certainly keep that advice in mind and not do things that would disturb the future potential of that particular and important sector of the Canadian economy.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I am tempted to ask whether the minister is proposing an advertising program to tell the Canadian people that his policy is the cure-all for the manufacturing industry in this country, but I will not ask him that. We had enough of that yesterday.
The major problem with the Canadian balance of payments is the $17 billion manufacturing deficit this year. We have to be doing things in this country which will improve that deficit, not just hold the line where it is now. Will the minister give the industry a clear signal today or in his budget which will give them the confidence in their investment decisions and enable them to make decisions that will provide the jobs and the long-term investment program which will substantiate the ongoing strength of this industry, particularly at a time when we are looking at an unemployment level of some one million people this winter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Madam Speaker, I will attempt to give that signal, not today but in the budget.


PETROLEUM MONITORING AGENCY-REPORTED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question to arouse from his interest in a document the attention of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Petroleum Monitoring Agency established by the government, as the minister knows, was set up, among other things, to monitor prices and profits of the petroleum industry and report back to the public and to the government. Today Mr. Harold Renouf, chairman of that agency, is reported to have said the following:
I believe the industry will be better served if we are successful in clarifying to the consumer ... the need for higher domestic oil and gas prices.
Does the minister not agree that this statement reveals in advance a completely unacceptable, biased attitude on the part of the chairman who is supposed to be monitoring the petroleum industry and its pricing policies?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I have had an opportunity of reading the speech made by Mr. Renouf and, frankly, I find nothing objectionable at all in what he has said.


John Edward Broadbent: That is what I was afraid of.


Marc Lalonde: He has said what I believe all parties and all governments in this country have recognized, that the price of oil and gas will have to increase in the course of this decade. I do not think anybody in this country who has sense challenges this view.
What the monitoring agency is doing, as mentioned by Mr. Renouf, is monitoring very closely the performance of the industry in many areas; the area of profitability, the area of cash flow, research and development effort, reinvestment behaviour, cost of exploration, etc. These features are going to be examined very, very carefully and very closely. This will all be made public and I hope it will help all governments to establish adequate and proper policies in terms of taxation and incentives. Even if the price of oil and gas were to go up, as I am sure they will, and as we all recognize, that does not mean that automatically the increases are going to go overwhelmingly, or in the largest share, to the companies themselves. They may go to the governments of the producing provinces or to the federal government. That is why I say there is nothing objectionable at all in what Mr. Renouf has said.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, surely the minister will acknowledge that he has not addressed the issue at all. It is one thing for a minister of the Crown or members on this side
October 10, 1980

of the House to argue for or against higher energy prices. No one is arguing against their right or responsibility to do that. My question is, does he think that a man who is appointed chairman of a commission to monitor the industry in terms of its pricing and profit policies should be out advocating higher prices and profits, especially at a time when the big five in the industry had increases in their profits of 86 per cent in the past year?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Oshawa is asking me to require the chairman of that commission to live in a literally fictitious world. Mr. Renouf is merely being realistic when he notes that the price of oil products will have to go up. One does not have to be a wizard to know that, reality is there for everyone to see. In his speech Mr. Renouf did not indicate that he favours higher prices, he simply and realistically noted, recognizing government policy and the policy of all governments in the world at present, that the prices of oil products will have to be raised, that it is important that the public understand and know exactly what is going on, who will profit from those increases and who will incur the costs. Such is Mr. Renoufs task in the next few years.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the reply is not better in French. It is the same in French as in English.
[DOT] (U30)

Since we have it in his own words that he supports a biased chairman in advance, would the minister now renounce his campaign rhetoric in which he condemned the oil industry for charging too much and in which he said the Liberals would deal with exploding profits? Will he acknowledge either that that was hypocrisy, or will he change the terms of reference of this agency and give it the authority to roll back unfair price increases?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am tempted to try to answer the hon. member in Latin to see whether he will understand.


Mr. Epp:: Go ahead. Maybe you will make some sense.


Marc Lalonde: Surely we should see this as proof of consistency that the statement is the same in French as it is in English.
With respect to the substance of the hon. member's question, again I challenge his interpretation of any bias in the statement made by Mr. Renouf, who is an outstanding Canadian, has chaired the Anti-Inflation Board in an outstanding way and who is performing his duty under the Inquiries Act in quite an honest and fair way. I suggest to the hon. member for Oshawa that his is not a fair statement to make about Mr. Renouf.
With respect to government policy, it is well known. We stated it during the election campaign and have repreated it
Oral Questions
consistently since then; and I hope that when we come up with our energy program the hon. member's party will be able to support that program as being one which is good for Canadians at the present time.


GASOHOL-INQUIRY WHETHER CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO REMOVAL OF EXCISE TAX
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the same minister, and it has to do with our well-known lack of capacity to produce liquid portable fuels in the country. I think the minister would agree that we should be encouraging the production of renewable energy, and I wonder if .the minister would consider removing the 7 cents a gallon excise tax on gasohol as a measure to increase the production of renewable energy.
I also point out to the minister that, contrary to some opinions held in the country, the production of ethyl alcohol actually contributes to the total food supply and does not subtract from it. I hope the minister takes that into consideration when he answers the question.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would like to say how much I appreciate the hon. member's interest in renewable resources. I think this is indeed a very important area. The production of renewable resources will need to be encouraged in the next decade and, as the hon. member knows, there is currently a parliamentary task force which is examining these various issues.
The specific question raised by the hon. member would more properly be decided by the Minister of Finance in a budget decision, and I would not want to comment on it further. I am sure the Minister of Finance has heard the hon. member's representation, and I wish to assure the hon. member that his representation will be considered.


THE BUDGET
Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Would the Minister of Finance take into consideration the exchange which has just gone on, and will he take it upon himself in the budget to remove the seven cents a gallon excise tax on gasohol so that we may encourage production of liquid portable fuels as a means of making the country truly self-sufficient in energy?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I will consider the hon. member's representations.

October 10, 1980
Oral Questions AIRPORTS


CALGARY INTERNATIONAL-REPLACEMENT OF CONTROL TOWER
Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport of which he was given notice. About two years ago a multimillion dollar airport terminal was built in Calgary. This modern facility was built, if you can believe it, without an air traffic control tower. The existing control tower was built in 1968 as a temporary facility designed to last five to six years. It is now 12 years old. This tower, a temporary arrangement, was built to serve, but it has done so to no one's satisfaction. As a result, employee morale has fallen to the lowest of lows. Why was this so-called temporary facility not replaced when the new airport terminal was built, and when will it be replaced?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, it is so nice to be able to be pleasant. The problem was recognized and contracts were allocated on October 2. Work was begun on October 6. The price is $284,000.


John Kushner: Madam Speaker, I hope I am not being unreasonable. I appreciate that the minister has inherited this problem, but what I was referring to was not to the repair of the tower. My question was when the new tower will be built. I know there are tenders out to repair the tower now, but when will a new one be built?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, as I said, the problem was recognized. Working conditions were not good enough and the department is moving now in the way I have indicated. I think my hon. friend should not push his luck too much on a single day.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: I thought you were nice all the time.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS ARCTIC PILOT PROJECT
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I am tempted to ask him in Inuktitut, but his interests do not go that far.


Marc Lalonde: Not my interest, my knowledge.


Peter Ittinuar: My question concerns government advertising on energy and in particular on Arctic gas reserves and the Arctic pilot project. If government ads are designed to reflect current government policy, as was stated in the House yesterday, can we conclude that the Arctic pilot project is supported by this government?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, it is not a lack of interest in Inuktitut; it is the lack of knowledge on my part that I regret.


Erik Nielsen: So what's new?


Marc Lalonde: With respect to the hon. member's question, the hon. member knows that the Arctic pilot project is sponsored by Petro-Canada and a group of other companies and that the project is before the National Energy Board. There will be hearings. The normal process will be followed. It is one project among others, the others including the possibility of a polar gas pipeline. All these projects will be examined by the appropriate government authorities before they are approved or rejected by the cabinet.
In the meantime, these are certainly encouraging developments when we see the large additional reserves of natural gas which have been found by the petroleum industry in the Arctic, and we hope also additional reserves of oil. The government is of course supportive of further exploration and further development of those resources in the north, to the benefit not only of other Canadians but also the residents of the Northwest Territories.


Peter Ittinuar: Madam Speaker, I cannot see how the government can reconcile its advertising with the environmental assessment review process and the upcoming National Energy Board hearing as well as the views of the northern peoples, who wish that these hearings would be conducted in earnest and without biased and supportive views from the government.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I think I have indicated that while the government indeed supports in principle exploration and development of resources in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, we want that process to take place having full respect for all the regulatory authorities which exist at the present time, whether they be the Department of the Environment or the National Energy Board. However, once we have said that, we say that we want all these developments to take place, but within the existing requirements which the various pieces of legislation passed by this Parliament imply. I think that is pretty simply to understand.


BANKRUPTCIES
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The minister will be aware of the bankruptcy of Astra Trust and its real estate affiliate, Re-Mor. Does he plan an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the bankruptcy in view of the substantial losses sustained by innocent investors and the allegations of fraud against the officers of Astra Trust and Re-Mor?
October 10, 1980


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: Madam Speaker, 1 am aware of the situation. I would like to remind the hon. member that Re-Mor is a provincially chartered corporation which does not therefore come under federal jurisdiction. Reimbursing procedures under federal law are under way for those people who had invested in Astra corporation. As far as Re-Mor is concerned, the member must understand that from a legal standpoint we are dealing with a very complex issue and that with regard to criminal procedures the government of Ontario is doing its duty in view of the circumstances.


William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, I am aware that Re-Mor is under the control of the provincial government, but bankruptcy is a matter under the control of the federal government. The Re-Mor real estate company, which is an affiliate of Astra Trust, obtained a mortgage broker's licence from the government of Ontario after finance officials in the minister's department ascertained that Astra Trust was in financial trouble. Can the minister advise the House on the quality of communications between the officials of the government of Ontario and his department, because it is the opinion of those who have studied the matter that, had the communications been better, the losses suffered by the depositors could have been avoided.


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is making very serious allegations. The information which the Superintendent of Insurance has provided me concerning this fully contradicts the hon. member's allegations.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Because the Minister of Employment and Immigration is absent, Madam Speaker, I shall direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. My question deals with the problem unemployment insurance recipients are facing following the various work stoppages which have occurred both last week and this week within our public service. I should like to know what special steps the department has taken to deliver the cheques to unemployment insurance recipients. What are these steps and when will the situation return to normal, because people in the various ridings have suffered over the past two weeks due to delays resulting from work stoppages within our public service?


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I should like to assure all hon. members that the situation is back to normal everywhere in Canada except Quebec, that the cheques
Oral Questions
will be delivered directly by mail, as provided for under our regulations, and that there is no backlog.
As far as the province of Quebec is concerned, because of the illegal work stoppages which have occurred over the past two weeks, there are some delays, but I can assure the hon. member that several thousands of cheques have been printed this week. This was not a problem of cheque distribution, but of cheque printing. The cheques were printed yesterday and today, and employment and immigration staff will be working this weekend to make up for lost time.


ABORTIONS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Within the last month in British Columbia, the boards of two major hospitals have done away completely with their therapeutic abortion committees, seriously reducing access to abortions-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: -where required for women in those communities. In view of the fact that the Badgley report, which was commissioned by a previous Liberal government, has recognized this as being a major weakness in existing legislation, and in view of the fact that the situation is so serious that doctors have threatened to remove their services entirely from at least one of these hospitals, what action does the government intend to take to implement the recommendations of the Badgley commission report and put an end to this threat to health care in our communities?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, any action would be untimely at this point. We have no intention of introducing any legislation in Parliament to amend the Criminal Code with regard to abortion.


CUTBACKS IN FUNDING TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, this makes a mockery of any suggestion that accessibility to abortion is free and equitable in this country, and I hope sincerely that the Minister of Justice will bring in the changes that were recommended.
My supplementary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare is as follows. The federal government has cut back substantially on its funding to the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada which is one of the leading proponents of safe, effective, contraceptive and sex education. Both recommenda-

October 10, 1980
Oral Questions
tions in this regard were strongly supported in the Badgley report. My question is this: why has the government chosen to cut back on funding to these important organizations at a time when over 60,000 abortions were performed in Canada, and what action does the government intend to take to ensure that these vital services, which will reduce the number of abortions in Canada, will be restored at the earliest possible time?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's information is not accurate. Unfortunately I do not have the exact figures of the subsidy to the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada.
For several years now, discussions with the federation following the federal-provincial conference of social security ministers have been aimed at ensuring that the provinces finance the local family planning services across Canada while limiting our role to the national secretariats of those associations.
As a consequence, the money we contribute to the local family planning services is now channelled through the provinces. If the provinces fail to do what is expected of them and do not subsidize those associations adequately, then it is up to hon. members who know what the federal role and responsibilities are to do everything possible to make sure that the money goes where it should.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport whom I have always found to be friendly, if not too swift to act sometimes. Can the minister tell me whether he is any closer now to a decision on the Nordair question than he was some three months ago?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Madam Speaker, but there is a question of temperament here. My feeling is that one should not, in the process of attempting to solve difficulties, create others that would be worse than the ones one is trying to solve. That is my philosophy and it is in my temperament to take this approach.
Progress is being made in the Nordair issue and the problem will be solved, but before we get there, there are a number of accommodations that have to come from the potential owners, the potential executives of the merged company and also the labour unions. This is being worked on now and I hope that one of these days before too long I will be in a position to announce success.
[ Translation]


SALE OF NORDAIR-GUARANTEES OFFERED RESPECTING INTERESTS OF QUEBEC
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport. During our short stay in power, several of his Liberal colleagues made representations to me to ensure that the sale of Nordair would at least lead to a majority of shares for Quebec. I suppose that the minister has received similar representations from his colleagues. Can he tell the House today what type of guarantee he can give that a majority of these shares would be reserved for Quebec?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I can assure my friend from Joliette that I have received the same representations, probably in the same form as the ones he got used to. The question he raises is part of the problem, and that is what we are trying hard to settle at the moment.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday there was quite a discussion in the House about the art of communication, and I should like the right hon. gentleman to communicate to the House, and thus to the country, if the presidential style of government is still his personal preference over the parliamentary form of government we have at present? This is what he told students at the university of Montreal in a most frank and relaxed question and answer period three days after he resigned when he said:
-but if I'd said it before resigning people would say, "Oh, now he wants to be President Trudeau,"-
Then he said:
There's no question of that any more.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Madam Speaker, I can confirm that there is no question of that now.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. I will just read from the articles which appeared in several papers on November 24, the day after this very frank discussion the present Prime Minister had. He told the students:
-that a presidential system of government like that of France might be best for Canada.
"I can say that now, but if I'd said it before resigning people would say, 'Oh, now he wants to be President Trudeau' "-
"There's no question of that any more."
October 10, 1980

My supplementary question is in a serious vein. We are debating a resolution which gives to a constitution the very heart and soul of the country. In the last election campaign there was no mandate from the Canadian people because the Prime Minister, the then leader of the opposition, was most silent on constitutions or patriation in 1980. This is the people's constitution, not the constitution of the Prime Minister or the premiers.
Since it could fundamentally change the form of government, would the Prime Minister be prepared depending on the form of the resolution finally reported out of the House, to use the referendum procedure in the bill as a dry run to the Canadian people before he goes to London?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I find it somewhat paradoxical that the hon. member and his party seem to be against the referendum procedure in the proposed section 42 which, after all, is a deadlock breaking mechanism on the one hand-


Mr. Clark:: No, it is not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and on the other hand-


Erik Nielsen: It is a hammerlock mechanism.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -they are now advocating, or this member in particular is advocating, a referendum which obviously is something that-


John Carnell Crosbie: Thank you, Mr. President.


An hon. Member:: He was not advocating that. He was asking you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, he was advocating that. My answer is that I wish they would get their act together, as usual.


NATURAL GAS-REPORTED STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN OF NORCEN ENERGY RESOURCES RESPECTING EXPORTS TO JAPAN
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I will ask it in Scottish. Yesterday, Mr. Edmund Bovey, the chairman of Norcen Energy Resources, stated that the federal government had authorized him, as energy representative on the Canada-Japan committee, to raise the possibility of liquefied natural gas exports to Japan.
Why is this government, after selling out our natural gas to the United States through the pre-build of the Alaska pipeline, now about to embark upon a policy of further sellouts, that is, of natural gas to Japan? Can the minister confirm or deny the statement made by Mr. Bovey?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, it appears that Scottish is a much easier language to understand than I thought. For a
Oral Questions
moment I thought I would have to refer the question to the Minister of Finance, but I think I can handle this one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: As far as the specific question raised by the hon. member is concerned, gas liquefaction is just one other process of handling gas. The question of additional gas exports is purely an academic one at the present time. If there was any project dealing with further gas exports, it would have to be submitted to the National Energy Board in the normal way. However, I would suggest to the hon. member that if we have an opportunity to export more gas, since our reserves are indeed expanding at a very great rate and there is a surplus of natural gas in Canada, I would think Canada should be ready to consider whether it is not more advantageous to our country to have more customers for our gas rather than being dependent on a single customer; and second, whether it would not be good for Canada, and British Columbia in particular, to have further processing of its gas before expediting it abroad.
It seems to me this is a very fair and reasonable question to be raised. If we are to assume that there may be further exports, I think we should examine whether there should not be further processing and more customers for Canada, rather than the single one on which we are dependent, as the hon. member knows.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, it is important that the minister makes the policy very clear because foreign countries are now seeing us as an easy mark for exports.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No pun intended. This summer The Wall Street Journal reported that Japanese interests had lent Dome Petroleum $400 million for investment in Beaufort Sea oil and gas exploration in Canada's Arctic. In return they will get 25 per cent of the share of oil and gas production.
Did the minister make it very clear to Dome, which is a company that really survives on Canadian tax breaks-it was built up that way-and did he make it clear to the Japanese that in fact there is no oil for export up there, and that if it is found, that oil will not be exported? Will the minister stand up in the House and make it quite clear that he will not sell out our oil when it is found in the Beaufort Sea and is ready to go to market?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, indeed I had the opportunity of meeting several times with spokesmen for Dome Petroleum and also with ministers and senior officials from Japan. In all instances I indicated quite clearly that I could not foresee the day when Canada would have such a surplus of oil that we could export it abroad. This was made quite clear to all the parties concerned, and that is the policy of this government at the present time.
The rule that would have to be applied is that if in decades to come we were to find reserves of the Saudi Arabia style or type, then obviously it is a question Canada would have to

October 10, 1980
Oral Questions
decide at that time. We have no indication whatever at the present time that we can rely upon such reserves. If in decades to come this were to be the case, obviously the governments of the day would have to make that decision.


John Carnell Crosbie: Sit down.


Marc Lalonde: At the present time the Japanese have indeed entered into this agreement with Dome. It provides for a share of the production, but it does not authorize the Japanese to take it outside of Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: Filibuster.


Marc Lalonde: They would get that share, but it would be subjected to all the requirements of the National Energy Board and they would be obliged to sell it inside Canada under the present rules.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It concerns the significant amounts of money granted to native organizations throughout the country-the Indians, the Inuit and the non-status Indians-to research and to establish their position re self-government and the relationship between themselves and their trustee, the federal minister of Indian affairs, in connection with constitutional renewal. Can the minister tell the House whether a timetable was attached to these grants to ensure that the position of the native people in our country is known before very serious changes are undertaken in connection with our constitution, recognizing, of course, the very special rights of Indian people in our constitution?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, with regard to the grants to native peoples in order to prepare their position on the constitution, there is no time limit in that sense. The money is available to them. It is on a fiscal year basis. They are in receipt of the money. They are utilizing it during this fiscal year. What the situation may be next year will depend upon their submissions, their needs and their analysis by the government.


