1980-05-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) has been extremely slow in announcing which projects will be approved under the Summer Youth Employment program, and in view of the fact that summer is rapidly approaching and those who have made application under the program are urgently awaiting word on the status of their applications, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That the House immediately instruct the minister to make public today which Summer Youth Employment program applications will be approved by the minister, so that those who have not received approval will be able to make alternate plans for securing summer employment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MEMBERS' SERVICES
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, I rise, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that all 74 Liberal MPs from the province of Quebec have recently sent householder bulletins to households in their ridings, all with uniform contents covering arguments in favour of a No vote in the May 20 referendum, and financed by the public treasury for both printing and distribution, and in view of the fact that the hon. member for Vercheres (Mr. Loiselle), in his householder bulletin on the fourth page, carries a representation of a map of Canada
showing Quebec separated from Canada and as part of the separated Quebec 110,000 square miles of Newfoundland being that part of the province of Newfoundland described as Labrador, with a similar map appearing in the bulletins of the other Liberal MPs who represent ridings in Quebec, and since such a map is completely false factually, and an affront to all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, I move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). This is it here; Newfoundland is shoved 200 miles out into the Atlantic.
That the MP for Vercheres and all other Liberal MPs for Quebec apologize to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for the error committed by them in showing the Labrador part of the province of Newfoundland as a part of the province of Quebec, and that this House affirm the territorial integrity and boundaries of the province of Newfoundland as set down in the Opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council expressed on March 1, 1927, and as set out in the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada of 1949.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That members of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion and other Canadians who fought heroically with Spanish Republican forces in the Spanish Civil War between 1936 and 1939 to preserve the legitimate government of that country be given the status of veterans under federal legislation and be made eligible for veterans' pensions and other benefits.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

May 22, 1980
S.O.	43 ENERGY


CANADIAN CONTENT OF INDUSTRY-HIRING OF FOREIGN COMPANIES-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I would like to move a motion.
In view of the fact that Petro-Canada, a Crown corporation created primarily to increase Canadian content in the oil and gas industry, has in recent months hired a Bermuda-based company to design a new corporate logo, hired a New York-based real estate company to seek out new offices, and now has entered into a joint venture with a Liechtenstein-headquartered German company to construct a new building which will be designed by American architects, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon):
That this House ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to make a statement on motions explaining just how directing all this business to German, Bermudian and American firms is helping Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
The recent eruption of Mount St. Helens in the state of Washington has caused severe human tragedy as well as extensive property damage. The volcanic ash fall-out from the eruption is extensive, affecting large areas of the United States of America and Canada, with as yet undetermined short and long-term effects. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone):
That this House direct the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment to undertake immediately an environmental assessment of the volcanic ash fall-out on human health, as well as the possible effects on wildlife, turbidity and acidity effects on lakes, stream and soils in affected areas of western Canada; and, furthermore, that the government report to this House on this matter without delay.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Whereas the government bureaucracy, after an application from an Indian band council has been received, extends the granting of the said moneys for several months; and whereas in the case of water and sewer installation the money thus becomes available in late fall, making it very costly and wasteful to instal them during the winter months; and whereas the Indian band councils desire to make the best use of every dollar and want the money to be made available in the spring or early summer for public works such as installation of water and sewer systems, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That the government review and amend the processing of applications with a view to making the money for public works affected by cold weather available in the spring or early summer of the year.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Thirty-second Parliament has been sitting for almost six weeks, and that most standing committees have by now been meeting for several weeks, and whereas the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry has not yet even been organized, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass):
That the government be directed to convene the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry immediately so that matters pertaining to the main estimates and other pertinent questions relating to fisheries, forestry and the environment might be pursued in detail with the appropriate government ministers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
May 22, 1980