INPUT FROM NATIVE GROUPS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question must be directed to the Prime Minister, particularly having regard to the rather tight schedule given to Parliament and to other partners in confederation to make fundamental and real changes to our constitution in the context of renewed federalism. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has now told us
that the Indians have been given more money to study their position, their relationship with Canada as a nation and their relationship with Her Majesty the Queen. What sense is there in carrying on a process that might take years if it is the intention of the Prime Minister to make fundamental changes to coincide with his own time frame, which is July 1 of next year? Will Indians have some input in the process of constitutional change, or is it just going to be another hand-out to keep them appeased, to have them travel around the country enjoying themselves while the Prime Minister is going ahead to make these fundamental changes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think that last part of the question was something of a slur on the Indian population inferring that they are using funds supplied so they can research their rights to travel around the country and have a good time. I do not think this shows that the hon. member is very serious in asking the question.
As far as our government's position is concerned, we have stated it very many times: we want the Indians to be involved in the constitutional process. I indicated-


An hon. Member:: When? How?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They ask when and how, Madam Speaker. This week and next week officials and the minister will be involved in discussing this very subject with the Indians. I met the leaders of the Inuit and Indian people several months ago and I indicated that any changes directly affecting them would only be made after discussion with them. I have given the undertaking, which I am prepared to repeat, that as soon as we get the constitution home we will be prepared to consider other phases of the constitutional debate and to put the item of native rights on the agenda right then and there. I do not know if the Indians themselves will be prepared at that time to indicate in a final way what they would like to see the constitution say in respect to them, but certainly the minister and his officials are attempting to reach conclusions on that.


TRANSPORT
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. For at least a few years now there have been two Via Rail trains departing from Ottawa to Montreal daily, late in the afternoon, and these trains have always been very well patronized. It was not uncommon to see passengers standing up. On October 1, Via Rail suppressed these two departures to replace them with one departure at 1730. Could the minister explain to us the reasons for this service reduction?
October 10, 1980


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Madam Speaker. Generally speaking, I think Via Rail, the Canadian Transport Commission and the Department of Transport are courageously trying at the present time to offer a better rail transport system for passengers. And this obviously requires adjustments. My hon. friend says a train has been suppressed from Ottawa to Montreal. I regret passengers being inconvenienced by this fact, but one must realize that the ticket from Ottawa to Montreal costs the Department of Transport twice as much as the price charged to the passenger himself. I say this simply to demonstrate that a rationalization must be effected, that this will create in certain regions difficulties they have to cope with and which we have to deal with ourselves.


PRIVILEGE
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which 1 brought to your attention yesterday on the important subject of polling, something which has been indulged in by this government and by a number of other governments for a considerable period of time. The issue is not whether polling of itself is justified but whether the government, having conducted the polls, has made the proper use of the information it has obtained and, related to that but not essentiel to the argument, the public's interest is also involved in the limits to spending on the question of polling itself. But that is a subsidiary point that I want to make.
1 do not usually quote The Globe and Mail as it is not well known as supportive of social democracy in Canada, but every now and then even The Globe and Mail has something to say that is right. In today's paper the case is well made in one sentence about the issue which is at stake on the question of this government's use of polls. In an editorial it says:
In a democracy the floor is supposed to be equally open to all debaters.
I do not agree with much more than that in The Globe and Mail, but with that sentence I am in fundamental agreement. Since last spring this government has been pursued on the question of polls by members of my party. We raised questions in April and subsequent to that. In July I wrote the Prime Minister, (Mr. Trudeau) asking for clarification of the government's position and an outline of the policy the government would pursue. No adequate answer was received. In fact the answer which I received from the Prime Minister, and which in essence was argued in a related question of privilege yesterday in the House, is that the current government, a partisan government-as all governments are by definition-will judge itself whether polling information is to be made available to all members of the House of Commons and therefore, indirectly, to the people of Canada. For my party this principle is completely unacceptable.
If the people of Canada are going to be financing polling, in a democracy, then all the people, through the House of
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
Commons, have a right to have access to the information provided to the government in those polls.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The issue then is not one of legitimacy of the government conducting the polls or not. That is a spurious debating point raised by the Prime Minister who specializes in that kind of activity. The government is entirely right to do some polling if, for example, it has a program in the health field and needs to find out something about its efficacy. It is entirely legitimate from time to time to conduct a survey to find out if the people of Canada are getting a service which ought to be provided by legislation approved by Parliament. There is no doubt that the people in my party accept the necessity of polling, it is a legitimate, important access to relevant information in a modern age. But the question that goes to the root of democratic responsibility is: should such information be kept in the exclusive hands of the government of the day? That is the question which has to be answered.
Our view on this side is very clear. It is fundamentally wrong for the government of the day to obtain information on the one hand but then judge on its own whether or not such information should be made available. That is incontestably a partisan decision.
Certain information can be used to the political advantage of the government. It would be very good to reveal some information, and the government has indicated it would be more than willing from time to time to give the members of the House of Commons and the people of Canada such information, when it is to its advantage. Conversely, look at the information that would come in which would show that programs are not working and are shoddy. It would not be advantageous to the government for members on this side of the House to know that, in a partisan sense, but it would be in the public's interest to know.
We have seen unfortunate experiences in other jurisdictions where polling has been very clearly demonstrated to have been done in one week or one month, kept secret from opposition parties, then used as a method for establishing government policy in subsequent weeks or months. Such a situation raises the spectre of the use of public funds by a political party for its political campaigning, and this has no legitimate basis in a democratic government.
Therefore, I would like to come quickly to the appropriate use of polling and make very specific suggestions which I think would obviate a question of privilege, if the government agreed to them. They are suggestions which should be followed in a democracy. Because they have not been followed, the equal right of all members to have access to all information important to a debate, financed by the people of Canada, is being denied us.
We would suggest the following: that each minister be responsible for ensuring that all contracts for public opinion polling by the minister or agent of the minister be listed after
3586

October 10, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
approval is given in the first issue of The Canada Gazette; secondly, the list being published in The Canada Gazette should include the subject matter of the poll, the name of the firm awarded the contract, the amount of the contract and the dates set out in the contract for receipt of the completed survey results by the minister or agent of the minister, and, finally, all polls listed in The Canada Gazette should automatically be tabled by the minister concerned on the next sitting day after the date of receipt set out in The Gazette.
This, in other words, would put all members in this House on an equal basis. Opposition members, government members and cabinet members alike would have the same data which is paid for by the people of Canada. That is the question of privilege. If you find, Madam Speaker, that I do have a case of privilege, I would be prepared to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the question of the right of members of Parliament to information obtained by the government to polls financed by public funds be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for consideration and report.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I would have been pleased to defer taking the floor to allow my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), but I will proceed for the moment to speak largely in support of the proposal and the suggestion which have been made by the Leader of the News Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) regarding the importance of having this question considered, and the policy developed, by Parliament. I agree with the Leader of the New Democratic Party that that process may well be made unnecessary if the government is prepared to accept the proposals which have been made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
I would point out that this matter has been alluded to in debate recently in this House by, I believe, one of the members from the New Democratic Party, who made the point that the practice of polling has been carried out by New Democratic Party governments in Saskatchewan, by Progressive Conservative governments across the country, including the period 1 had the honour to lead the Government of Canada, and by Liberal governments.
When we were the Government of Canada we wrestled with the question of whether or not to publish polls which had been carried out by our government. Our decision was that it would be appropriate and proper for those polls to be published. As I indicated yesterday, in the period of time we were the Government of Canada, three public opinion polls were commissioned. One poll had to do with federal-provincial relations, another with energy, and another with multiculturalism.
The poll having to do with energy was the subject of a request by a member of Parliament, who asked that it be published. That request was acceeded to and the poll was made available. In addition, and far more important, we had issued instructions to officials of the Government of Canada in all relevant departments that, in keeping with the freedom of information bill which we introduced-a bill which, I would remind the House, went much further in protecting the public right to information than the bill which has been introduced by
the present Liberal government-the practice should be followed of responding positively to any request to publish any poll. That is to say, if a poll was conducted by the Government of Canada and if there was a request to have it published, it should be published.
What is being proposed today by the Leader of the New Democratic Party is that we go a step further. Speaking on behalf of my party, I have no objection at all to the provision that there be no waiting for a request, that there be an automatic triggering so that public opinion sampling carried out in the name of the people of Canada could be available directly to the representatives of the people of Canada assembled in this Parliament.
I might add that certainly if agreement is reached, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) need have no question that we would be prepared to have published today the two polls which were conducted during the tenure of the Progressive Conservative government that have not yet been made public.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, first of all I believe that on the substance of the matter there is no question of privilege. It is purely a matter of government housekeeping policy, and whether polls are taken or not, it is a well known practice that is recognized throughout the world. I think questions can be asked in the House but the privileges of members are not at all affected here and I think the motion of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) is frivolous and is quite simply much more intended to raise a matter for debate than a question of privilege. In any case, Madam Speaker,-

For example, since March, 1979, there were 141 polls taken by different departments. This includes polls in which there was one question asked by a particular department interested in a specialized field and wishing to collect information from the different organizations and companies in that field. For the amount of $1,000, $2,000 or $3,000, these departments obtain their information on one precise question. These questions may be related to postal services, transportation services, energy and so on.
The government decided to check with every department to determine how many polls were completed since the beginning of 1979. We obtained the figure of 141. That does not mean that they were all necessarily all-encompassing polls. In some cases the poll consisted of one question by one department and cost $1,000 or $2,000. Now that we have collected these polls, we are prepared to release all of them except for 12. One hundred and twenty-nine polls will be released. The other polls have not been completed, or are currently being used. When these polls are no longer being used they will be made public.
For example, some of the most controversial polls taken were instigated by the Canadian Unity Information Office
October 10, 1980

which comes under my responsibility. One poll was conducted in this area by the previous administration. I am glad to have the permission of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) to publish the polls of that administration. We obtained from these polls some very useful information on questions related to certain problems in Quebec at the time of the referendum, and we used them to develop strategy. At the time of the referendum other polls were conducted to determine if attitudes had changed.
These polls will be made public, but I do not know when. Some of the polls will be ready next Wednesday and the others one week following. The document is very complicated and thick, and 1 do not think that it would be advisable to make one for everybody because it would amount to stacks of papers. We want to assure the House that if some members or some people want them, they will be available. We will make the results available to the House very quickly from the Canadian Unity Information Services.
Some results will not be available at this time because that is the rule. I understand the situation in the bill on information is that if there is a request for information, a certain period of time will be required, perhaps a couple of months, in which to make that information available and so on.
I do think, however, that sometimes questions are asked in a context that is only for the purpose of getting some information from the government. When the situation does not call for any further confidentiality, we will then make the information available. I think that any normal administrator will understand that there could be questions in specific areas where at a certain time it is not in the interests of the House or the public to make the information public.


An hon. Member:: For example?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If I had been caught in that situation during the referendum, there would have been a problem. The hon. Leader of the Opposition and his party commissioned a survey that cost about $100,000 in December, when it was done. I got six surveys for the same price later on-I probably made a better deal! There is no question, however, that it would not have been useful or in the public interest to make them available at that time. I had the responsibility, and I was very well supported by all members of the House, of making sure that the case for Canada, from the federal point of view, was put to the Quebec people in the most effective way. At that time I felt it was very important that I use the poll made by the Leader of the Opposition and his party in December, so I used it. In that respect-


Charles Joseph Clark: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.


Charles Joseph Clark: It is a very simple point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) is slipping
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
into a usage which did not prevail, at least in our day. He referred to me and my party as having commissioned the polls. That is not the case; they were commissioned by the Government of Canada, of which I was then the leader. I am sure it was simply a slip of the tongue, but an important one.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, it is very clear that the right hon. member was the Leader of the Government at that time. I will refer to the Progressive Conservative government of last year, which commissioned the poll. I have used it effectively so I am glad they did it. I do not blame them for that, because it has been very useful.
Of the 141 polls, some consisted of only one question, asked by one department in one set of circumstances. We will make them available as soon as possible. The ones which come directly under my jurisdiction-which are some of the most controversial and which were done by the Canadian Unity Information office-some of these will be available next Wednesday or perhaps the Monday following even sooner, if possible. We will not give the whole package to everybody, but anyone who wants to check them can go to the office and do so. It would be extremely costly to make those stacks of documents available to everybody. There are three done under the direction of the Canadian Unity Information office, that we commissioned in the last few months. Questions are related to energy, to the present debate, and so on. I think we still need them in order to elaborate on policies, but we will make them available as soon as possible.
Perhaps it would be advisable to develop a rule in the near future. I do think, however, that there is absolutely no question of privilege. If hon. members are not satisfied with the answers they receive in the House whenever the government spends money, then there is a rule that a committee will scrutinize all government spending. The ministers appear at the estimates committees and questions can be put to them then. I think, with due respect, Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no question of privilege. If the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) or the Leader of the Opposition wants to debate the policy on polls, it can be done in other forums, such as when the estimates of every department are debated.


John Edward Broadbent: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I wonder if the minister would answer a question. He referred to 141 polls that have been done, a good number of which he was going to make available, and 12 of which he was going to keep private and confidential.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: For the time being.


John Edward Broadbent: I want to make it clear that we do not agree with that. We would like to know the subject matter of the 12 polls that he is going to keep private.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I do not have the details at this time. One is based on the question of energy. It was requested in order to be able to develop the energy policy that will be made public soon. It could be that if it were released at this time, the substance of it would make the policy public. It

October 10, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
may be that when we put a question to the people in order to get their views, the answer could reveal a policy. As we all know, the policy has to be revealed in the House of Commons first-


John Edward Broadbent: That is precisely the point.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -and not in a sneaky way. The hon. member asked for an example. Other questions were put on other matters, and I do not have them here but they will be made available as soon as possible. If the hon. member feels that as soon as a department receives the result of a poll it should be tabled in the House, then he can ask for it, but I do not think that is very sensible. I do not think that is done anywhere. If we are serious about this and not doing it only for the fun of it, it should have some aim and some objective. The result should be analysed by the government before it is made public.


John Edward Broadbent: Why not by the opposition as well?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We accept the rule that in the future, when we commission polls and the results have been used for the elaboration of policy, then we will make them public.


Mr. Dick:: Madam Speaker, a point of order-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp).


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I should like to speak on this point of privilege that has been raised by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I was just about to recognize the hon. member as 1 thought he wanted to speak on the question of privilege. Is the hon. member rising on the question of privilege or on a point of order?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The question of privilege, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Before I recognize the hon. member, I want to tell the House that I have a bit of a problem with this question of privilege. First of all, it is very close to the one discussed yesterday in the House and which I took under advisement. Second, it seems to have been used to introduce a substantive motion that might be worth while discussing. That type of motion may come into another procedure and I shall want to examine the matter further.
From the interventions that I have heard until now, I do not see that we have broken any of the rules or practices of this House. It is not clear to me yet that there is a question of privilege. I would therefore ask future speakers to focus on the reasons for the question of privilege. That would be very helpful to the Chair.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am going to relate how I believe the privileges of this House and of every member are affected by the use of polls.
First of all, I support the position taken by the hon. member for Oshawa regarding polls and their use. We have to keep in mind that these polls are conducted through the use of public funds.
Second, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) said that these polls, these publicly funded polls, are used "to develop a strategy"-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: And policy.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Then he went on to say that the questions used in the polls are for the purpose of gaining certain information which the government wants. But to gain certain information for what purpose?


Erik Nielsen: For designing advertising.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: To design advertising. To design policies and strategy?


John Edward Broadbent: For the government.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: For the government-that is the point-and at public expense. If it is done at public expense, then that information should be available to every member of the House and to the public generally.
I do not want to get into the substantive motion of yesterday relating to advertising, but the point is that the polls are used, first of all, to find out what the public is thinking and then to design an advertising package so that the public can be manipulated and moved toward a policy that the government has already established.


Some hon. Members:: Right on.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is what the government is trying to do, Madam Speaker.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a question of privilege, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) cannot rise on a question of privilege when there is already one on the floor, which I am hearing. The hon. member for Provencher.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: As I said, Madam Speaker, I will not get into the advertising matter. We have seen enough advertising now related to the polling data which the government had received earlier. Just yesterday that point was debated in this House. When members got back to their offices last night they had additional advertising information, related again to polling information which the government received earlier. This speaker's kit is based on certain polling data which the government had received, in trying to move the public to a government position that has not even been concluded in this House.
October 10, 1980

That is the point of privilege, that my privileges as a member here are being thwarted by manipulation through the use of public money, polls and advertising which are ail connected as this government operates on the constitutional question. My privileges are being violated. Therefore, not only should the minister release the polls, which he said he would do at his convenience, selectively, but also information based on that polling which is misleading and wrong, should be stopped.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, very briefly because I consider we have lost a lot of time in the House in the past two days, I would like to ask you if, in light of your many deliberations, you might ponder this case to establish whether the opinions of government technocrats-who are paid out of public funds-give the government should be released and made public to opposition parties. The analogy is there, and I think you should seriously ask yourself the question and I respectfully submit there is no question of privilege here. It is a matter of policy that is debatable, of course, but that does not interfere at all with the rights of members of this House. If the result of the advice given by senior technocrats or the results of polls taken from time to time lead to certain policies, certain bills, then, Madam Speaker, members of this House have the liberty and opportunity to criticize government policies. Having said that, I respectfully submit there is no question of privilege here and it is about time Parliament took its responsibilities and dealt with the urgent and serious matters that are before it.


Erik Nielsen: Very briefly, Madam Speaker, the advertising which my hon. friend the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) was speaking about is in a speaker's kit which reached members' offices last night. It is not only wrong, but almost contemptuous. Not only has this House not completed debate on the subject, but Your Honour has not yet ruled as to whether or not there is a question of privilege in the matters raised yesterday and in the matters raised today.
There is a definite link between the results of the poll and the advertising that comes out. The Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Fleming) said yesterday that the government had not gone into details, it had not gone into specifics in its advertising campaign and that the advertising campaign had ceased-not that that makes any difference, and we made that point yesterday with respect to the privilege. But obviously it has not ceased because we are still being bombarded with one position, that of the Liberal government, in this debate on the constitution. Fundamentally that is wrong and fundamentally that is an abuse of the privileges of every member in this House and, indeed, an erosion of the institution. The least the government can do is to direct the Minister of State for Multiculturalism to freeze the distribution of this advertising until the Chair has made a decision on the question
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
as to whether or not there is privilege, because that, Madam Speaker, is contemptuous of your office.


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I shall endeavour to be brief. It seems to me that the responses of both the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) underline the urgency of this matter. They also underline the failure on that side of the House to understand the issue.
The basis laid down by my leader in raising a question of privilege is that this place is supposed to have a certain element of equality about it in so far as debate and dealing with issues are concerned. But the moment the government starts to use taxpayers' funds, whether for the matter we were talking about yesterday or for the conducting of polls, and then says the information obtained is theirs only and not available to the other side is a denial of the rights of both sides of the House of Commons.
One of the interesting sentences in citation 1 in Beau-chesne's third edition, found at page 4, is as follows:
In a close contest when the House is considering a highly controversial measure, the positions of parties are equalized: the government side may rely on its majority but the opposition is strengthened by the rules of procedure which both are bound to observe and which the Speaker must enforce.
It is understood that when the vote comes and decisions are to be made, the government has its majority and it can use it. But in a situation where we are debating matters and considering things, there is supposed to be equality, and if the Speaker leans any way, the Speaker should lean in favour of the opposition so that that equality is established. But when the Minister of Justice stands up and says that he has listened to all of the arguments and he is going to table most of the polls, but the important ones he will hold back for now because he is going to use them for making policy, we suggest that is a denial of the principle of equality on the floor of the House of Commons and it is an abuse of public funds.
Now that I am on my feet, may I interject in what I am saying to suggest that most of us in this place have a birthday every year, and although it would not be appropriate to note them all, when the government House leader has reached that age of relative wisdom, the age of 40, I think we would all like to wish him many happy returns.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I said in my friendly way, it is an age of relative wisdom because here on his fortieth birthday, the President of the Privy Council stands up and says it is the same thing for the government to have its paid public servants, who are sworn to certain oaths of secrecy, and so on, give them information which they may not make public, as when the government spends public money to hire private firms outside to conduct polls. I hope that by the time my friend is 50 his wisdom will be much greater than it is on this his fortieth birthday.
It seems to me that the issues we have been discussing the last few days are extremely important. I plead with you again,

October 10, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
Madam Speaker. We are not asking you to rule that there has been wrong doing or abuse, or what have you, but, I am asking you to consider the proposition that there is enough question about what the government is doing to the rights and privileges of Parliament for the issue to be referred to the appropriate committee, and that is why the leader of this party has raised this question of privilege today.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief in what I have to say. There may be, at some stage or other, some confusion in the use of the word government. Some people use the word government meaning the bureaucracy-the public service at the federal level-and some mean that it is all members of Parliament or the parliamentary institution itself. In this discussion today, obviously the word government in the most restrictive sense means the political party which happens to have the executive among its benches who direct the spending of the money and see the results.
I feel quite strongly, and I want to emphasize, as other members have emphasized, that members of Parliament, and that is what they are, who happen to be cabinet ministers, an accident of choice by the Prime Minister or perhaps of wisdom, are receiving through the use of public funds, information which other members of Parliament are not getting. They are, therefore, at an advantage over us. That is not equal or fair.
I can understand that there may be sensitive polls which they may want to withhold for a period of time, possibly for reasons of national security. It might be in the middle of negotiating federal-provincial relations. If there are such polls-


Erik Nielsen: They should pay for them.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Some suggestion has been made that they might pay for them. It may be in the national interest. I will let other speakers speak for themselves. At the very least, they might undertake to communicate those results to the leaders of other parties in the House. Those 12 polls which they may not want to publicize right now would be known to everyone on all sides of the House and we would be on equal footing. That might be a way around those 12 polls if they are going to be withheld. It may not be the best way, but it may be satisfactory. I look forward to the tabling of the other 141 polls.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. What concerns me is the precedent which the government is establishing with regard to the use of polls. For example, if it takes a poll regarding a particular issue and it finds a certain response in the public that it is concerned about, it can then, as was discussed yesterday, engage in an advertising campaign that can be addressed to meet that condition it has found in its polling. Let me illustrate.
In the speaker's guide which has just been given to us it says:
With a charter of rights and freedoms entrenched in the constitution, it would be beyond the power of Parliament or any provincial legislature acting alone to tamper with it.
That is a subject of debate in this House. The government can take a poll to see what the reaction is in the country. If it finds a result it does not particularly agree with or like, it can engage in an advertising campaign-witness the speaker's manual-to see whether it can manipulate public opinion, which in effect makes the work of this House ineffectual. It is doing an end run around the work in this House. That is why the use of polls becomes so devious, destructive, and really affects the members of the House and the work they do here.
Because of this very controversial statement, about which all of us disagree, the debate is going on. We fundamentally are in disagreement with the whole monitoring process in the constitution. Because we are in disagreement, we are debating it. Yet the government can use those polls and use an advertising campaign in conjunction with those polls to change the attitude of the public rather than allow Parliament full and free debate and let the public understand what is going on in this House.


Madam Speaker:: If there had been a speaker on the government side of the House, I would have heard him. I feel that the last speakers more or less brought forth the same argument. I will now cut off the debate and take this question of privilege under advisement. It is very close to the one that was discussed yesterday. In examining this, I might look at them together. I will look at them, especially the second one, in light of the precedents, because the arguments brought forward do not relate very closely to the question of privilege. However, I will take it under advisement.


MR. NIELSEN-STATEMENT MADE BY MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am glad to see the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) in her seat. The question of privilege I have to raise arises as a result of an exchange between the minister and myself yesterday where the minister, at page 3528 of Hansard, used these words. Referring to myself, she said:
He is misleading the House right now.
It has long been our practice to avoid the use of such terms in the House, or to qualify them. Certainly it is open to the minister to make a qualification such as "inadvertently misleading" or "unintentionally misleading," which is often done in debate.
May I refer the Chair to page 108 of Beauchesne's fifth edition, the bottom of the page, where the term "mislead" is set out under subsection (2) of 319 of Beauchesne. It states:
Since 1958, it has been ruled unparliamentary to use the following expressions:
October 10, 1980

That appears on page 105. There follows a list of those expressions. At page 108 the term "mislead" is included as being one of those expressions which is unparliamentary and the reference is to the debate of January 18, 1958 at page 3346. Again at page 109 references to "deliberately misleading", "deliberately misled" and "wilfully misled" are included as unparliamentary. As well, I might point out there is the expression "attempting to misrepresent". Even an attempt is unparliamentary as a reference. At page 112 of Beauchesne, about two thirds of the way down the page, again the term "mislead" is mentioned as being unparliamentary and also, specifically on point, the term "misleading" is ruled as being unparliamentary in our Debates of April 12, 1960, page 3175. In our Debates of March 7, 1974, at page 257, again "misled" has been held to be unparliamentary.
There seems to be ample evidence in our practices and procedures where that term is unparliamentary. I repeat the term used by the minister, quoting from page 3528 of yesterday's Hansard:
He is misleading the House right now.
I have no objection if the minister wishes to add the word "unintentional" or "inadvertently". Perhaps in the heat of debate it was the minister's own inadvertence or lack of intention to use that kind of term without qualification. I ask her either to withdraw it or qualify it as I have suggested.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is correct. In 1958, the word "mislead" was indeed considered out of order. However, in more recent practice in the House of Commons, it has been allowed provided it was not qualified by the words "intentionally" or "deliberately".
This practice has prevailed in the House in recent years so that, though 1 do not know exactly what the tenor of the intervention of the Minister of Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) will be, in order to respect more recent usage in the House, perhaps she could qualify the term "mislead" that she used yesterday, as she feels she should. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has the floor.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, as a lay person who does not have the benefit of legal training, even after eight years as a member of Parliament in this House, I am still appalled at the subtleties of the game of parliamentary debate. The facts are more simple than that, thank God.
When I left the House of Commons after yesterday's question period, a reporter showed me a document. It appeared to be a memo to cabinet and spoke of an immunization program costing $6 million. That does not come from our government, so I do not quite know the parameters of the game being played here in accusing us of having cut programs for children. This was not in our programs because it does not fall under federal jurisdiction. It is not for me to comment on views
Order Paper Questions
regarding confidential documents expressed by anybody in this House.
If it is better rhetoric to say "inadvertently misleading the House", of course I will add that adverb with great pleasure.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, do I clearly understand the Chair's ruling here that it is now parliamentary to use the term "misleading" or "misled" without qualification?


Madam Speaker:: It is my understanding that you are quite right, that in Beauchesne's 1958 edition the term "misled" was listed as unparliamentary.


Erik Nielsen: In 1974, page 109.


Madam Speaker:: In 1974?


Erik Nielsen: If it pleases the Chair, at page 112 in our debates of March 7, 1974, page 257, the term "misled".


Madam Speaker:: That is what I was suggesting to the hon. member, that before that the term was considered to be unparliamentary, but in more recent practices of the House it has been admitted as long as it is qualified. It seems to me that if a member rises, as the hon. minister has done now, adding, as she has, "inadvertently" to the term "misled", this should satisfy the hon. member.


Erik Nielsen: Indeed it does, and I thank the minister for that.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 412 to 423 inclusively, 1,336 and 1,499.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

INFANT MORTALITY RATES Questions Nos. 412 to 423 inch-Mr. Orlikow:


[Stage Direction]
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79 (i) what were the three major causes of death (ii) what was the death rate per 1,000 live births from each cause of death in the province of Manitoba of status Indian children?
2.	For the same years, what were the comparative Figures for the rest of the population in the province?
[Stage Direction]
October 10, 1980
Order Paper Questions
[Stage Direction]
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79 (i) what were the three major causes of death (ii) what was the death rate per 1,000 live births from each cause of death in the province of British Columbia of status Indian children?
2.	For the same years, what were the comparative figures for the rest of the population in the province?
[Stage Direction]
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79 (i) what were the three major causes of death (ii) what was the death rate per 1,000 live births from each cause of death in the province of Alberta of status Indian children?
2.	For the same years, what were the comparative figures for the rest of the population in the province?
[Stage Direction]
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79 (i) what were the three major causes of death (ii) what was the death rate per 1,000 live births from each cause of death in the Northwest Territories of status Indian children?
2.	For the same years, what were the comparative figures for the rest of the population in the territories?
[Stage Direction]
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79 (i) what were the three major causes of death (ii) what was the death rate per 1,000 live births from each cause of death in the Yukon Territory of Status Indian children?
2.	For the same years, what were the comparative figures for the rest of the population in the territory?
[Stage Direction]
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79 (i) what were the three major causes of death (ii) what was the death rate per 1,000 live births from each cause of death in the province of Ontario of status Indian children?
2.	For the same years, what were the comparative figures for the rest of the population in the province?
[Stage Direction]
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79 (i) what were the three major causes of death (ii) what was the death rate per 1,000 live births from each cause of death in the province of Quebec of status Indian children?
2.	For the same years, what were the comparative figures for the rest of the population in the province?
[Stage Direction]
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79 (i) what were the three major causes of death (ii) what was the death rate per 1,000 live births from each cause of death in the province of Newfoundland of status Indian children?
2.	For the same years, what were the comparative figures for the rest of the population in the province?
[Stage Direction]
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79 (i) what were the three major causes of death (ii) what was the death rate per 1,000 live births from each cause of death in the province of New Brunswick of status Indian children?
2.	For the same years, what were the comparative figures for the rest of the population in the province?
[Stage Direction]
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79 (i) what were the three major causes of death (ii) what was the death rate per 1,000 live births from each cause of death in the province of Nova Scotia of status Indian children?
2.	For the same years, what were the comparative figures for the rest of the population in the province?
[Stage Direction]
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79 (i) what were the three major causes of death (ii) what was the death rate per 1,000 live births from each cause of death in the province of Saskatchewan of status Indian children?
2.	For the same years, what were the comparative figures for the rest of the population in the province?
[Stage Direction]
1.	For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79 (i) what were the three major causes of death (ii) what was the death rate per 1,000 live births from each cause of death in the province of Prince Edward Island of status Indian children?
2.	For the same years, what were the comparative figures for the rest of the population in the province?
Monique Bégin: See the tables below for relevant statistical breakdown on a provincial and territorial basis, with the exception of the Atlantic region where information for registered Indians is not available by province. A Canada-wide table is also provided.
Note: Infant mortality rates include deaths from time of birth to age one year. "All causes" is defined as those mentioned on each chart and all other causes of death.
Infant Mortality-1976, 1977, 1978 Indian* and Canadian** Populations-Major Causes and Rates
Question No. 412		
Region	1976	
Population	Cause	Rate
Manitoba		
Indian	Certain perinatal causes	8.01
	Infective, parasitic diseases	7.12
	Respiratory diseases	5.34
	All causes	30.25
All other children	Certain perinatal causes	7.41in Manitoba	Congenital anomalies	2.69Ill-defined conditions	1.85All causes	15.601977	1978	Cause	Rate	Cause	RateCertain perinatal causes	11.38	Certain perinatal causes	9.78Respiratory diseases	7.11	Ill-defined conditions	5.59Infective, parasitic diseases	4.27	Congenital anomalies	5.59All causes	34.9	All causes	26.55Certain perinatal causes	7.86	Certain perinatal causes	6.77Congenital anomalies	2.88	Congenital anomalies	2.74Ill-defined conditions	2.16	Ill-defined conditions	1.40All causes	16.62	All causes	13.70
Source: Medical services branch-Annual report
Source: Statistics Canada-Vital statistics: volume III-deaths 1976, 1977, 1978
October 10, 1980

Order Paper Questions
Infant Mortality-1976, 1977, 1978 Indian* and Canadian** Populations-Major Causes and Rates
Question No. 413		
Region	1976	
Population	Cause	Rate
British Columbia		
Indian	Certain perinatal causes	15.13
	Ill-defined conditions	9.55
	Respiratory diseases	4.78
	All causes	40.61
All other children	Certain perinatal causes	6.39in British Columbia	Congenital anomalies	3.24Ill-defined conditions	1.87All causes	13.811977	1978	Cause	Rate	Cause	RateCertain perinatal causes	11.66	Certain perinatal causes	7.85Ill-defined conditions	10.10	Respiratory diseases	7.85Respiratory diseases	4.66	Ill-defined conditions	4.71All causes	41.18	All causes	28.25Certain perinatal causes	6.04	Certain perinatal causes	4.94Congenital anomalies	3.62	Congenital anomalies	3.22Ill-defined conditions	2.01	Ill-defined conditions	1.61All causes	14.81	All causes	12.70
Source: Medical services branch-Annual report
Source: Statistics Canada-Vital statistics: volume III-deaths 1976, 1977, 1978
Infant Mortality-1976, 1977, 1978 Indian* and Canadian** Populations-Major Causes and Rates
Question No. 414		
Region	1976	
Population	Cause	Rate
Alberta		
Indian	Certain perinatal causes	6.69
	Respiratory diseases	4.18
	Ill-defined conditions	3.35
	All causes	25.94
All other children	Certain perinatal causes	6.77in Alberta	Congenital anomalies	2.60Ill-defined conditions	2.15All causes	14.251977	1978	Cause	Rate	Cause	RateCertain perinatal causes	6.53	Certain perinatal causes	7.36Ill-defined conditions	6.53	Congenital anomalies	4.09Accidents, violence	2.45	Ill-defined conditions	2.45All causes	21.21	All causes	19.62Certain perinatal causes	4.92	Certain perinatal causes	3.81Congenital anomalies	2.52	Congenital anomalies	3.13Ill-defined conditions	2.08	Ill-defined conditions	2.48All causes	11.21	All causes	11.40
Source: Medical services branch-Annual report
Source: Statistics Canada-Vital statistics: volume III-deaths 1976, 1977, 1978
Infant Mortality-1976, 1977, 1978 Indian* and Canadian** Populations-Major Causes and Rates
Question No. 415		
Region	1976	
Population	Cause	Rate
Northwest Territories		
Indian	Certain perinatal causes	16.04
	Ill-defined conditions	16.04
	Respiratory diseases	10.70
	All causes	58.82
All other children	Certain perinatal causes	12.68in Northwest Territories	Respiratory diseases	9.30Ill-defined conditions	4.23All causes	34.661977	1978	Cause	Rate	Cause	RateCertain perinatal causes	26.18	Certain perinatal causes	11.49Respiratory diseases	15.71	Congenital anomalies	11.49Ill-defined conditions	5.24	Ill-defined conditions	5.75All causes	57.59	All causes	40.22Certain perinatal causes	13.46	Certain perinatal causes	10.80Respiratory diseases	5.05	Ill-defined conditions	6.65Congenital anomalies	3.36	Congenital anomalies	2.49All causes	29.44	All causes	23.30
Source: Medical services branch-Annual report
Source: Statistics Canada-Vital statistics: volume III-deaths 1976. 1977, 1978

October 10, 1980
Order Paper Questions
Infant Mortality-1976, 1977, 1978
	Indian* and Canadian**		Populations-Major Causes and Rates			
Question No. 416						
Region	1976	1977	1978	Population	Cause	Rate	Cause	Rate	Cause	RateYukon	Indian	Certain perinatal causes	32.79	Respiratory diseases	31.75	Respiratory diseases	16.39	Accidents, violence	15.87	All causes	49.18	All causes	47.62	All causes	0.00All other children	Certain perinatal causes	11.16	Certain perinatal causes	7.04	Certain perinatal causes	4.47in Yukon	Respiratory diseases	4.46	Respiratory diseases	7.04	Congenital anomalies	4.47Ill-defined conditions	4.46	Ill-defined conditions	2.24All causes	22.31	All causes	14.09	All causes	12.50Source: Medical services branch-Annual report	Source: Statistics Canada	- Vital statistics: volume III-deaths	1976, 1977, 1978	Question No. 417 Region	Indian* 1976	Infant Mortality-1976, 1977, 1978 and Canadian** Populations-Major Causes and Rates 1977	1978	Population	Cause	Rate	Cause	Rate	Cause	RateOntario	Indian	Certain perinatal causes	13.38	Accidents, violence	8.98	Certain perinatal causes	8.89Respiratory diseases	4.78	Respiratory diseases	4.49	Accidents, violence	3.56Congenital anomalies	4.78	Certain perinatal causes	4.49	Congenital anomalies	3.56All causes	26.77	All causes	26.95	All causes	24.00All other children	Certain perinatal causes	5.86	Certain perinatal causes	5.12	Certain perinatal causes	4.85in Ontario	Congenital anomalies	2.91	Congenital anomalies	2.58	Congenital anomalies	2.96Ill-defined conditions	1.57	Ill-defined conditions	1.64	Ill-defined conditions	1.66All causes Source: Medical services branch-Annual report Source: Statistics Canada-Vital statistics: volume III	12.35 All causes -deaths 1976, 1977, 1978	11.27	All causes	11.30Infant Mortality-1976, 1977. 1978	Indian*	and Canadian**	Populations-Major Causes and Rates	Question No. 418	Region	1976	1977	1978	Population	Cause	Rate	Cause	Rate	Cause	RateQuebec***	Indian	Certain perinatal causes	13.39	Certain perinatal causes	7.41	Respiratory diseases	7.54Respiratory diseases	6.69	Ill-defined conditions	7.41	Ill-defined conditions	5.03Congenital anomalies	4.02	Respiratory diseases	4.94	Certain perinatal causes	5.03All causes	34.87	All causes	34.57	All causes	30.15All other children	Certain perinatal causes	5.65	Certain perinatal causes	5.52	Certain perinatal causes	5.08in Quebec	Congenital anomalies	3.31	Congenital anomalies	3.67	Congenital anomalies	3.81Respiratory diseases	0.80	Respiratory diseases	0.85	Ill-defined conditions	0.73All causes	11.79	All causes	12.38	All causes	11.90Source: Medical services branch- annual report	Source: Statistics Canada	-Vital statistics: volume III	-deaths 1976, 1977, 1978	Infant Mortality-1976, 1977, 1978	Indian*	and Canadian**	Populations-Major Causes and Rates	Questions Nos. 419, 420, 421, 423	Region	1976	1977	1978	Population	Cause	Rate	Cause	Rate	Cause	RateAtlantic	Indian	Ill-defined conditions	11.83	Ill-defined conditions	5.43	Ill-defined conditions	4.90Congenital anomalies	5.92	Congenital anomalies	5.43	Congenital anomalies	4.90Accidents, violence	5.92	All causes	23.67	All causes	10.86	All causes	9.80
October 10, 1980