FOREST FIRES
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I rise, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the extensive forest fires in western Canada- there are over 1,000 forest fires in northern Alberta and northern Saskatchewan, burning over 1,200,000 acres this year-I move:
That the federal government make available all the resources at its disposal to the provincial governments to assist in fighting these forest fires.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bruce Lonsdale (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, I rise, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Given the fact that the Liberal government in March, 1978, brought in the Canadian Human Rights Act and established the Human Rights Commission, given that we all should fully endorse the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, and in view of the fact that recently the Human Rights Commission investigators have found that about 3,000 low-paid public servants-most of whom are women-employed as food service workers, laundry workers and miscellaneous services such as gatekeepers, are not receiving equal pay for work of equal value, even though their work is classified as equal in value by the government, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith):
That this government move immediately to correct the discrimination in wages found by the Human Rights Commission with respect to these 3,000 low-paid service workers, and to uphold the principle of equal pay for work of equal value.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Arctic biological station at St. Anne de Bellevue is the major federal government agency for environmental research and resource development in Canada's north, and in view of the fact that the government has slashed the station's 1980 funding for the current year to less than 10 per cent of the 1975-76 level, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this House condemn the government for its neglect of environmental research in the Arctic, and that the government immediately provide the Arctic biological station with the funds it requires for its urgent work.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA DAY
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, 1 seek the attention of all hon. members on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43.
As May 20, 1980, was a symbolic and historic day for the destiny of our nation, in that Canadians reaffirmed their preference for a united Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Gourd):
That this House requests the government to introduce legislation as soon as possible to designate the statutory holiday, July 1, as Canada Day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Grand idea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Walter David Baker: Who said "No"?

May 22, 1980
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, while in opposition, during the election campaign and several times since has repeatedly stated that the previous government was deluding itself and/or was foolish in setting a policy goal of energy self-sufficiency by 1990. However, yesterday, while in Paris attending International Energy Agency meetings, the Minister of Energy was quoted as saying the following:
-we expect to become self-sufficient during this decade.
Does this mean the government has now formally adopted this "foolish" policy of the previous Progressive Conservative government, or was the minister deluding other members of the IEA?


Mr. Trudeau:: Madam Speaker, the hon. member shows the difficulty of quoting parts of speeches from press releases. His two questions differ as to whether he is talking about energy self-sufficiency or self-sufficiency in petroleum.
I point out to the hon. member that in the last election we were telling the Canadian people that, under our government, in the last few years Canadian dependency on imported oil had been reduced from 50 per cent to 30 per cent and that our policy was to-


John Carnell Crosbie: Nonsense.


Mr. Wilson:: When?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When? During the last election we pointed that out.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is right, you were saying nothing then.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We pointed out that at the beginning of the decade we had imported 50 per cent of our oil, and that at the time of the last election-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member fails to distinguish between energy self-sufficiency and self-sufficiency in petroleum.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see that hon. members in the back benches do not even seem to understand that distinction.


Mr. Collenette:: That is why they are in the back benches.


An hon. Member:: We understand.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But listening to the quotation from the hon. member who asked the question, he is talking about energy self-sufficiency.


John Carnell Crosbie: We have that now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Those are the words he read to me. So certainly that is not revolutionary, as even the member from Newfoundland understands.


John Carnell Crosbie: I understand.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Perhaps I should read out more of this quotation in which UPC Paris indicates:
Canada. Lalonde said, is now dependent on oil imports for only 25 per cent of its needs.
"But we expect to become self-sufficient during this decade-"


John Carnell Crosbie: Answer that one.


Harvie Andre: My question is: Is it now government policy to become self-sufficient in oil before 1990, as was the policy of the previous government which was ridiculed by this present minister when he was in opposition?


John Carnell Crosbie: Answer that one if you can.


An hon. Member:: Those were exports.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -we were only importing 30 per cent of our required petroleum.


John Carnell Crosbie: How many barrels a day?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What we were saying during the election was that obviously our policy had reduced dependency on imported oil. We were continuing in that direction and that is why we were seeking re-election. The point being made was that with the kind of policy being promoted by the opposite side, we would never reach that stage by 1990 or by the year 2000.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I take that to mean the government has indeed flip-flopped on its policy.


Walter David Baker: That is right.


Harvie Andre: As a member of the International Energy Agency, Canada has agreed to certain goals in terms of reduction of imports of crude oil and also growth in domestic consumption. While in opposition, the current Prime Minister ridiculed the right hon. member for Yellowhead in terms of his agreeing to these conditions at the June Summit which were confirmed at the December IEA meetings.
Is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, while in Paris, seeking to relieve Canada of these obligations under the IEA, or is he explaining to our fellow members of this agency just how this new self-sufficiency policy will enable us to fulfil these obligations which were ridiculed a few months ago?
May 22, 1980


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, once again, the minister is in Paris saying things reported by the press that I have not checked. He is constantly available in the House. He has answered every question put to him. I am sure he will be happy to deal with this one.
I point out to the hon. member that what we were ridiculing in the last election campaign, essentially, was a policy that said Canadians had to pay international prices for petroleum produced in Canada.