Order Paper Questions
Infant Mortality-1976, 1977, 1978
	Indian*	and Canadian** Populations-Major Causes and Rates				
Questions Nos. 419, 420, 421, 423						
Region	1976	1977	1978	Population	Cause	Rale	Cause	Rate	Cause	RateAll Other Children in Nfld.	Certain perinatal causes	7.66	Certain perinatal causes	3.67	Certain perinatal causes	6.93Congenital anomalies	3.54	Congenital anomalies	3.28	Congenital anomalies	3.15Respiratory diseases	1.34	Ill-defined conditions	0.91	Ill-defined conditions	0.94All causes	15.61	All causes	9.75	All causes	12.20P.E.l.	Certain perinatal causes	8.76	Certain perinatal causes	7.62	Certain perinatal causes	1.51Congenital anomalies	2.58	Congenital anomalies	5.08	Congenital anomalies	3.53Ill-defined conditions	2.06	Ill-defined conditions	3.05	Ill-defined conditions	1.51All causes	14.43	All causes	18.79	All causes	7.60N.S.	Certain perinatal causes	4.76	Certain perinatal causes	4.21	Certain perinatal causes	5.42Congenital anomalies	4.68	Congenital anomalies	3.81	Congenital anomalies	3.51Ill-defined conditions	2.11	Ill-defined conditions	2.27	Ill-defined conditions	1.75All causes	13.81	All causes	11.59	All causes	11.90N.B.	Certain perinatal causes	5.93	Certain perinatal causes	5.21	Certain perinatal causes	4.82Congenital anomalies	3.47	Congenital anomalies	3.91	Congenital anomalies	3.52Ill-defined conditions	2.03	Ill-defined conditions	2.35	Ill-defined conditions	1.58All causes	13.21	All causes	13.38	All causes	11.80Source: Medical services branch-Annual report	Source: Statistics Canada	-Vital Statistics: volume III	-deaths 1976,	1977, 1978	Infant Mortality-1976, 1977, 1978	Indian*	and Canadian** Populations-Major Causes and Rates	Question No. 422	Region	1976	1977	1978	Population	Cause	Rate	Cause	Rate	Cause	RateSaskatchewan	Indian	Respiratory diseases	9.59	Certain perinatal causes	9.58	Certain perinatal causes	8.06Infective, parasitic diseases	6.39	Congenital anomalies	8,84	Respiratory diseases	8.06Certain perinatal causes	5.60	Respiratory diseases	6.63	Congenital anomalies	5.87All causes	31.18	All causes	39.79	All causes	33.72All other children	Certain perinatal causes	6.07	Certain perinatal causes	6.24	Certain perinatal causes	6.34in Saskatchewan	Congenital anomalies	3.07	Congenital anomalies	2.79	Congenital anomalies	3.02Respiratory diseases	1.94	Ill-defined conditions	2.24	Ill-defined conditions	1.75All causes	14.34	All causes	15.09	All causes	14.30Source: Medical services	branch-Annual report	Source: Statistics Canada	.-Vital Statistics: volume III-	-deaths 1976, 1977, 1978	Question No. 412 to 423 Region Population	Indian* 1976 Cause	Infant Mortality-1976, 1977, 1978 and Canadian** Populations-Major Causes and 1977 Rate Cause	Rates Rate	1978 Cause	RateTotal	Indian	Certain perinatal causes	10.23	Certain perinatal causes	10.09	Certain perinatal causes	8.01Respiratory diseases	5.97	Respiratory diseases	6.36	Congenital anomalies	5.39Ill-defined conditions	4.97	Ill-defined conditions	4.83	Respiratory diseases	4.28All causes	32.36	All causes	36.78	All causes	26.52All other children	Certain perinatal causes	6.08	Certain perinatal causes	5.45	Certain perinatal causes	5.05Congenital anomalies	3.11	Congenital anomalies	3.11	Congenital anomalies	3.27Ill-defined conditions	1.44	Ill-defined conditions	1.52	Ill-defined conditions	1.48All causes	13.03	All causes	12.46	All causes	12.00
Source: Medical services branch-Annual report
Source: Statistics Canada-Vital statistics: volume 111-deaths 1976, 1977, 1978

October 10, 1980
Order Paper Questions


Mr. MacKay: 1.	How many Department'of National Revenue (Taxation) field personnel are employed by the Halifax district office in the category of (a) basic file auditor (b) senior business file auditor (c) business file auditor (d) field auditor (e) special investigator (0 senior basic file investigators?
2.	(a) What is the average meal, travel and incidental allowances provided such field personnel on a daily and weekly basis (b) what accounting procedure is used to verify the allowances (c) are the allowances taxable?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.	(a) 3
(b)	6
(c)	11
(d)	19
(e)	11
(0 0
2.	(a) Allowances for employees when travelling:
Meals (per diem)-Up to $19.25 Incidental expense (per diem)-$4.60 Travel rates for authorized official use of private cars (Nova Scotia)
First 4,000 miles-25 cents per mile Next 4,000 miles-21 cents per mile Over 8,000 miles-18.5 cents per mile
Hotel costs average $25.00 a day depending on location.
(b) All accounting procedures for verifying allowances are governed by Treasury Board regulations and policies laid down in the Finance Administration Act. Each travel claim is, however, initially checked by the auditor's immediate supervisor and then authorized by the responsibility centre manager before being processed for payment.
(c) No: they are reimbursement of expenses.


Mr. Benjamin: 1.	Under the terms of the lease between the government and Allimor Corporation signed in 1977 concerning the use of federal property for the business of the Confederation Place Hotel at Kingston, Ontario (a) how many square feet of property were leased to the corporation (b) what was the total annual rent for each year?
2.	Were amendments made to the 1977 lease and/or was a new lease drawn up concerning the use of additional property by the corporation, and, if so, in each case (a) on what date (b) how many square feet of property was leased (c) what was the total annual rent (d) on what date was the corporation billed for the use of the additional property?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. (a) 0.0471 hectares.
(b) $3,520 per annum for each of the first five years. Rent to be reviewed at end of each five-year period.
2. The lease is currently being amended:
(a)	Effective December 1, 1979.
(b)	0.0951 hectares including the area in 1. (a).
(c)	$7,020 annually.
(d)	The corporation will not be billed until the lease is executed.
All rent due has been paid to May 31, 1980.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration from Thursday, October 9, 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
October 10, 1980
[Stage Direction]
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. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to speak for four minutes yesterday evening before the debate was interrupted, and I see that it is now almost one o'clock. With your permission, may we call it one o'clock and resume the debate this afternoon?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. When the House took recess at one o'clock this afternoon, government order No. 18 was under consideration and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy Mines and Resources (Mr. MacLaren) had the floor.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time I have begun this speech, and I hope that I may be able to complete it this afternoon.
As we adjourned our sitting last night, I was saying that today, 113 years after confederation, we are once again engaged in nation-building. Today we have before us legislation which sets forth three broad objectives-three Canadian imperatives for our constitution.
The first is to patriate the various acts which will then become the new Constitution of Canada, and to end our anachronistic legislative dependence upon another Parliament.
The Constitution
Second, we wish to entrench a Canadian charter of rights, including mobility rights and minority language education.
Third, we wish to entrench the principle of equality for all Canadians wherever they live.
Others have spoken and others will speak of the procedures of patriation which are set forth in the legislation. They will speak about the proposed methods of amendment to the constitution when it becomes a Canadian constitution in the fullest sense of that word, but this afternoon I want to speak about another matter.
I want to speak about one of the principal rights that is guaranteed in the new constitution, the right of every Canadian to live and to work for himself or herself in any part of Canada and to provide for his or her family in any part of Canada in which he or she chooses to live. In doing so I shall emphasize the importance of these rights to each and every Canadian. They are as well rights designed to encourage the economic integration of the Canadian union in a highly competitive world.
Mobility rights are important to every Canadian. Indeed, most Canadians would assume that they have the right to move about their country and to live and work where they will. About half of the Canadian population moves every five years. Statistics show that one Canadian in every 20 moves from one province to another once every five years.
Extrapolating past trends indicates that mobility rates are very likely to increase. The guarantee of mobility rights is one part of a yet wider guarantee of movement which is essential to making a success of an economic union. Among other things, the Fathers of Confederation knew that the continuation of the customs barriers on manufactured goods and produce which had marked the colonies of British North America had merely served to weaken them all. When the Fathers of Confederation moved toward the British North America Act, they were on the one hand fearful of the British free trade policy, which seemed to call into jeopardy the health of the British North America economy. They were also fearful of the United States abandonment of reciprocity, that is free trade in North America of manufactured goods. So the Fathers of Confederation rightly recognized that economic forces were making for co-operation in British North America, in addition to the various political forces which were also lending impetus to partnership. They wisely sought an economic union for the mutual benefit of all.
In the British North America Act, section 91 substantiates this approach by giving the federal government the fiscal and monetary powers necessary in a customs union, including the tools necessary to ensure the viability of a common market, that is, a common postal service, weights and measures, the census and statistics, matters relating to bankruptcy, patents and copyrights, unemployment insurance and competition policy.
The power to establish interprovincial and international transport policy required to enhance our economic integration

October 10, 1980
The Constitution
was also set forth in section 91 and in the exceptions to exclusive provincial powers which are to be found in section 92.
To further substantiate our economic union, the British North America Act provided for a single currency, a banking system and other necessary monetary instruments, along, of course, with the highly important trade and commerce power granted in section 91, which ensures basic federal economic paramountcy.
Additionally, however, to underline the nature of the economic union which was being created, the British North America Act, in section 121, states:
All articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of any one of the provinces shall, from and after the union, be admitted free into each of the other provinces.
It was no accident that the Fathers of Confederation entrenched these rights of the federal government in the BNA Act because they were conscious of the problems that would be created if the barriers continued among the future provinces of Canada. Unfortunately, experience has shown that the fears of the Fathers of Confederation were well warranted. Today, of course, section 121 may be read as being intended to include services, capital and labour, as well as the free movement of goods, but in the face of increasing interprovincial barriers it is now seen by many as insufficiently explicit. With notable ingenuity, provinces have discovered other regulatory devices which have the same effect as customs duties, those duties which were eliminated at the time of confederation, and thereby, in effect, they can circumvent section 121.
It has been the recent experience in Canada that provinces have focused increasingly on the means to improve their own narrow economic performance, especially high value added activities. As a result, many provincial policies now weaken the common market, reducing gains that could otherwise be generated by industrial specialization, and labour and capital are not being used as efficiently as possible.
As each province seeks greater industrial and economic growth, they have sometimes, either wittingly or unwittingly, entered into competition with one another. Let me give a few examples of such barriers and obstructions as exist today. I shall do so with reference to three areas: the free movement of goods, the free movement of capital, and the free movement of labour.
In the case of goods, we see procurement practices on the part of provinces which extend to construction contracts as well as the purchase of goods, a necessity for a high degree of provincial content which can detract from the efficiency of Canadian manufacturing and construction industries. In the case of marketing boards, there are limitations and established prices which can hinder interprovincial trade. In the uniformity of legislation, provinces can cut across the intention of a common market, of a customs union even, by putting up terms and conditions which hinder the nature of interprovincial trade.
Similarly in transportation, particularly in the trucking industry, we have many examples of obstruction and lack of
reciprocity which contribute to the breaking down of the real benefits which otherwise should accrue from interprovincial commerce. Equally in the case of the free movement of capital, subsidies to provincial companies, provincial investment tax credits, the regulation of security markets by provinces can all lead to a lack of co-ordination and to competition among provinces. There have, of course, been cases of provincial interference in takeover bids, and members of the House are aware of such recent instances in British Columbia and in Quebec. The competition policy itself can cause difficulties in interjurisdictional disputes. Pension plans may vary from province to province in such a way as to hinder the movement of capital. Land sales and provincial investment plans can be regulated in such a way as to prevent or lessen opportunities for other Canadians to participate in the total national development of our country.
But it is on the third area, that of mobility of labour, that I wish to spend a few minutes because it is specifically that right which is now being placed in our constitution. I do not need to remind some of my colleagues in the House of the various local hiring restrictions which may be found in provincial legislation. I would cite the petroleum and natural gas act of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia's act respecting petroleum resources, the Quebec construction industry's labour relations act, Saskatchewan lease agreements with resource development companies seeking licences to operate, and, of course, many other examples could be offered. The point is that under such legislation, which also extends to restrictions on the freedom of movement of professionals as well of skilled and unskilled labour, requirements are imposed which discriminate in favour of provincial residents. To take only one example of many, in Alberta a pharmacist must have resided in the province for three months before he can apply for registration, and the waiting period in Ontario for a pharmacist is six months. Those in the House who are lawyers will be aware equally of the residency restrictions which are placed on the movement of lawyers within our country.
No one would dispute the fact that the provinces have jurisdiction over labour under section 92 of the BNA Act. They can set forth the conditions of employment, the licensing of professionals, and they can legislate labour laws, but these undeniable powers are sometimes distorted or extended in such a way as to cause increasing obstacles to the full realization of our total economic potential.
The impact of these barriers must be evident to anyone who would recognize that any such interprovincial barriers to the movement of labour, capital and goods prevent all Canadians from achieving the benefits which would flow naturally from our full economic integration. We lose, by such barriers, the benefit of a greater scale of production, the benefits of specialization, and the full benefits that can accrue from the snaring of joint services in transportation and in communications.
[DOT] (M20)
Most of all, the barriers can reduce Canada's ability as a nation to compete in a difficult world market and to negotiate
October 10, 1980

with other countries on a standing of equality in international trade relations. Such provincial competition serves to reduce our national efficiency. Of course it may alter the division of the economic pie, but certainly it makes it smaller. In the end such internal competition is merely self-defeating and invites retaliation.
Let me quote the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) on that last point. Very recently he stated:
-discrimination by one province explicitly gives nine other provinces the right to do the same thing, that is the right to retaliate. And when this happens, no one should think that the weaker provinces will be the beneficiaries. For retaliation is a more effective weapon in the hands of the strong than in the hands of the weak. Furthermore, retaliation is most likely to take place at times of economic difficulties and this will only compound the problems of the less fortunate provinces.
While the world is removing obstacles, we are allowing them to increase. While the world is seeking larger economic units, whether in Latin America, Asia or Europe, we are subdividing ours. Unable to utilize tariffs, quotas and certain kinds of indirect taxes for constitutional reasons, the provinces have developed partial substitutes by way of subsidies, regulation of industry, moral suasion, provincial or public ownership, and other devices. But, have we not travelled this road before? Well-documented studies clearly point to the unwelcome effects of prolonged protection of the Canadian market on the efficiency of industry, the high degree of foreign ownership in Canada and the uneven distribution of gains and losses by our various regions. Are we seriously proposing to travel that route in yet smaller provincial markets?
In the new Canada Act we recognize the fundamental nature of mobility rights. The clause in the new legislation reads as follows:
Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident in Canada has the right (a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and (b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
So, section 121 of the BNA Act which prohibits obstacles to the movement of goods, and this new clause in the legislation guaranteeing mobility rights, serve very real and not hypothetical needs. These rights for the movement of labour, people, goods and capital are essential to our economic development. Also they are essential if we are to reduce economic disparities in our country and achieve the goal of equalization which of course is promised elsewhere in the new legislation, in the new act before us, in the new constitution. We shall not achieve the equalization we seek without the freedom of movement which is also set forth in the legislation.
The principle of mobility of people and labour, is now in our constitution. As in so many other areas, however, the underlying ideas must be seen as implicit rather than explicit. In fact, the clause guaranteeing the freedom of movement is considerably less than some other proposals which have been made during the intense discussions leading up to the debate we are now undertaking. The Quebec government, the Ontario government and others across the country have looked toward the guarantee of the free movement of goods, services, labour and capital in the new constitution.
The Constitution
For example, the constitutional committee of the Canadian Bar Association held that so basic a matter as the degree of a country's economic integration should not be left to changing judicial philosophy but should be articulated in the constitution. Also it urged the need for greater constitutional support of the national market against provincial protectionist policies which could lead to the balkanization of Canada. To a degree that task is still before us. Of course there is provision in the legislation for first ministers' conferences in the two years ahead. It is my hope that the problems of restriction on the interprovincial movement of goods, services and capital will be explicitly prohibited through those further discussions. In any event, we have made progress and we are making progress, in the legislation currently before us, in guaranteeing the freedoms to ensure that we shall be better able to provide every Canadian with a full opportunity to participate in a prosperous economy.
More generally we are participating in a debate which will confirm that with our new constitution at home, amenable to further growth and evolution as necessary by Canadians, we shall affirm our own faith in our own judgment, in the determination of our own domestic arrangements and our own unique way of life.
Victor Hugo once wrote the following:
On resiste a 1'invasion des armees, on ne resiste pas a 1'invasion des idees.
It has been rather picturesquely translated as:
Greater than the tread of mighty armies is an idea whose hour has come.
The hour has come to bring home the Canadian constitution and to guarantee Canadians those rights which are fundamental to the full realization of the partnership of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise as a Canadian. Unlike many of my colleagues on this side of the House I am not a constitutional expert, nor can I hope to rise to the eloquence of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) on the opening day of this historic debate which was unquestionably the finest speech of my leader's political career. It set the tone and very high standard for interventions from hon. members on all sides of the House on this vitally important and lasting resolution for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: This resolution is for all
of us and for all time. On constitutional matters I guess I know as many details about the amending formula and the process of entrenchment of the charter of human rights, indeed the whole mechanism of bringing the British North America Act to Canada, as do most of the 75,000 people I have the honour to represent in Hamilton-Wentworth. I dare say that most of my constituents would agree with the redoubtable former Senator Eugene Forsey when he said:
1 haven't heard anyone say that they couldn't sleep at nights because the constitution wasn't patriated, that they couldn't keep their coffee down in the mornings until we see a charter of human rights, or that they couldn't concentrate on their work until there's an amending formula.

October 10, 1980
The Constitution
I believe my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), can be credited with the saying that "you cannot eat a constitution and constitutions do not employ anybody".
I know from my contact with people, not only throughout my own constituency but during a month-long campaign in the Hamilton West riding and a mid-summer trip to western Canada, that Canadians are far more concerned with the frightening national deficit, ever-increasing unemployment, and the double digit inflation in this country. Even this past week some of my people were wondering why Parliament has been recalled to spend time talking about the constitution, after all we have heard this past summer, and not dealing directly and immediately with a national energy policy. That is not a bad question.
The government may have set December 9 as the deadline for the Special Joint Senate-Commons Committee on Constitutional Reform to complete its hearings, but by December 9 Canadians will be well past the point of no return in terms of any decisions that we make in this Parliament on the average Canadian's budgeting plans for the cost of keeping warm this winter. Whatever results from this great Canadian debate on the constitution will, the government presumes and, we hope, last us for at least another 113 years.
What Canadians in Hamilton-Wentworth, and 1 suspect in a great many other communities as well, would like to know is what kind of energy security will they have for the next three, or indeed, 13 years. When you talk to people about the constitution they really do ask: what is the fuss all about? What is the rush all about? The only person in one of the major towns in my riding, Ancaster, who would venture an opinion on the constitution was an elderly lady who said, "I have got to go and read up on the BNA Act and find out what they are going to do to it". Nobody I questioned at any of the fall fairs knows how it is done or why it needs to be done.
When you talk about cutting ties with Britain, people in my area do get exercised, but their ties with the mother country are more emotional than governmental. But the feeling generally is that bringing home the constitution will not affect the average true Canadian, strong and free, anywhere in Hamilton-Wentworth. Folks do say, though, it is high time we governed ourselves. But then most people think that is what we have been doing all along.
There is widespread concern, confusion, and raising of eyebrows at all the rhetoric at the recent first ministers' conference. Random samplings of my constituents suggest that all ten provincial premiers were guilty of parochialism of the first order. When you ask them how they feel about the new constitution, as proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the folks 1 represent are likely to say that this is not the kind of issue they would expect an opposition party to oppose. Then they add, "But of course nobody here is aware of any of the nasty little wrinkles in it."
This 49-page document before us may be emblazoned with a nice red maple leaf flag, but it is indeed dotted with red flags throughout-those nasty little wrinkles. As my leader put it:
It's a Trojan horse. It looks like it's what we want. It achieves patriation. But it is absolutely dangerous and fundamentally changes the nature of this country.
My leader is dead right. Once that Trojan horse gets inside the walls it will release soldiers who will give many people across this country reason to think about what this government is doing.
The government, through the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, has expressed the hope that this debate will rise above political partisanship. Let me make it clear at the outset-I have two views on letting party allegiance and political bias intrude on an historic debate such as this. The first point 1 will put on record is that I, like all members of this party, favour patriation of the constitution. I believe it is long past due that Canadians should have control over their own constitution. 1 favour the entrenchment of a charter of human rights and fundamental freedoms in that constitution. I do have reservations about the imposition of minority language educational rights in the Prime Minister's announced package. I will deal with that in a moment. I strongly recommend the Bill of Rights, preamble and all, be enshrined in this constitution as a lasting tribute to the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker.
My second point about getting political in this kind of debate is that the Prime Minister has made it impossible to submerge one's partisan stirrings, and at the same time the whole unilateral manner in which this government is proceeding has whipped my feelings as a Canadian into a near frenzy. Concerns have been raised and rebuffed in this chamber about the government keeping up its advertising campaign while this debate is in progress. I am wondering about the travel at taxpayers' expense, such as special government aircraft to the United Kingdom as when Mark and John went off to see the Queen.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Guigan) and the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) had lunch with the Queen at Balmoral Castle. Then they visited with Prime Minister Margeret Thatcher. That is all fine since it was being done through the Canadian High Commission. But now we learn the two ministers have been wining and dining British journalists and publishers around London to explain the government's point of view, that is, the Liberal point of view, the one, dominating party point of view here. And a question which could be asked is whether any of the opposition parties, any spokesmen from the opposition parties, have been getting to these influential people in the United Kingdom. What upsets us is that we, the taxpayers, pay for all of these luncheons and dinners. We are paying for a unilateral action we do not believe in.
The corollary is that the Prime Minister's cabinet will be fanning out all across the country to spread the message, the propaganda, at government expense, at taxpayers' expense- our expense. They will be concentrating, of course, in western
October 10, 1980