An hon. Member:: We never said that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That was not our position.


An hon. Member:: That was not ours, either.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 accept the correction: it was that Canadians would be tied to an international price to the degree of having to pay 85 per cent of that international price by 1983, or January, 1984.


An hon. Member:: Wrong again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You still don't know what you are talking about.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I hear the hon. member from Edmonton saying I do not know what I am talking about, and 1 heard an hon. member from Newfoundland say that he agreed with what I said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: So at least I am on the side of one of the hon. members opposite, and that makes it two against one. That is about the end of what I want to say on that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the statement he made in the House on Tuesday when he said that the interim energy agreement with Mexico did not contain any specific references to oil imports planned under the interim agreement. I trust that since that time he has had a chance to look at the interim agreement and to find out that it indeed did contain the specific reference of a commitment of up to 100,000 barrels a day from Mexico to Canada.
Given that agreement on energy co-operation, and given also that the agreement now on industrial co-operation with Mexico will not be signed during President Lopez Portillo's visit to Canada next week, I should like to ask the minister
Oral Questions
what assurance we have, other than the minister's optimism, that the 100,000 barrels of oil a day commitment will be honoured.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, 1 have not checked the record of Tuesday, but 1 believe what I said was that there is no exact schedule for deliveries by Mexico to Canada contained in the agreement. 1 believe that to be the exact statement.
In respect of the general problem that the hon. member raised, all I can say is that Canada and Mexico are negotiating today and 1 hope to be in a position to have further information on that subject in the near future.


Miss MacDonald:: Madam Speaker, since this seems to be a day for hon. members to correct what they have said previously, I would ask the minister to go back and take a very clear look at what he said, because not only did he say that the interim agreement did not contain any specific references to oil imports, he also said that such explicit references to levels of oil imports would not be written into any renegotiated agreement. Those are his words.
I should like to ask him, given that indication that this government has abandoned the efforts of the two previous governments to obtain specific imports of oil from Mexico, why have such commitments been abandoned? As the minister knows, France has recently attained a specific agreement with Mexico for the importation of oil, and Japan has recently attained a specific agreement with Mexico for the importation of oil. What is wrong with the Canadian government that it cannot attain a specific agreement with Mexico? Has it abandoned all efforts to get oil from Mexico into this country?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, there has been no change whatsoever in the policy of the Canadian government in this respect. The change that has occurred has been in the policy of the Mexican government. If the hon. member will read the news reports accurately, she will read that Japan and France have been having exactly the same problems as Canada.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Madam Speaker, is the minister now saying that the government has failed in trying to achieve the rate of 100,000 barrels of oil which the government of Mexico had previously committed to supplying to Canada? The agreement had been initialed and it had been agreed to as late as February; but now the deal is off.
Is the minister now indicating that his government cannot carry out a commitment which was previously honoured, and that it cannot get the Mexican government to agree to that commitment now?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I am not in a position to speak for the government of Mexico, but I can say that there is no change in the position of the Government of Canada.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Speak for your own government.
Oral Questions FINANCE


CANADA-U.S. TAX TREATY-EFFECT ON CANADIAN REVENUES
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I direct my question to the Minister of State (Finance). The proposed tax treaty, some of the terms of which were released to the press today, between Canada and the United States reduces the Canadian withholding tax on dividends and interest payments going to the United States from 15 per cent to 10 per cent.
Can the Minister of State for Finance tell the House what effect this will have on Canada's deficit in terms of lost revenues? Would he not agree that reducing the withholding tax can only have the effect of encouraging further American investment in Canada?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: Madam Speaker, the agreement to which the hon. member referred was negotiated at length. It will indeed be quite beneficial not only to all Canadians but also to the other party to the agreement, namely the American people. As for specific figures, they are rather difficult to establish. However, I will check with the officials of the department and if I can provide the hon. member with specific figures I will be pleased to do so.