Canada where the concern is deepest, the anger more justifiably acute.
There is no government subsidization in this program for opposition members of Parliament to explain the constitution which affects everybody in this nation. There is no hope at all for those who want to go out and express an opposing point of view. We have to do it at our own cost-and we will. The government is spending our money to promote one point of view, the Liberal point of view, and they ask us to keep this debate non-partisan?
The Prime Minister made an admirable start at a non-partisan, balanced and responsible approach to Canada's constitutional reform when he appointed two of Canada's foremost authorities on the subject to co-chair an important task force, the distinguished former premier of Ontario, the Hon. John Robarts, a master of consensus at gatherings like the Confederation for Tomorrow Conference, in Toronto, and his equally qualified Liberal counterpart, the amiable hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin). They became the Banting and Best of constitutional change.
The Pepin-Robarts Task Force on National Unity went from coast to coast listening to the views of hundreds upon hundreds of Canadians as they poured forth their views almost nightly-on national television-on the kind of Canada they wanted to see. Having thus dramatically sampled the grass roots of this country, at a cost of several million dollars to the taxpayers, the task force handed down comprehensive and far-reaching recommendations for the future of the country. Indeed, pretty soon the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton became the constitutional expert most in demand on the nation-wide speaking circuit, through the media, almost eclipsing the acknowledged dean of constitutional commentary in Canada, former Senator Forsey.
But whose face did we see for seemingly endless hours and days on the TV screen right behind or beside the Prime Minister's at the recent federal-provincial conference? Who got the chance to go to London to see the Queen and explain Canada's case? Why, it was that renowned constitutional expert and household name, the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment. Where was the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton? Did anybody ever see his benign countenance on the TV screen during that week-long "Operation Klieg-Light"? Does anybody know if the Minister of Transport was consulted before the Prime Minister's unveiling of this document last week, or whether he was offered any room on the government aircraft which flew off to the United Kingdom this past week carrying the other two ministers to meet the Queen and wine and dine the British press?
I should point out here I am not being mischievously partisan here. I am concerned and disappointed about the Prime Minister freezing out the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton from this historic, symbolic and cataclysmic move of the BNA Act from Britain to Canada. 1 am disappointed because the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton happens to be my MP. My family's Ottawa residence as opposed to our home
The Constitution
in Dundas, Ontario, lies deep within my hon. friend's riding. While I am hoping against hope that he will ever be able to do anything as Minister of Transport to satisfy those of us who are concerned about airport expansion, I had come to expect a somewhat higher profile and, I might add, a much deserved role as one of the fathers of reconfederation. The minister will know that my disappointment is sincere.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am helping both your airports.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: The minister said that he is helping both my airports. I will believe that when I see the results. My concern about the minister's total exclusion from this exercise goes to the very root of this debate and forms the basis of my party's honest objection to what this Liberal government and this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in particular are determined to do. Let me just quote a couple of key recommendations out of the Pepin-Robarts report:
Our conclusion, then, with respect to regionalism parallels our judgment about duality in two ways. First, we accept both of them as basic social and political realities, but we also recognize the legitimate claims of both and the potential they offer to enrich and diversify Canadian life. In other words we accept their existence, we also recognize their value ... we also believe that regionalism in Canadian life is expressed primarily... within the framework of the provinces and we regard the provincial and territorial governments as critical agents in articulating the concerns and aspirations of these regional communities.
Clearly, that endorses the provinces as legitimate spokesmen for the concerns of their regions. One of the most telling sections of the Pepin-Robarts report reads as follows:
-our commitment to the constitution of the Canadian federation that a system with the authority of the state shared by two orders of government-
It says two orders of government.
-each sovereign and at the same time committed to co-operative association with the other under a constitution.
We think that the approach to Canada's problems must be as varied and comprehensive as are the problems themselves. There is no single answer that will do the job.
That, in my view, reflects a view of Canada that flies in the face of the Prime Minister's "this or else" approach. On language rights, which go to the heart of our debate on Canadian unity, the Pepin-Robarts report states:
The principle of the equality of status, rights and privileges of the English and French languages for all purposes declared by the Parliament of Canada, within its sphere of jurisdiction, should be entrenched in the constitution.
Each provincial legislature should have the right to determine an official language or official languages for that province, within its sphere of jurisdiction.
Should all provinces agree on these or any other linguistic rights, these rights should then be entrenched in the constitution.
The operative words there are "should all provinces agree". The Pepin-Robarts report favours entrenchment of rights. However, the implication is that entrenchment should be based on consensus in order to have uniformity. The list of rights should, if necessary, be limited to those on which there is agreement. Here is what the present Prime Minister said, according to an article in The Canadian Forum, published in June, 1962, and I quote from page 53:
I said it earlier: it is necessary to divorce the concepts of the state and of the nation, and to make Canada a society truly pluralist and multinational. And for

October 10, 1980
The Constitution
that, it is necessary to assure to different regions, inside the Canadian state, a large measure of local autonomy, so that through the experience of self-government, the nationals can give themselves laws and institutions indispensable to the growth and progress of their national values. At the same time, and in a movement of withdrawal, it is necessary that British Canadian nationalism consent to change the image it has given to Canada. If it wishes to protect and incarnate its specific ethnic values, it must do it by the machinery of local and regional autonomy, rather than by way of pan-Canadian sovereignty.
Admittedly, this was written 14 years before the Parti Quebecois came into power, but it is still interesting to read what the present Prime Minister had to say in 1962. He went on to say:
Moreover, no provincial frontier coincides exactly with ethnic and linguistic frontiers, and consequently no provincial government is asked by the constitution to legislate only for a single ethnic group-that would tend to develop the nation-state mentality at the provincial level. On this point it would be well if the past attitudes of Quebec towards its national minorities served as an example to provinces which have large French, German, Ukrainian and other minorities.
It would appear that the Prime Minister was expressing ideas in 1962 that his own royal commission reflected 16 or 17 years later. Yet the Prime Minister has rejected the thrust of the Pepin-Robarts report, although you would never have known that to have been the case if you read The Toronto Star article by Terrence Wills on January 27, 1979. The Prime Minister is confidently quoted as saying:
I would be happy to campaign on the Pepin-Robarts (task force) general approach to Canadian unity and the constitution.
I think it is the country's loss that the Prime Minister did not follow his own advice and the advice of his own royal commission, that the thrust of a comprehensive and valuable report such as the Pepin-Robarts document should be simply dismissed by the Prime Minister and his advisers. I am sorry that the spirit of that royal commission is not present either in this proposed constitution or in the unilateral approach the government, of which the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton is a part, is now taking.
I mentioned a few moments ago a concern, a reservation 1 have about the minority language educational rights in the Prime Minister's so-called "people's package". I am worried, indeed convinced, that this proposed resolution here enshrines, enhances, protects part of Quebec's language law Bill 101 forever in the constitution of Canada in so far as Canada's immigrant population is concerned. Section 23(1) does guarantee minority language educational rights if you are a Canadian or a permanent resident and if your mother tongue is either French or English. That right is guaranteed to any Canadian citizen, to enroll their children in schools of first or second official language of their choice, in any province of Canada where numbers warrant minority language educational facilities.
However, that does not extend to any immigrant family going into the province of Quebec. A Portuguese family in Calgary or a newly arrived Hungarian family in Sudbury, or, closer to home, Greek, Dutch or Italian families in my own riding of Hamilton-Wentworth have the choice to educate their children in either English or French schools, where French language educational facilities are now available, except in Quebec.
Section 23(2) says that, in effect, any citizen of Canada moving from one province to another, and in this case it applies particularly to children, have the option of enrolling in the school with the language of their choice, that is, English or French, where numbers warrant in the case of the French language. But any immigrant family, be they our Portuguese friends from Calgary, or the Hungarian family from Sudbury, or the Greek, Dutch or Italian families from my area who move into Quebec must, under Bill 101, have their children enrolled in French schools. I really wonder why should an immigrant family which moves into the province of Quebec not have the same language rights as any immigrant family who, as it states in subsection (2) "changes residence from one province to another"
This is an astonishing omission by a prime minister who claims he is trying to protect minority language rights by enshrining them in his proposed new constitution of Canada, but who appears to be making an exception for the province of Quebec by his very legislation before us now. This document is silent about minority language rights for immigrants.
As I used to say when I was a reporter in the Press Gallery just above you, Mr. Speaker, this is the Prime Minister who, somehow, never quite got around to challenging the legality of Bill 101 in the courts. Now, from the point of view of anyone wanting to move to the province of Quebec, he is virtually enshrining it forever, for all of us, and especially for the vitally important ethno-cultural groups that make Canada such a marvellous mosaic, but which can only feel real freedom in nine provinces out of ten. That kind of principle, enshrined in this proposed constitution of 1980, is totally unacceptable to me as I am sure it will be to any non-Anglo-saxon and non-Francophone groups in Canada:
I should like now to quote the remarks of an acknowledged constitutional expert, as follows:
This proposed new constitution doesn't help the immigrants one scrap. Bill 101 is allowed to continue to ride roughshod over them and it hits their children particularly.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, that "immigrants" in this case does not only apply to Third World people who wish to move to Quebec. Bill 101 affects people who do not know a single word of any other language but English. It applies to a professor coming in from the United Kingdom or the United States, immigrants from Australia, New Zealand, the West Indies-this new constitutional proposal does not look after them at all. Bill 101 takes absolute precedence over any other law. If these various immigrant families knew that this proposed charter of minority language educational rights does nothing to give them the freedom of choice that they have every right to demand, and indeed can receive in the nine other provinces of Canada, then I suspect they might think differently about relocating in the province of Quebec. That would be a shame; it could only cause a further deterioration of the economy of that province.
October 10, 1980

Mr. Speaker, four words uttered at the very beginning of this debate go to the root of this government's intentions, and go to the root of the Canadian federation as we know it. They typify this government's attitude toward the traditions, the conventions, the very idea of what Canada is all about-four words, uttered in a moment of considerable emotion, and in impeccable English by the lead-off speaker for the government, the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), He said "We will change Canada." The emphasis, Mr. Speaker, is on the word "change".
Now, contrary to what those on the government side and our friends on the left might think, the word "change" is not a call to arms to members of my party. I am definitely not one who is in favour of change for the sake of change. Speaking personally, as a progressive kind of Conservative, I welcome change which will truly benefit Canadian society; change which comes about, for example, in response to a social need, through reasoned debate and discussion, change which conserves the best of experience and traditions of the past, as one charts a course for the future. That is the kind of change in which I believe. But as an average Canadian citizen, I cannot help feeling that the present British North America Act has served this country pretty well during the past 113 years.
I know there is a restlessness, among the young people particularly, and in certain areas and regions of this country, about renewing and Canadianizing our constitution. That is an important feeling that must be addressed in any constitutional change. But it is Quebec that wants change most urgently.
All of this can be, and should be, understood by the rest of the country, and by those people who do not see the need for that kind of change-particularly since we have grown of age and no longer need to have our constitution controlled and amended by a foreign country. 1 can understand most Canadians sympathizing with that point of view.
What I very much resent, and I am speaking quite personally now, as a Canadian and as an individual member of Parliament, not necessarily speaking on behalf of my party, is the unseemly haste, the unnecessary tinkering and tampering with a constitution which is not only the foundation of 113 years of this country's lifetime, but a constitution which our Fathers of Confederation built upon the precedents and traditions of several hundred years of the British parliamentary democratic system. That system, as Winston Churchill once put it, may not be the best system in the world, but it surely beats whatever takes second place.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this is a deviously dangerous document. No matter how often we on the opposition side try to point out how profoundly we disagree with certain segments of the Prime Minister's proposed new constitution, members on the government side and members of the media choose to interpret this opposition in totality, if I may use a famous word. They disregard some of our very real concerns about the dangerous aspects of this document and choose to interpret any adverse comment about the Prime Minister's image of the future of our country as, possibly, anti-patriation. Let me make clear on behalf of my party, for myself, and to anybody
The Constitution
who is listening out there, that we favour patriation of the British North America Act. We favour Canadian control over a Canadian constitution. It is high time that we move now, as we should have moved ten or 15 or 20 years ago. Nobody will disagree with that basic principle. But one cannot rush into this kind of thing by a December 9 deadline.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to George Washington, "Delay is preferable to error". I am not suggesting another 53 years' delay, but we do not have to do it by December 9. As I have said, this proposed new constitution is violating a fundamental principle on which this country was built. Whenever you violate a principle, you get a short-term gain but a long-term loss.
The Prime Minister stated at the close of the First Ministers' Conference on the constitution that he sees two concepts of Canada. He saw two irreconcilable versions of this country expressed at the conference. One view, held by some of the provincial premiers, the Prime Minister said, was that Canada is an association of provinces, and that his own view was that Canada "is more than the sum of its parts". The Prime Minister said:
There is a national interest which transcends regional interests. In a conflict between national and provincial interests, the national interest must prevail.
1 found that very interesting. It might interest hon. members to hear the Prime Minister's words from his book, "Federalism and the French Canadian", published in 1968; I quote from page 191 as follows:
Federalism is by its very essence a compromise and a pact... It is a pact or quasi treaty in the sense that the terms of that compromise cannot be changed unilaterally.
1 emphasize the last five words-"compromise cannot be changed unilaterally". These are the Prime Minister's own words, his own writings. The Prime Minister once again chooses to ignore his own advice. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong believer in the principle of a federal government's role: Ottawa must act in the national interest when some premiers are acting as czars in their own regions. But the Prime Minister and I really part company when it comes to how strong the central government should be when conflicts arise.
The Canada I believe in is definitely not the Canada that this present Prime Minister is trying to mold in his own image through constitutional reform. Next time you see a picture of the original Fathers of Confederation, count them: 37 men came to a consensus and created a confederation nearly a century and a quarter ago. Canada then, as now, was in fact and still is a sum of its parts. Of course, then, as now, a strong leadership role was needed in Ottawa. But the federal nature of this country was respected, and it was practised with distinction under 15 prime ministers of Canada until the right hon. member for Mount Royal came along.
The Canada I believe in, and in which I have travelled extensively, really amounts to at least five, six, and I feel maybe seven different countries, or regions, each with its own geographical and sociopolitical point of view: Atlantic Canada,

October 10, 1980
The Constitution
Quebec, Ontario, the prairies, British Columbia, the Yukon and western Arctic, and then perhaps put the eastern Arctic, northern Quebec and Labrador into another not-so-small area.
Within these major regions, you will find developing areas of self-interest and uniqueness. Canada's newest province, Newfoundland, not only resents being lumped in with the maritimes, but one must now refer to Atlantic Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador. I know from sitting immediately behind my hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka that more than geography separates northern Ontario from the more materialistic and heavily populated southern and western parts of this province. I cannot imagine three more unusually different experiences than visiting Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. It is almost impossible to believe they are neighbours. It is almost like comparing Nova Scotians with Prince Edward Islanders or New Brunswick Acadians with the folks you meet in St. Boniface.
As for British Columbia, I have come to respect the description of politics in British Columbia offered by a former colleague of mine in the press gallery, Allan Fotheringham. He describes politics in British Columbia simply as an adventure. Mind you, he does go on to describe politics on the Prairies as a cause; here in Ontario as a business; in Quebec as a religion, and in the maritimes as a disease. That is the mosaic of Canada as seen by Mr. Fotheringham. We are breathlessly awaiting an appropriate description of politics in Newfoundland. 1 am actively consulting the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the hon. member for St. John's West on that matter, Mr. Speaker.
The point I am trying to make is this: as diversified as we are, as many strains as we go through in this nation, we began by consensus. We have survived for 113 years by consensus. Our differences were always reconcilable. They are reconcilable still. What in the world is the use of denying that fact? Why is government moving in a fashion that could tear this country apart?
By nature, I am an optimist. As a Canadian, I have always been fiercely loyal and proud of my country. The Canada I have known, the Canada in which my family and I live today, the Canada I want to see in the future for my son and for his children and for their children, is a country that builds on the 113 years of its past with all its conventions, its traditions, its incredible diversity and its indefinable character. I see a Canada of the present whose people too often take for granted how very lucky we are to live in freedom, and, when one looks around the rest of the world, how remarkably well off we are.
And when emotions cool in the wake of this constitutional revolution, I pray for very positive chances for Canada in the future. But I say this to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau): that future Canada cannot happen unless and until he adopts a more reasonable attitude toward constitutional reform. His government must replace conflict with consensus. It must replace controversy with compromise. It must replace confrontation with toleration.
I urge the government to show respect for Canada's past, to show some understanding of the tensions and differences in Canada's present so that Canada will have a positive and worth-while future.


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest, the resolution we are considering at this time requires the serious and non-partisan attention of all those honoured to sit here in the highest directly-elected position our country affords. Virtually every member of this House will agree that the debate now taking place to resolve the patriation of our constitution is long overdue. We may differ as to the exact contents of the resolution as political parties are wont to do. Surely no one in this chamber shares the reported view of Premier Rene Levesque that our constitution should continue to remain on the other side of the ocean.
A little later in my remarks I want to discuss the provision in this resolution for a deadlock-breaking mechanism by way of a referendum. I want to pay particular attention to what the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) had to say on that subject.
First of all, I would like to make some more general remarks about the constitution itself and the provisions which are contained in this resolution. I think that as Canadians we have long been embarrassed to say in front of an American, or a person from another country, that after 113 years of independence, we still have to go overseas-to England-to request amendments to our constitution and that the British parliament must act with elected representatives from all over the British Isles, none from Canada, to consider Canadian questions.
When I was associated with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, like other members here, I became involved in a discussion one day with a chap from Sierra Leone, and one or two others, and they would not believe me when I told them we still had to go to London to have our constitution amended. It is not only embarrassing, it is unbelievable.
If we accept that such a situation should end, let us examine the question of how it should end. I believe a resolution, such as the one before the House now, preferably with the concurrence of all the provinces, would unquestionably be ideal. This is what, all of us would wish. If there is a difference, perhaps it will lie in the wording I will turn to later-how long can one wait or should one wait to achieve that ideal and whether Canadians are content that we should go on decade after decade without our constitution having been brought home.
Unfortunately, in 53 years of attempts to achieve the desired unanimity among all the provinces, it has not been possible. The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) who has just spoken talked of unseeming haste. I can hardly classify him as a red Tory after that remark; that is some haste-53 years. I believe I can establish pretty reasonably to the benefit of the independent observer that if unanimity were not possible in 53 years it would be no more likely to occur in the 70 years between now and the year 2050. Before I do that let us ask the question: if unanimity cannot be achieved, are we
October 10, 1980

content-the members of this House, the public of Canada- to leave the constitution at Westminster for those 70 more years.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Nobody is saying we should.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You were here on Monday, you heard.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I heard the Leader of the Opposition and I will be turning to his remarks in due course.


An hon. Member:: What are you talking about?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I appreciate the desire of hon. members to make interventions, but I want them to hear me out for a while.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Stay with the facts and we will.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I will stay very close to the facts indeed.
Each person is entitled in this debate to express his or her own opinion in this forum of democracy. Surely at the end of this debate, the rules for determining a majority will prevail only after a serious and detailed study of the provisions of the resolution and of possible alternatives. But as one legislator, the opinion I express and the way I shall vote will be in the direction of patriating our constitution at last in a final, substantive and also symbolically important move to establish our destiny as a great and free country.
It is high time we did this. No longer can excuses be found for further delay. Perhaps the hope that we harboured for so long in this country and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) pursued for some 12 years, that of achieving unanimity among ten provincial governments with ten different interests and points of view, was too much to cherish. Certainly the president of the United States would not call together the 50 governors and expect them to agree unanimously on anything. Let me give an example.
There are deeply-held views as to whether civil rights should be entrenched in the constitution. I happen to believe it should be in today's society, but is it likely or logical that ten premiers would have a unanimous opinion on whether civil rights should be entrenched? If you take any ten people, one or two will feel the system works better without entrenchment of rights. 1 think the majority would feel they should be entrenched. I use that to illustrate that to achieve unanimity on all the items that go together to make up this resolution is a virtually impossible task.
If one accepts my position that inability to achieve unanimity cannot be allowed to thwart indefinitely the aspirations of the Canadian people to bring their own constitution to Canada, the next question that follows is whether we have tried hard enough and long enough to achieve unanimity and whether further efforts would be likely to yield different results. On that point I speak from the vantage point of having participated in the constitutional renewal process as a provincial premier from, if you like, the other side of the table and the other point of view.
The Constitution
While I served as premier of Nova Scotia, I participated in the constitutional first ministers' conference at Victoria in 1971. In succeeding years, I took part in 23 first ministers' conferences. In Victoria, there were people like Premier Strom, for whom I have always had a great respect, Premier Bourassa, the late W. A. C. Bennett and various others who were premiers at that time. Those who held office changed as years passed.
In those 23 first ministers' conferences I came to know how they operate in closed sessions as well as in public. Of course, the talk changes when the prime minister and the premiers go into a closed room. Nine and a half years ago in Victoria we came closer to unanimity on the constitution than ever before, or since. We were closer than is likely ever to happen again, given the emergency of the resource issue and the growing tendency of many premiers to hold Canada's aspiration for patriation of the constitution hostage for the yielding of evermore federal powers to the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: My remarks are consistent. When I was a provincial premier, I believed in a strong central government as being the essence of Canada, and as a "fed", 1 continue to believe in it just as strongly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: I do not fault some premiers because they have a different view of their responsibilities. They have the problem of meeting the demands of their people and the frustration of limited powers in doing so. Some would say these negotiations have dragged on. As new issues have come forth, they would agree to entrench civil rights if more federal power would be given to the provinces. They want to trade the people's rights for more power for their governments.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Gerald Augustine Regan: I do not even say "shame!" I say it is unfortunate. It is misguided. It is not a process that will bring us a new Canadian constitution because we already have the most decentralized federation in the free world. We must retain a residual amount of power, financial power, in the central government or the country will become balkanized with very different levels of standard of living and nothing in common which can hold nationhood together.
For a period of time after Victoria and in those succeeding conferences, I believed that continuing efforts would overcome the outstanding issues. At Victoria we came very close. Only one government held out against unanimity. I thought that through compromise, persuasion, the passage of time and other meetings we might perhaps achieve unanimity. What I did not then realize but now see clearly is that it does not work that way. The identities of premiers and parties of government keep changing. If there is one characteristic of a new government, it is the desire to distinguish its policies from that of its predecessor. It seems to be a primary requirement for new governments to do this, regardless of what their politics may be. The result

October 10, 1980
The Constitution
is that just when unanimity seems in sight, you have a crop of premiers with new and different demands. Like the child's game of red light, you have to go back to the starting line and start all over again. That is what our society has done.
When I was defeated as premier in September, 1978,1 was the senior premier of all the provinces. In other words, I had been premier longer than anyone in the country, except for the national Prime Minister, and that was after only eight years in office. I think this illustrates the rate of turnover in a business that is characterized by a lack of security of tenure. That of course complicates the problem of new governments coming in with new issues.
As premier, I wanted the principle of equalization entrenched in the constitution. I am mighty happy to find that it is going to be. That is what I was laying on the table when looking at it from a provincial point of view.
My successor in that office in Nova Scotia has new and different demands to place on the table as a condition precedent to agreeing to patriation of our constitution, as do many of the other premiers. I suggest it will always be thus if we continue the barren search for unanimity. I have therefore concluded that we are correct, wise and expressing the will of the vast majority of Canadians in moving ahead with patriation at this time.
There is one point I would like to make in that regard. Our great Prime Minister and this government approach this necessity with resignation and with regret that unanimity was not possible.


Benno Friesen: First, the resignation!


Gerald Augustine Regan: Some of his opponents for political purpose try to paint a gleeful picture of the Prime Minister moving ahead without the provinces. All the evidence shows how contrary this is to the truth. Twelve years of patient effort by the Prime Minister to reach agreement with the provinces provides articulate testimony of a determined and sincere effort to achieve unanimity. Twelve years of ever-escalating concessions by the federal government demonstrates remarkable flexibility in the desire to achieve agreement. To me, at least, the foregoing facts require that the present type of action be taken if we are ever to have our own constitution. This I believe.
May I then turn to the contents of the resolution as to whether they are adequate and appropriate to establish a constitution based in Canada which will enable ongoing negotiations with the provinces on any exchanges of powers and responsibilities that will enable our respective levels of government to better serve the people.
First of all, if we are going to bring home the constitution, if we are going to pass the resolution and patriate the constitution, we must have an amending formula. It is necessary because if you do not have a specifically expressed amending formula, a requirement for unanimity might lead to a strait-jacket situation, and no future improvements could be made to
the constitution even though the great majority of provinces would want them.
The question of the type of amending formula is, of course, one on which there has been much debate. I personally agonized over the Victoria formula because it seemed to give a veto by population to some larger provinces but not to some smaller provinces. I cannot accept the concept of two classes of provinces, yet the only alternative might seem to be unanimity, which is worse.
I think the position the Prime Minister has taken has again shown remarkable flexibility. Let us take first the Victoria formula on which we came closest to achieving unanimity, with nine out of ten premiers accepting it and the tenth accepting it for three or four days until he backed down from it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Fourteen days.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Let us take that, but let us provide, as the Prime Minister said at the recent conference, that if the provinces have a better one they can bring it forward. They have two years, I believe it is, in which to do that.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What percentage do they need? I think it is 80 per cent.


Gerald Augustine Regan: He did say that.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is eight provinces, 80 per cent.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is not unanimity.


Gerald Augustine Regan: If the provinces come forward then we can have a plebiscite on the subject.
Let me refer to the second item, the entrenchment of basic civil rights. I believe this is necessary to protect citizens today from any excess of government. I respect those who hold contrary views, but this is obviously a matter to be decided appropriately here by majority opinion.
The third item refers to language rights. Language rights must be included. Surely this is the essence of the commitment we all made as Canadians a few months ago when we were combatting separatism. When that was at its height and when we were not certain how the plebiscite in Quebec would go, each and every one of the premiers and each and every member of this House, or virtually all, would have been prepared to grant that quickly. How quickly we forget. I think this is vital; it is the essence of what our country is all about and it must be included.
What else does this resolution do? It enshrines the principle of equalization. As a Nova Scotian I am delighted with the words. I find that they are very strong and very satisfactory.
I could talk about mobility of workers, which I consider important, but I want to get on with other matters.
The fifth refers to a deadlock-breaking mechanism in the ultimate event of serious and continued difference between the federal and provincial levels of government. That, of course, is
October 10, 1980

very important. One might well ask whether a deadlock-breaking mechanism is necessary or whether a referendum or an appeal directly to the people of Canada is the appropriate mechanism to break that deadlock.
The first thing to remember is that a way to break such a deadlock between provincial and federal interests has always existed. It has existed for the 113 years of our confederation. But that method will go out of existence the instant the constitution is patriated. It will no longer be there. That safety valve will be gone. That residual power has always been vested in the British Parliament, which has the power to amend the BNA Act without unanimous request. It is not important whether or not the British parliament used that power. In an emergency it was there, and the fact that it was known to be there had a salutary effect on many considerations.
When we bring home the constitution we shall be living in new circumstances. The British parliament will be washing its hands of Canada. It will say it will not enact any more legislation, and its members will probably say thank God they are rid of us. But that parliament will no longer be in a position to be the safety valve, no longer there to be the deadlock-breaking mechanism. We must substitute a new dea-lock-breaking mechanism or have none.
I fear that those who assail the deadlock-breaking mechanism by way of referendum have not applied logic to understand the result of not having one. I for one would be extremely uncomfortable to have a constitution in a federal country as diverse and as vast as Canada without provision for an ultimate appeal to the people, or some deadlock-breaking mechanism.
Surely as Canadians, with our fights between the provinces and federal governments, we have demonstrated ample capacity to reach a deadlock. In all such cases does anyone really believe that a strait-jacket of the status quo is preferable to an appeal to the ultimate sovereignty of the people? If that appeal, that deadlock-breaking mechanism, is not to be to the people by way of a referendum, what else? Would it be an appeal to the Dalai Lama, or some other provision? I think that does not make much logic, and that, of course, is where I quarrel with the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is a man for whom I have very considerable respect, a respect beyond that which his office and past offices command, but for him to say in very dramatic fashion that section 42 would or could destroy the provinces and could destroy Canada is a very extraordinary statement.
That right hon. gentleman must know that it provides a narrower opportunity of breaking a constitutional deadlock than presently exists and is, therefore, less of a threat to the provincial powers which he mentions. As long as the constitution remains in England the British parliament has the ultimate residual power to make any change, regardless of how drastic. The constitutional practice has been that the British parliament will act on a resolution of the national Parliament
The Constitution
alone. This government is giving up that residual emergency route in bringing home the constitution.
The only case I know of when a province tried to go directly to the British parliament was after Nova Scotia came into confederation in 1867 without a plebiscite in Nova Scotia and the people objected to what the legislators had done. Joe Howe and some of our other boys went overseas and tried to get the British parliament to reverse it. They went as far as getting an independent, John Bright, to make a speech in the House, but the government at Westminster said then, and they have said ever since, that they will deal with the national government of Canada.
This government has far more power to bypass the provinces than it would have under this new provision. Despite the fact that the power has existed for 113 years it has not been used to destroy the provinces. The Leader of the Opposition by his remarks places less confidence in the Canadian people than he does in the British parliament. I would hate to think he shares with Rene Levesque comfort in retaining a somewhat colonial status, for if he is willing for patriation I find it hard to believe he would want a constitution without a safety valve. Let us see if his fear is well based, or whether it is another case of contrived hysteria.
In what situation would section 42 be used? It would be used if fundamental disagreement existed between the federal government and some premiers on a constitutional amendment that became necessary and important to the country because of circumstances that could not possibly be foreseen now; maybe 50 or 100 years from now. When you lock yourself into a constitution you lock yourself into it forever.
Let us ask how safe is that safety valve? This appeal to the sovereignty of the people when there is a deadlock between the provinces and the federal government does not just require a majority of the people across the country voting for it.
Because of the regional nature of Canada, the Victoria formula requires that a majority of the people in the Atlantic provinces, a majority of the people in Quebec, a majority of the people in Ontario and a majority of the people in the west turn their backs on their premiers and vote for the federal proposition. That is a very dangerous proposition, is it not? Do hon. members remember the days of the clash between the Right Hon. Mr. Diefenbaker when he was prime minister and Joseph Smallwood who was premier of Newfoundland? It had something to do with a strike there. They had a terrible clash. If an appeal had been made by way of a plebescite by the federal government, do hon. members think the federal government would have had any chance of carrying a majority in Newfoundland against Mr. Smallwood? Obviously it would be equally ridiculous today. Let us suppose that a federal government was trying to take resources away from Alberta and a plebescite were called in Alberta. How great are the chances that the people of Alberta would vote against Peter Lougheed, for the "feds" and for a transfer of the resources? Hon.

October 10, 1980
The Constitution
members from Calgary would tell us that the chances are not very great.


Mr. Blaikie:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. The hon. minister seems to be unaware that the proposal as it stands would enable the government to do just that, that it is not a majority in the west but a majority in two of the western-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. That is a point of argument and not a point of order.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I have read the proposal well, and if the hon. member had followed my words, he would know that I was giving him an example of regional feelings, and that is exactly the situation.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Explain P.E.I., then. As a man from Nova Scotia you eliminated P.E.I.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I would like to get on with my own arguments, and if there is time afterwards I would be happy to try to deal with that question.
The Leader of the Opposition suggests that provision 42 could do away with the very existence of our provinces. That is so only if the people of every single region of Canada were insane enough to vote to do away with the provinces. Can hon. members imagine that situation? What the Leader of the Opposition does not say is that equally it can be used to destroy federal powers because in any appeal to the people certainly if the people are going to vote in such an irrational way, there are dangers, but just as much danger to the federal powers.
Let us assume the unlikely proposition that a government such as the one led by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition last year was again elected, with its passionate urge to divest the federal government of many of its powers. Let us assume such a government was trying to give things away to the provinces as the previous government did, the lotteries and everything else. Even if some premiers felt this was bad and that strong central government was important, the Leader of the Opposition, the then prime minister, could, under this provision, appeal over the heads of those premiers who objected and believed in strong central government.
Such a government could appeal in the referendum process and, if the people were foolish enough, he could pass an amendment which would strip the federal government, by referendum, of its powers. It works two ways.
Perhaps either proposition falls into the "pigs might fly" category, but I think that my illustration shows that an appeal to the people region by region is no more dangerous to provincial powers than it is to federal powers. This deadlockbreaking referendum power we have talked about in provision 42 may never need to be used. Its very existence probably will discourage totally unreasonable positions because of that possibility of appeal to the people. The people who are here in this room know the democratic process better than anyone else, and they know very well that no government will make an
appeal by way of a referendum if it thinks it is likely to lose it, because it would lose face and support.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Look at Quebec!


Gerald Augustine Regan: Look at Quebec is right. The essence of our position is that when federal and provincial governments fail to agree on a proposed constitutional amendment, it is because they have different perceptions of what is in the best interests of the Canadian people.
Since both levels are elected by the same people, it is only reasonable that the people themselves should be asked to decide which level of government they agree with and, hence, break the deadlock. However, because we are in a federal system, we are adopting the double-majority system, that is, a majority of the people in the whole country including a majority of the people in each region of the country.
This is not some new and wild idea that is just tossed out now. In the 1979 campaign the Prime Minister talked of the necessity of a deadlock-breaking mechanism by way of referendum. It can only be opposed by the presumption of those who trust politicians more than they trust the basic common sense of the Canadian people.
Premier Blakeney has raised the question as to which level of government should trigger the referendum process. I believe it is appropriate that the level which has always been referred to as the senior level should do that, only because it speaks for citizens in every part of the country, something no one province can do. I admit that the premiers today have a preoccupation with acquiring more power, so perhaps they want to have powers in that regard, but not unnaturally the provinces can seldom agree among themselves, as we saw in the case of the amending formula, so they hardly could be the group to undertake the beginning of the process on a referendum.
In a federation we can make the two levels as equal as we like, but there must be some way to break the deadlock. In such a situation, to give supreme power to the federal government to break the deadlock would lead to a great outcry. To give it to the provinces would be against the obvious will of the Canadian people. So, instead, what this resolution would do would be to give it to neither. It gives that final right to break the deadlock to the sovereignty of the Canadian people.
That was what was done in Australia. The only amending formula there is a referendum based on a resolution of the federal parliament. It is not necessary that the states agree, but the resolution must gain the support of a majority of the people in six states and a national majority. So the situation there is very similar to ours. Has it destroyed the federal system in Australia? Has it destroyed the states? Not only has it not done so but, in fact, only four out of 24 amendments since that country became a federation have passed. Why? It is because the states have been able to defend their interests by going out to their people and urging them as to vote in a certain way. That is the protection that is there. It is the sovereignty of the people.
October 10, 1980

I want to say one other thing about referenda and their effect on this country. These are important words to consider when we talk about whether the public comes up with a wise decision in its vote in a referendum. The Quebec legislature would have voted for separation. There was a majority of separatists. If the final authority in Quebec had been in the legislature, Quebec would have voted for separation. But the people of Quebec voted for Canada in that referendum. That is the difference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: I have one more example of why a referendum has proved to be good in this country. I wish the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) was here. If there had been a vote by those elected to the founding legislature of Newfoundland in 1947, 1948, 1949 or whatever the year they first met was, they would have voted against joining Canada. The hon. member for St. John's West, his family and the rest of the merchants of Water Street were the ones who were deadly against joining Canada.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Don Jamieson.


Gerald Augustine Regan: However, because it was possible to make an appeal to the public by way of plebiscite-the legislature would have voted against Canada-the people of Newfoundland voted for Canada, and that is why Newfoundland is in the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Don Jamieson lost.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I want finally to refer to the irresponsible position taken by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. After going through the whole document trying to find something he could attack, some reason to be different and to justify his position as Leader of the Opposition, his choosing this referendum process is a pretty weak effort.
Mr. Speaker, the national government has responsibilities that no one province can fulfil. The fact is that at federal-provincial conferences, since the very first one, it is always the prime minister of our country who presides. He is the chairman. Whether we like it or not, in a federal system there has to be a difference between the national government and the provincial government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: 1 believe, with all the strength and conviction of my body and soul, that in this resolution the Government of Canada is properly discharging its responsibility. So let us get on with having a Canadian constitution and doing away once and for all with the embarrassment of admitting to people
The Constitution
from other countries that we still have these remnants of a colonial past.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the minister would permit me to ask one question, since he has about three minutes left of the time allotted to him.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Certainly, I would be honoured.


Benno Friesen: The minister is surely aware that, for example, postal workers have a right, within their union, to prevent movement of postal workers from one locality to the other without prior consent of their local. It is true also in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers each local can certify its workers and prevent workers from another local moving into its area without the certification of that union. This is clearly in contravention of this provision in the constitution. I wonder if he, as Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan), is willing to go to the postal and electrical workers and tell them that under this section their rights will be declared unconstitutional?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable and distinguished member for his question but I do not think it particularly relevant.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: What this provision establishes is the right of a person to seek employment in any part of the country. That does not mean that there cannot continue to be professional requirements, for example, that only a qualified lawyer can become a member of the bar. If, on the other hand the requirements placed against a person moving to another area and joining a new local or new association are unduly restrictive, it is quite possible that the Supreme Court, in interpreting the provisions of the constitution, might find, in some extreme circumstance, that there was a breach. If that is the case, then, like all good citizens-and there are no better citizens than members of the trade unions-unions will conform. I have no doubt of that whatsoever. I hope that deals with the hon. member's question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I happen to be the next speaker, as the minister knows, but I should like to ask the minister a question in view of something he said in the closing remarks of his speech. I know he is trying to catch a plane, but would he permit me a question before I start my own interesting comments on the substance of the resolution and perhaps indirectly on some comments made by the minister?
Since the minister and I share a certain piece of geography in the deep east, I should like to ask him a question on the amendment procedure prescribed in section 42. Would he agree with me that because of the population distribution, in effect when you refer to two Atlantic provinces forming 50 per cent of the population in the Atlantic region, you bar Prince Edward Island forever and a day, together with any other
3610

October 10, 1980
The Constitution
province, from having a say because in the Atlantic area three provinces are needed to obtain 50 per cent. Therefore the provision would eliminate one of the four Atlantic provinces, of one of which the minister was premier at one time?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I thank the hon. member, who comes from a great Nova Scotia family and whom I have known since he was about 16 years old and a so-so tennis player. I thank him for his question and I say to him, through you, sir, that I believe it is under the Victoria formula that two provinces or more are required in a region, constituting 50 per cent, and certainly Prince Edward Island can be part of the majority. But Prince Edward Island and one other province alone would not constitute the needed number, based on the present population. However, when you draw up a constitution, heaven knows what the population changes may be tomorrow. They are drilling for oil in P.E.I., they may establish it and maybe their population will grow. Let me point out that the Victoria formula was not something that was thrust on us by the "feds".


An hon. Member:: We are talking about section 42.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Yes, but the regions are based on the Victoria amending formula, the same regions as are outlined in the Victoria formula which was developed by the premiers, and I was one of them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan).


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I know the minister has to go and I do not wish to take up too much time commenting on his remarks, but I hope he has taken the bill with him on his plane ride west and will really read it because there is a real difference between the Victoria charter, the Vancouver proposal and the amendment procedure under section 42 which effectively rules out Prince Edward Island, because of the population statistics, from having any input by itself together with one other province. The fact is that two provinces are needed under the Victoria charter and the Vancouver proposal. They spoke about two provinces in a region, not about 50 per cent of the population which would effectively eliminate Prince Edward Island under section 42. But the minister has gone and what he has said will stand on the record. I say again, I hope he will read the resolution. Frankly, I do not think many members, including government members, have read the resolution, and I know we did not have much opportunity to read it, although it is pretty fundamental in terms of the future of this country.
A week ago last night the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in calling Parliament a week early, said that all members from coast to coast would have the opportunity to make a speech on a subject that cannot be any more important than what we are talking about, which is basically the heart and soul of this nation. This constitution is bound up in phraseology and legal verbiage. You can talk about patriation, although it is not very sexy, seductive or exciting, but the fact is that when you shake
it all down, you are talking about the heart and soul of this country. That is why, right from the start, I want to make it clear, as my leader made it abundantly clear on Monday when this debate commenced, that there is no member in this party, nor is there, I believe, any member to my left in the New Democratic Party, who is against the patriation of the constitution, the bringing of the constitution back from England to Canada. If that is what we want to do, it could be done on one page which could be agreed to in one hour. We would not have to send Mark, Luke or John cap in hand to have tea with the Queen.
I will talk about the constitution in a very calm way because it is a very serious matter. It strikes at the very foundation of this country. Before I come back to the matter of the patriation of the constitution let me say that it occurred to me on Thursday night when I was listening to the Prime Minister- and I say this to members in an objective way-and then to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), followed by the leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent), that we are talking about the polarization of the two solitudes in their constitutional dimension. This is what I thought when I heard the Prime Minister's speech over the national airways and also, to a lesser degree, when the debate started here on Monday. The reason I say that is the following. I used to practice law and it was only when talking about the constitution relatively recently that the great difference in philosophies became apparent to me. I am not saying that one approach is right and the other is wrong, but this is the polarization of the two solitudes because these are two fundamentally different approaches. I listened to my Prime Minister speak about freedom in the land and say we need freedom here and freedom there. I can understand this coming from the Prime Minister because he was brought up under the civil code. I will not make pejorative comments and say one is Gallic and the other Napoleon against the British, and I hope my friends opposite will understand that when I refer to the British I will try to stay within the common law and I will try to stay even tempered and take any pejorative overtones out of my comments. We are talking about civil law and common law. Under the common law in nine of the provinces, every Canadian has every right and freedom in the world except those restricted or abridged by law, yet under the civil code one has no rights unless one can point to a piece of paper, a right or freedom. This debate is very interesting because it starts out from two separate polarities; it is almost like the north and south poles. It is difficult to bridge the gap between those people who believe in and have been brought up in the jurisprudence of common law and those who have been very ably brought up in the jurisprudence of the civil code. Later in my remarks I will have more specific comments to make about the entrenchment of the bill of rights in the constitution, but in general as one listened to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on that Thursday night, one would have thought, from some of the interpretations that we really did not have the freedoms unless they were put on a piece of paper. The whole foundation of this country in nine provinces is that we have all the rights in the world
October 10, 1980

except those that say, "Stop at a stop sign, do not drive too fast, do not drink too much and do not kill somebody". Those are the laws that have restricted the open-ended common law.
I am not making any judgment as to which is right and which is wrong, but I will repeat, just to accentuate the point, that they are two fundamentally different philosophies. Under the Civil Code one does not have any right to do anything unless one can point to it in some constitution, some bill of rights or some charter. So, we started off in this debate with the north versus the south, the common law versus the civil law. That presents problems or makes it much more difficult when we try to come to a consensus. I will not be pessimistic like the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) and say that unless we adopt this resolution forever and a day we will be behind the eight-ball on amendments, patriation or anything. 1 do not believe that for an instant. I just want to paint the picture, which I do not think has been painted well enough in this debate, of those two streams of jurisprudence which start out from two different poles. The members of this chamber are elected by the people. Hopefully the job of this chamber and perhaps eventually that of the other place-although I would not mind abolishing the other place, but that is another question-is to try to bridge those parallel streams of jurisprudence to come up with some kind of document. But, I come back to where 1 started. The debate concerning rights and an equalization formula must take place in this chamber.
I take exception to the false rhetoric of the Minister of Labour and those men of straw on the other side, those punching bags of false rhetoric. This party believes in patriation. Earlier we said that we want patriation if it is on the basis of the Vancouver proposal or, as far as I am concerned, the Victoria proposal. On Monday when this debate started, my leader said we were in favour of patriation on the basis of the Vancouver proposal, the most recent proposal and an adaptation of the Victoria proposal. There is no equivocation on those two points. I do not know why a minister of the Crown, charged with responsibility in the administration of this government, would take five or ten minutes of his time beating arounds the bush and taking this "man of straw" approach. He suggested by inference that the opposition was against patriation. As I said earlier, there is not a member of this House who likes the situation. We are very much for patriation on the basis of what my leader said in his masterful speech here on Monday. That is the basic issue. As I think all members have tried to accentuate in different ways, we do not want some joint resolution to go from this chamber to Westminster in London, on the banks of the Thames, in order that British legislators may debate our fundamental rights. That would be an insult to me as a legislator and it certainly reinforces what my leader said on Monday. We can throw names around. It is not that they solve anything, but they are good for debate. The proposal of the government indicates that they are the last of the colonials, going hand in hand not toward patriation or an amending formula, but going forward with the 16 pages of detailed fundamentals and an equalization formula. If given a
The Constitution
chance, I would have asked the Minister of Labour where he saw the words "equalization payments". They are not there. The equalization formula in this resolution is very weak and needs to be improved, but if we cannot improve it here when the committee finally decides and comes back with a resolution to this House, I do not want a legislator in England who comes from some constituency in the Midlands to start telling me, in areas of economic disparity, how the "colonials" over here are supposed to work with an equalization formula or that "we in Britain know better". The whole thing is topsyturvy. If members across the way give us patriation based on the Vancouver proposal in that resolution with an amending formula, this matter will get through within a day. Then it will come back here and at the proper time we can put in a timetable. We will debate all those things.
It is not just the comments of the Minister of Labour, but the general thrust of the remarks of those in the government. If I were in the government, I suppose I would try the same thrust. Not only do they paint the opposition as being against patriation, it is the same canard when it comes to unanimity. The very fact that in this debate my leader said we were for the Vancouver proposal eliminates the problem of unanimity. I agree it will be difficult if not impossible. Frankly I think the premiers would agree that unanimity on changing the basic constitution would be difficult, if not next to impossible. Perhaps after 53 years we should still try, but there is a big difference in recognizing that unanimity is not necessarily the answer. After all the false starts, there is a fundamental difference between recognizing the reality that unanimity creates problems and going completely to the other side, going unilaterally without consultation with the provinces. One cannot have it both ways. I think the Minister of Labour was sincere, but I understand the realities of unanimity. I suggest to members of the government who have not fully assessed what might happen with this constitutional proposal and other things Parliament will decide, hopefully before Christmas, that they have underestimated a basic feeling across the country. The Minister of Labour said my leader was extreme. I do not know how many times he has talked with the people west of the lakehead, but as it is almost four o'clock I will close this part of my address with the following thought. I am here as a legislator. I am glad about the vote on May 20. I hope we can redeem pledges that were made to Quebec, however they are interpreted, albeit Quebec is a province with a very definite identity that must be respected in ways the Prime Minister is not prepared to accept. But one does not redeem a pledge to a province or a region such as Quebec and forget the larger responsibilities to the country as a whole. If the proposal upsets the country as a whole, what has been accomplished when one says that a pledge to a part has been redeemed?
May I call it four o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four 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, public bills, private bills.

October 10, 1980
National Energy Board Act



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That Bill C-204, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act (provincial representation and sunlight provisions), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the applause from the whole House on Friday afternoon, especially from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
Here in the midst of the first session of the Thirty-second Parliament 1 am fortunate enough to bring before the House a private members' bill which deals with the reform of an administrative tribunal. We have heard much from various members of the House this week about rights, the enforcement of rights, and about the use of the courts to enforce rights. It is true our courts do enforce rights and deal with many important matters and, as I will say later on in my speech, the courts generally have been upgraded in the last few years in terms of membership, appointments and salaries. Indeed, we have a bill before the House to deal further with that. But one area we have forgotten, the forgotten child of pending reform in the government, is the area of administrative tribunals. They are important bodies because they affect our everyday lives. They affect the everyday life of more people than the courts do, I venture to say. The courts try individual cases, occasionally pronounce on general principles and sometimes deal with important cases that affect our rights. But the administrative tribunals deal with such things as phone bills, the cost of our telephones, our airline tickets, the cost of our travel, what we see on television, whether it will be a Canadian or American program, a religious program or some other sort of program. Finally, they deal with the area of oil and gas and, ultimately, have an effect on prices, whether or not we export or retain our oil and gas and other energy resources. They are very important bodies.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I can give you a long list of agencies. I will name a few of them to show the kind of agencies I am talking about: the Immigration Appeal Board, the Atomic Energy Control Board, the National Parole Board, the Unemployment Insurance Commission, the Canadian Transport Commission, the National Energy Board, the Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunications Commission, the Pensions Appeals Board and the Anti-Dumping Tribunal, to name a few. 1 could go on-the Labour Relations Board, the Tariff Board etc. They cover areas that affect people's day to day lives.
I want to deal with one specific board which I think is in need of reform, the National Energy Board. I think it is timely because there is a renewed awareness in this country of the impact of energy on our society and on our economy. Now is the appropriate time, in my view, to assess the procedural and legislative guidelines under which the National Energy Board will operate through the 1980s. I want to say a word about the history of the board before I go into the detailed provisions of my bill. The board was set up after the pipeline debate-not the pipeline debate in the last session but the pipeline debate of 1956, when the government tried to ram that particular bill through the House under closure. When Mr. Diefenbaker became prime minister he set up the Borden commission which in 1959 finally recommended there be a board called The National Energy Board. Thus the National Energy Board was created, and it is now 21 years old. The board was born before the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources was created. That is very important to know, because the board was given a dual role, a role as an administrative tribunal, that is, a regulator of applications for pipelines, for export of energy and so on, and a role as adviser to the ministry. This dual role has often got the board into trouble over the years and that is something I wish to deal with in my bill.
The board itself had no problem in the 1960s because there was no great energy debate during that time. At this point I will quote from an article by Elaine Dewar in Canadian Business in May, 1980, called "Groping in the Dark", which deals with the National Energy Board. In her article she quotes a statement by a high placed civil servant who was then on the Energy Board as a staff member. He describes how the NEB worked then:
A major role was to go on hands and knees to the U.S. government and get it to take more exports . . . That's what everybody wanted.
Indeed, that was the story of the 1960s. Then oil was discovered in Prudhoe Bay in 1968 and in the Canadian Arctic in 1969. In 1970 the Board gave an energy forecast and the minister-then Mr. Greene-said we have oil and gas for hundreds of years. A year later the Board said that was wrong; we did not have oil and gas for hundreds of years and we would run out in 1991. Later on they said we would run out of oil in 1982. People began to criticize the Board and as the energy debate heated up over the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, over the Alaska highway pipeline and over the exports of gas there were more and more hearings before the National Energy Board.
As hon. members will recall, in the last session of the House of Commons there were many questions about the controversial NEB decision on the Quebec and maritimes pipeline. The NEB, as I said, has been subject to much criticism. I intend to read some of that criticism.
In a 1977 study of the National Energy Board, Alastair Lucas, from the University of Calgary, and Trevor Bell published a report on the board for the Law Reform Commission of Canada. They claimed the NEB was unduly influenced by government and that its advisory and regulatory roles were in conflict. A list of some 28 government committees upon which
October 10, 1980

board members sat, strengthened their case. But the crux of their argument lay in the examination of six issues handled by the National Energy Board. In at least two of them, the Interprovincial Pipeline extension and the Dow Chemical Company ethylene export case, the authors suggested that the NEB decisions were forged outside the hearing room. This is indeed a serious indictment. Mr. Lucas also said:
The industry thinks the board is remote, political and that its members are largely a bunch of political hacks of a sort that are not knowledgeable about the energy business.
It seems that almost everyone has been critical of the board. One lawyer who refused to be quoted appeared at the summer export hearings on behalf of his client who wanted to import gas to the United States. Although the client got what he wanted, the lawyer apparently was upset by what he saw and he said:
They heard evidence only from people who wanted to export gas. The traditional opposition asked no hard questions whatever. The board counsel asked no controversial questions. There were no analytic questions about the reserve numbers. The board will say they found exports on the basis of the evidence but the board counsel, armed with the staff, should have done more than check the numbers. It is just incredible from the public interest point of view.
Criticism is levelled at the board not only by company lawyers but by people from environmental groups, people from consumer groups, poor people's groups and just about everyone. The standard reply from the board, and I quote Mr. Edge, vice-chairman of the board:
We're here to make decisions in the public interest. If we've got a decision which is roundly criticized by all parties, it is probably a good one.
Likewise, Mr. Stabback, a former board member gave comments to the same effect. In other words, they are saying, "we are being criticized by everybody so we must be doing something right". There is another viewpoint and that is, "maybe everybody is right". Maybe there are weaknesses in the board. I am not here to criticize the board. I am here to make some very concrete, simple suggestions through my bill to deal with procedural matters that could make the board better.
I would like to refer now specifically to the bill. It suggests that the board needs first of all some upgrading in membership. What we have on the board now are basically people who are in the industry or people who were in the government. What we need are people with varied backgrounds such as environmentalists, and people with background in consumer matters. I remember when John Turner was a member of this House as minister of justice. In spite of the many things on which he and I disagree, he did one great thing for Canada; he upgraded the appointment of judges to the supreme court. He hired a man named Ed Ratusny who consulted the Bar associations and vetted appointments. As a result we began getting top grade people on the benches, and it shows in judicial decisions.
National Energy Board Act
While we cannot enact such a procedure and put it into law because it is a procedural matter which a minister must see through, I put into the bill a provision which upgrades the board and gives it the status, right there in black and white, of federal court judges and the salary which goes with the appointment. I hope and trust that the appointments will be better because of the procedure I have set out.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I tried to deal in my bill with the problem to which I referred at the outset-whether this is a court or a branch of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. I will not go through the materials I have here, but the stories would make your hair curl. There are stories about decisions, lunches with business executives whose application is before the National Energy Board and so on. It is a rather careless procedure. There is talk behind the scenes and rumours in Ottawa such as, "well the board has to pay attention to what EMR says". Also, it is inherent in the procedure that the board must advise the government.
What I tried to do in my bill is clarify the advisory function. If there is to be an advisory function, then the board must give its advice and render its decisions through a fair procedure. It must be an open procedure with open decisions. I tried to incorporate that into my bill. Third, I tried to bring in the idea that all parties have a right to cross-examination. What I would like to see is any advisory decisions which are made or any advice that is given to the government in the form of documents and so on laid open for people to use in the proceedings. That way everything would be above board.
Fourth, Mr. Speaker, I put in the bill a provision to upgrade the role of board counsel. For three years, I worked for the Berger inquiry on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. In many ways we broke new ground in the area of procedural decisions, not only by holding hearings in remote communities but in other ways. One such way was by upgrading the role of commission counsel and giving him the status of a public advocate. He was to get in there and represent the views, as commission counsel saw it, of people who were not there before the board, as a means of filling in all the gaps. Commission counsel and commission staff were available to be called as witnesses. All testimony and documentation was out in the open. Commission counsel's final submission to the board, in this case to Mr. Justice Berger, was publicized two weeks before it was given to the board so that people could look at it and in that way everything was above board.
The fifth clause in my bill requests that internal papers be made public. The concept of freedom of information should also apply to the board because we believe, and I think that this House unanimously now believes, that in this manner we can arrive at better decisions and hold better hearings.
Another provision in the bill is that funds be available for interveners, an area in which the NEB is behind. The CRTC has begun to move in this area because there are people who cannot afford fancy Philadelphia company lawyers or Vancouver lawyers or Calgary lawyers or lawyers from wherever they may come. I merely ask that we recognize the principle that interveners can be funded. While on the commission about

October 10, 1980
National Energy Board Act
which I spoke earlier we had to make such decisions with regard to interveners. We had to decide who should receive the funding and how much they should get. Once we approved the funding they would appear before the board. We even arranged for umbrella groups to appear before the board represented by one lawyer. In this way all points of view can be represented in a fair procedure.
Finally, I ask that there be sunlight provisions in the bill, which is itself a new concept. I do not want my friends to the right, the Conservatives, to think I said "sunset", I said "sunlight". It is an American concept where by if there is to be any meeting outside the boardroom with parties, it has to be recorded and open, unless there are certain reasons for which it should not be open. I would have liked to have gone into more detail in the bill on this subject but I merely introduced the concept. It fits in with the concept of freedom of information.
There are other matters upon which 1 did not touch in the bill such as expropriation. I believe there is a Senate bill, on expropriation. I could also have dealt with provincial appointments. I believe the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) has a bill on provincial representation. I found this area too difficult with which to deal in my bill. Instead, I dealt with consulting the provinces on appointments and on providing advice to the government when it has sought an opinion. I know that my province of British Columbia is very interested in such areas as pre-build of pipelines, natural gas exports and so on.
I have tried to make it a fair procedure for the provinces as well. It is a very simple bill, Mr. Speaker. There has been lots of talk here about the constitution. Bill C-204 presents the very basic requirements for the performance of an agency of government elected by the people whether you are an oil millionaire, an Inuit, Dogrib or Slavy, a businessman who needs energy to run a factory or a welfare recipient who needs heat to stay warm, whether you are the builder of a pipeline or an environmentalist, whether you are a poor person or a person who is affected by a board's decision on the price of oil and gas-indeed, we are all affected. The procedure before the board now is a bad one.
This is a very simple bill, Mr. Speaker, offering some concrete suggestions and concrete enactments for reforming the National Energy Board. I urge that this Elouse adopt the bill today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-204 now before the House, it seems to me that it is either unnecessary or redundant. For example, clause 2 of the bill calls for the reasonable cross-examination of witnesses. For quasi-judicial hearings of the board, the proposed requirement to cross-examine witnesses is unnecessary because that right already exists. For non-judicial hearings of the general inquiry
type, the proposed provision is undesirable because with the large number of parties that attend at such hearings it may sometimes be necessary to limit cross-examination.
Clause 3(6) of the bill would award costs to public interest groups for the conduct of cases before the board. This has already been considered by the board which does not object to the awarding of costs as such. However, the way the bill is worded, the awarding of costs could be made at any time- even before a hearing-for any group claiming to represent any public interest. The board would not have the power to determine beforehand whether in fact there was representation of a public interest. This further exemplifies the somewhat loosely worded nature of the bill.
Clause 4(5) of the bill, which calls for the restriction of communications between the board and any minister of the Crown or public servant, is again loosely worded and somewhat confusing. If, with this suggested amendment, the hon. member is trying to restrict inappropriate communications, then this is unnecessary since it is already part of the board's practice. Further, if the amendment were to be accepted as worded, then it would make it illegal for the board to communicate with its own staff members who are, of course, public servants. Not only is this subsection unnecessary but its insertion would be interpreted as implying that the board is acting improperly at the present time.
If adopted, Bill C-204 would impair the working of the board. Clause 3(1 )(d) would require that a public hearing be held prior to the submission of any advice to the minister. That would be unworkable. It would slow to a crawl the advisory work of the board. There are many matters on which the board can advise the minister promptly, drawing upon its own experience. To call a public hearing in every instance would be senseless.
Clause 3(4) of the bill would designate an officer at each hearing to be responsible for bringing forth any relevant evidence for argument. The system proposed is similar to that used in the United States, but the American system has been described as being overly legalistic, cumbersome and slow. In the Canadian system it is the function of staff to advise the board, not to act as adversary as against the applicant. It is the responsibility of the board and its counsel to ensure that all necessary and relevant evidence has been brought forward.
Clause 20(3) would require notice to be filed in every newspaper within 50 miles of the route of a natural or proposed pipeline or power line and in every newspaper in Canada having a paid circulation of 50,000 or more. This requirement would be both onerous and expensive. At the present, the board requires applicants to publish hearing notices.
Moreover, the NEB has an extensive mailing list to which it sends reports, news and decisions rendered. The public is, of course, free to contact the NEB about hearings and will receive information requested.
This subclause also requires that 60 days notice be given for a hearing. Although this is a desirable objective, there are often situations where the public interest would suffer because
October 10, 1980

of such a delay in proceeding with regulatory hearings and action. An example might be when a pipeline facility is to be constructed to provide service to a new area or where rates of pipeline companies are to be adjusted to reflect current costs. In such cases it is sometimes necessary to reduce the length of notice to 30 days.
In some instances, Mr. Speaker, these amendments would have adverse effects on the decision-making process as we know it.
Clause 4(1) would require that any advice given to the minister be made public. This could clearly have an adverse effect on matters related, for example, federal-provincial relations or, in the instance of international negotiations, between sovereign states. Anything of a sensitive nature would be precluded from discussion between the minister and the board. Without this candid advice and opinion, the minister would not be able to perform his role properly.
Clause 1 of the bill insists that the chairman, vice-chairman and associate vice-chairmen of the board each be paid the same salary as the associate chief justice of the Federal Court of Canada. In our view, Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why a board member should be paid on the same salary scale as judges. The duties are different, and board members, in addition to their quasi-judicial role, have a number of administrative duties. In addition, it would not be equitable for the chairman, vice-chairman and two associate vice-chairmen of the board to be paid the same salary because, of course, they have different responsibilities. In fact, there seems to be no real reason to interfere with the existing method by which board members' salaries are set by the Privy Council office.
Some clauses of this bill are impracticable and would impair the effective working of the board. This cannot be in the public interest. Further, preventing the minister of the Crown from receiving the best possible advice on an issue such as this would not improve the decision-making process in any substantial way.
The board has now operated for 20 years and has established its reputation as an effective and fair tribunal by continually improving its procedures under the act and, from time to time, initiating recommendations for amendments to meet changing circumstances and the increasing complexity of the energy economy.
In introducing his bill the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) referred to Bill S-12 regarding the expropriation procedures of the National Energy Board. I should be pleased to touch on that for a moment as an example of the ways in which the legislation concerning the National Energy Board evolves.
The National Energy Board Act has already been looked at with a view to improving and defining those public rights that are affected by the board. Bill S-12, which the hon. member mentioned, passed by the Senate in March, 1979, attempts to modernize expropriation procedures for purposes of establishing rights-of-way for pipelines.
Canada has at least two expropriation procedures; one is the Expropriation Act for 1970. That act, administered by the
National Energy Board Act
minister of public works modernized procedures, especially for the determination of fair compensation to the expropriated owner. Section 42 contains the exception that the act does not apply to any expropriation made pursuant to the Railway Act.
The second expropriation procedure as established by section 75 of the National Energy Board Act incorporates the expropriation provisions of the Railway Act, sections 156 to 184. Bill S-12 is designed to change the procedure of expropriation of pipeline rights-of-way by deleting the incorporation of the Railway Act provision and substituting an expropriation procedure. Bill S-12 established a scheme of negotiation and arbitration with a right of appeal to the trial division of the Federal Court of Canada. It also lays out the principles of compensation as guidance to the parties and tribunals that are involved.
This matter of modernizing expropriation under the National Energy Board Act is considered important because it affects the rights of private landowners who are on the right-of-way of a proposed pipeline.
Bill C-204 also deals with public rights and the rights of participants to better understand the information used by the board in its deliberations. We believe that such rights have adequate protection and that a reasonable balance has now been struck between informed and complete public input and the need to determine major energy questions expeditiously.
The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for its part is currently occupied with major energy initiatives designed to protect the economic health of Canada, making it difficult for the time being to consider even the modernization of the existing pipeline expropriation procedures.
I have made reference to Bill S-12 in order to remind the hon. members that National Energy Board legislation is under continuing review and assessment. The proposals of Bill S-12, when in due course implemented, will mark a further advance in the evolution of the legislation governing the activities of the National Energy Board.
The hon. member referred in his introduction to the nature of the National Energy Board and its responsibilities. He spoke in particular of the right to information and the principal activities of the board. In that connection I shall quote from the 1977 report of the Law Reform Commission of Canada in which it is stated:
There is no doubt that the board is in close contact with the industry. But this relationship requires explanation. First, it is clear that the industry cannot dictate National Energy Board decisions on particular applications. The board attempts to maintain a judicial posture on applications, and is sensitive to allegations of bias or influence. This approach appears not to be affected by movements of board members to and from the industry which, in fact, are rare. Most members have industry experience. This reflects the intention of our legislators to appoint members who are experts in various aspects of the energy industry. Furthermore, is there any better source of expert knowledge about the petroleum, natural gas and electrical power industries than within the industries themselves?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Ask John Helliwell.

October 10, 1980
National Energy Board Act


Roy MacLaren: I would like to review for the House the various responsibilities and functions of the National Energy Board to which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has referred. As the House will be aware, one of the most important tasks of the National Energy Board is regulatory activity. Also, of course, it has a principal advisory capacity. The board's decisions and advice, directly and indirectly, affect the lives of all Canadians since it is involved in virtually all federal energy related matters.
I should like to remind the House, Mr. Speaker, of the general responsibilities and functions of the board, and to review for a moment the activities of the board over the last several years in order to give an insight into its various operations.
I shall conclude by reviewing the proposed amendments again if the hon. member opposite would find that useful. I might just say in summary that although I find the member's proposed amendments in some ways commendable, they are on the whole superfluous.
The genesis of the National Energy Board can, of course, be found, as the hon. member implied, in the final report of the Gordon commission on economic prospects in 1957 and the Borden royal commission on the export of energy resources the following year.
The National Energy Board Act of 1959 and subsequent amendments give the board two principal responsibilities: to regulate specific areas of the oil and gas and electric utilities in the public interest; and to advise the government on the development and use of energy resources. Under the rubric of its regulatory responsibilities, the board has three basic functions. First, granting certificates of public convenience and necessity for construction of pipelines and international power. Second, issuing licences for the export and import of power, natural gas and oil. Third, approving utility rates, tariffs and tolls.
In addition, the board is required to administer certain provisions of the Petroleum Administration Act. This responsibility consists of imposing and collecting a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products and the regulation of the price of natural gas in both interprovincial and export trade. The board is also responsible under the Northern Pipeline Act for the approval of certain conditions for the construction of the natural gas pipeline along the Alaska highway. These relate mainly to the incentive rate of return schemes, financing and tariffs, approval of pipe specifications and the granting of leave to open orders. Under an agreement between the federal government and Foothills Pipe Lines (Yukon) Ltd.-that is the Dempster Link agreement- the company has been required to carry out feasibility studies leading to an application to construct a lateral pipeline along the Dempster highway from the Mackenzie Delta to Whitehorse.
In its advisory duties, the board is charged with monitoring and reporting to the minister of energy on virtually all aspects of energy, making such recommendations as it considers advisable in the public interest. It also prepares studies and reports
on other matters related to energy and makes recommendations on appropriate national and international co-operative arrangements.
The outline of the board's role in the national energy field gives substance to the definition of the board as "the turnkey agency in a panoply of federal and provincial bodies." When the board, for instance, is ready to grant a certificate for a pipeline or a power line, or to issue a licence for the export of natural gas or electricity or the import of natural gas or the export of oil for a period exceeding one year, it reports to the governor in council through the minister of energy. If the governor in council approves the issuance of a certificate, then it is issued by the board. In the case of an export application, a licence issued by the board goes into effect as soon as it is approved by the governor in council. When the board refuses an application, the decision is not subject to referral to the governor in council. The board's reports on all these matters are issued as public documents.
Due to the special nature of the trade in crude oil and petroleum products, specifically short-term contracts with the need to make decisions on a daily basis, oil export controls, except for those licences for periods in excess of one year, are implemented directly by the board without reference to the governor in council.
Applications for orders authorizing the export of natural gas and certain other petroleum products for periods of up to one year are also dealt with by the board without reference to the governor in council. Decisions regarding rates, tolls and tariffs are also implemented by the board without reference to the governor in council. The Federal Court of Appeal may reverse the board only on matters of law or on jurisdiction, not on substance.
The number of decisions and the number of inquiries which the board is able to hold each year is a remarkable achievement. In 1979 the board conducted inquiries across Canada on 13 separate topics and issued 2,217 certificates licences and other authorizations. I might add, this compares favourably with the record of United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission which has been criticized for the backlog of applications waiting to be heard and what might be called the glacial pace of its decision-making.
1 hope that with these few words the hon. member opposite will accept the position that the amendments he has brought forward in his bill are, as I stated earlier, in some respects either superfluous or could create delay. I hope he will now join with me in recognizing the competence, skill and devotion of the National Energy Board in carrying out its important function.


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague and seatmate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacLaren) has covered very well many of the cautions which have to be borne in mind before one contem-
October 10, 1980

plates tampering with a piece of legislation as eminently good as that governing the National Energy Board. That is not to say there are not improvements that could be made to it.
1 commend my friend from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) on two things; first, his excellent article in Maclean's and, second, for the time and the thought-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 didn't write it.


Roger Simmons: He did not write it. It is not the kind of thing you would admit to anyway. Second I commend him for the time and the thought that must have gone into an exercise of the magnitude represented in this. I believe in all sincerity that this exercise, which allows us to debate an issue of substance, is a very important part of this parliament. I commend the hon. member in that regard.
1 was particularly interested in a couple of the concepts he was espousing. One of them was the "sunlight" provision which has all kinds of connotations, not only for our Tory friends but for others. I find it an interesting concept. It has the potential of becoming an important concept. I wish he would have devoted a little more time to informing the House and the general public about it. He might want to pursue that subject on some other occasion.
I have to say that I may not perhaps have thoroughly understood the full implications of the concept, but that part which I heard the hon. member expound I am not sure should be addressed in that particular way or handled through the mechanism of an amendment to the Energy Board Act. It might more properly be addressed in relation to freedom of information legislation. The government has made a commitment to have that legislation in place. Once that is done, the changes the hon. member talks about may well flow directly from the provisions of that legislation. Alternatively, at that point in time it may be necessary to address ourselves to the existing legislation to ensure that not only is the letter of the law of the freedom of information being observed, but the spirit of the new legislation as well.
The other point I want to respond to has to do with consulting the provinces. This government, and, I submit, the government which preceded it under the leadership of the hon. gentleman from Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), have not been remiss in terms of consulting provincial governments. I am not being semantic, but I take it the hon. member meant consultation with the provincial government administration.
I use this opportunity to make a very important distinction, one that should not be construed as merely semantic. 1 believe we do ourselves a disservice in this national Parliament when we talk about cousulting the provinces. I say to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon), to name the entire opposition in the House at this time, the proportions are right in terms of the quality of opposition on that side, a three to one decision almost any day of the week. One Tory is on this side. I must say he does not look at all out of place. We welcome the hon.
National Energy Board Act
member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). We are glad for the increase in our numbers.
As 1 was saying, we do ourselves a disservice when we talk about consulting the provinces as meaning consulting the provincial governments. We in this chamber are the provinces. However, we are not the provincial governments. That distinction needs to be articulated. The provincial governments have a mandate and the federal government has a mandate. The Fathers of Confederation recognized in 1864 that certain problems ought to be addressed by a federal government and others by a provincial government.
We in this House represent the provinces. I represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador just as much as the premier of that province, only on different matters. 1 represent them in matters of federal jurisdiction and he in matters of provincial jurisdiction. The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) represents the people of Newfoundland and Labrador just as much as the premier does; the Prime Minister in matters of federal jurisdiction and the premier in matters of provincial jurisdiction.
The hon. member for Richmond-South Delta represents the people of British Columbia in federal matters as does any provincial cabinet minister on provincial matters. That distinction is not made enough. We allow the premiers and those at the provincial level to give the impression that they are the custodians of everything that resides in the geographical extremities or definition of a particular province when we in this Parliament, aside from the vacancies, normally 282 people, are spokesmen for the two territories and ten provinces of Canada in matters of federal jurisdiction.
1 do not think anyone can argue with my hon. friend that any matter is as all-pervasive in its implications as energy policy and energy decisions. It ought to be addressed with the full consultation of anybody or any administration on which it might impact. I invite the hon. member to reflect on this past summer. The federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) spent a fair amount of time consulting with Mr. Leitch, the Alberta energy minister. The Prime Minister consulted with the Premier of Alberta. It is not really germane to talk about the atmosphere of those negotiations, their success or otherwise. The point I am making is that in recent weeks and months this government has shown its willingness to consult, consult, and consult again.
They had dialogue with the governments of British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta on matters that are germane to everyone in this House. Surely there has not been a lack of consultation. In the spirit in which we have operated in this country for the past 113 years, we should not need to legislate consultation. There is no point in doing that. As a matter of course, before you do a job, it requires consultation. Indeed, if I had one criticism of the governmental process in Canada over the past few years, it is that we have carried consultation between orders of government too far. I like the word "orders" rather than "levels." I do not see any government as being senior to another government. I see it as having separate assignments from other governments. I am talking
3618

October 10, 1980
National Energy Board Act
about orders of government, the federal order of government and the provincial order of government. In the past few years we have beaten consultation right to death. You cannot turn around in this country now without having a federal-provincial conference. Every time any matter of policy comes up in the two departments I am associated with, whether environment or science and technology, the inevitable answer is: well, we have to wait until we talk to the government of such and such a province on that particular issue. Consultation is not only the order of the day, we have almost reached the point at which it is becoming an impediment to getting things done in this country.
I like the simpler age. I like the way the Fathers of Confederation laid it down. They recognized that the federal order of government ought to be supreme in this area and the provincial order ought to be supreme in that area, and they should each go about doing their respective jobs, but not in isolation. There are times, as I said earlier, when a matter of policy or a matter of action one government is about to take, or contemplates taking, will have an impact on the other government's area of jurisdiction. For that reason, not only because of common sense and common decency but the sheer rules of pragmatics dictate that you ought to say to the other order of government, the government of Alberta or the government of New Brunswick: look, we are contemplating doing this, how will it affect your own legislation or your ability to meet your objectives in this particular area, be it agriculture, energy or Fisheries? That is common sense and you cannot legislate it. Why do you need to legislate it?
When you get to the point in this country where there is such mistrust of motives, such a lack of faith in the person who happens to sit in another Parliament than you, or who happens to sit at another cabinet table than you, and when you get to the point where you have a basic lack of trust in that other individual just because he wears a different hat than you, then it is not legislation that is at fault; it is not a lack of good legislation that is causing your problems, it is something much deeper and much more basic.
It is time for a good inward look at ourselves when we begin at every turn saying that the reason the Prime Minister of Canada is doing this is because-and then assigning some base motive, or the reason the Premier of Alberta is doing this is because-and then assigning some base motive to his action. When we reach that point, and in some respects we are at that point in this country on the very subject of energy, something basic has to be done. This is a good part of the reason for the problems we are having, and part of the reason we are hearing Armageddon pontifications on the constitution. It is not because we have vastly different objectives for our people, it is because of a monumental communications barrier. It is because we have become habituated to assigning motives all the time; what is Peter Lougheed really up to, what is Pierre Trudeau really up to or what is Mr. Lyon really up to? Sometimes we would serve this country a lot better if the
energy pricing discussion which is before us, and if other issues before us such as the constitutional thing which is not far from my mind-were not being discussed with this basic mistrust which underlies, it seems, everything we now do.
I have seen separate countries conferring with more faith in each other than I see us doing as provinces of the same country. We talk about each other as though we have a couple of heads. We talk about each other as though we were a bunch of rogues. The fact is that we are, in this chamber with 282 parliamentarians, and in the other 12 chambers across this country in the ten provincial capitals and the two territorial capitals, a group of several hundred legislators who have offered ourselves to serve the public good and not to tear daily at each other, trying to character assassinate, trying to tear down reputations and assign motives. That is why this subject of consultation the member talks about is an important one. However, it is not one that we should try to embed in legislation. I submit that is not the route to go.
I am frightened as a Canadian that we may well fall into the trap of thinking we can solve all our problems by dotting the "i's" in the right place and crossing all the "t's". I submit we will only solve our problems, be they in energy, which is the subject before us today, the constitution or any other issue, when we begin to accept each other around this country, be we premiers of provinces, territorial, provincial or federal politicians. We must accept each other as people who by and large have at heart the interests of the Canadian people, or those people in whatever part of Canada we happen to represent in our respective jurisdictions.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) would permit a question during his time. It is a very simple question which arises from the very important point he has made, that there is an atmosphere of distrust in this country. Could he give us an explanation why he believes there is such an atmosphere in Canada today?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon), for his question. I am encouraged but not surprised to find that he shares some of the concern I have just expressed on this particular subject.
I spent some of my time this summer, not enough I admit

I made a total of nine trips-west of the Manitoba-Ontario border in the four western provinces; in northern Alberta, southeastern B.C. and in various other parts of those provinces, as part of a self-assignment to get a better understanding of that part of the country. I have been encouraged when talking to a number of members, including my good friend, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell), to learn that some months ago they spent some time in rural parts of Newfoundland, my own province. I have talked to other members of both opposition parties who, by virtue of being on standing committees or otherwise, at the initiative of their parties or themselves, have gone out to parts of eastern
October 10, 1980

Canada, the Atlantic provinces, making an effort to get a better understanding.
In direct answer to the hon. gentleman's question in the minute or so remaining, let me say it seems to me that a large portion of the mistrust is the result of something I alluded to briefly just a few minutes ago, and that is the communications issue. I just do not think we know how the other half lives. I just do not think we understand their aspirations. I say to him that I do not understand the aspirations of the west, and I do so because he is from the west. Without being unkind to him, I submit he may not understand full well the aspirations of my people in Newfoundland, Labrador or in Atlantic Canada.
Without being over-simplistic, I think a large part of the answer to his question relates to communications. It is not that we are by nature a people condemned to think ill of each other, but by circumstance we have become people who have stopped listening to each other. That is the indictment; we have stopped listening to each other. Perhaps we have placed labels.
National Energy Board Act
We have begun to say: Well, he is from Alberta therefore we can expect him to say that, or he is from Newfoundland and we can expect him to say that. We have begun to categorize and stereotype people. My elementary knowledge of this country tells me first that it is not fair to do that and, second, it is not very productive to do that. That is why I made the appeal earlier to make an effort to break down some of this communications barrier.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.

It being five o'clock, the House, pursuant to Standing Order 2(3), stands adjourned until Tuesday October 14, 1980, at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, October 14, 1980