Bob Rae: I thank the minister for his reply and 1 have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.

1 wonder if the Prime Minister would tell us whether or not he is in agreement with the statements made by the Minister of Finance in one of his rare public appearances, who said as reported in the Toronto Star of Friday, May 16, that he was not in favour of any large-scale repatriation of the Canadian economy and-
I have never been as uptight as others have been about foreign investment.
Is that the policy of the Liberal government at this time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the last part of the quotation, if it is a quotation, about being uptight is the expression of a personal opinion and a disposition of mind and body of the hon. minister.
As far as the first part of the statement, about wholesale repatriation of Canadian assets-the hon. member is shaking his head. What was the phrase, again, in the first part of the statement?


Bob Rae: I will be glad to send over to the Prime Minister the Toronto Star. It reads:
Nor does he favour any plan for the federal government to buy large parts of the economy held by foreigners, he said.
That would be a major decision to take.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I distinctly heard the hon. member quote something about repatriation of assets in his
May 22, 1980
first question. Now he is shaking his head as if he did not say that.


Mr. Nielsen:: I heard him, too.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. members opposite heard the hon. member as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: He is shaking his head to get the neurons moving.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would ask the hon. member if it is the policy of his party to change its questions in mid-stream.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, 1 appreciate the frankness of the Prime Minister in answering the question. He shows the same forthcoming as his colleague, the Minister of Finance. How does the Prime Minister square the lowering of the withholding tax from 15 per cent to 10 per cent with the fact that the Bank of Canada has been maintaining a higher differential in interest rates, and the recent statement by the Minister of Finance that he is not uptight concerning foreign investment?
[DOT] (M30)
How does he square that with the speech which he gave when he was leader of the opposition-in Toronto, five days before the election-saying that the repatriation of the Canadian economy was a major preoccupation of his and would be a major preoccupation of his government, and with the statement that foreign investment was now going to be controlled in a future Liberal government? How does he square those two things?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, now the word "repatriation" reappears in the hon. member's question.


An hon. Member:: Let's not play with words.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I want to point out to the hon. members of the New Democratic Party that that is a matter of a very important distinction. 1 believe that neither the minister nor I have ever talked of, and certainly it is not government policy, repatriating foreign assets into Canada in a wholesale business.
Our policy has been, when possible, to repatriate some assets, but as much as possible to try to buy into the future rather than trying to buy back the past. That has been the policy of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OIL IMPORT-IMPORT COMPENSATION PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to address my question to the Prime Minister. In

May 22, 1980

response to my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Centre, the Prime Minister indicated that he had no idea what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was saying in Paris.
I wonder if the Prime Minister can confirm that there was discussion in cabinet and instructions were given to the minister with respect to the targets to be set by Canada for IEA purposes in Paris. 1 would refer the Prime Minister to a press release put out by the minister, dated May 20, in which it is indicated that for IEA members who participated in the Tokyo Summit in June, 1979, those goals were the ones originally set at Tokyo, and that the goals in Tokyo were confirmed in December, 1979.
Is it the position of the government, and their direction to the minister, to confirm the objectives with respect to reduction of imports as set forth in Tokyo and confirmed by the IEA in December? Is that the position of this government, or are there new targets that the minister has been directed to take to Paris?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I honestly cannot answer that question. I will take notice of it. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary would know.
I cannot recall the exact terms of the cabinet decision authorizing the minister to take a position in Paris.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. I am astounded that the Prime Minister would not have this information. He made such a big issue of it during the last election campaign that I would have thought those figures would be in his mind constantly.
Here is a simple question with respect to statements made in the House yesterday by the Minister of Finance, in which he indicated that whether the oil import compensation program was going to be terminated depends upon the negotiations on pricing and the blended price formula. I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of this government to terminate the oil import compensation program, and I would ask him to clarify the situation because conflicting statements are being made by ministers of the Crown.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, it is part of our policy to phase out the oil import compensation over a period of time.


SELF-SUFFICIENCY-ENERGY PRICING
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Since income that would have been available through Conservative party energy pricing policies in Canada is not now available to the federal government, and because increased federal income through energy pricing contemplated now might be completely lost to subsidization payments for expensive imported oil, can the Prime Minister please tell the House how, or if, the government will provide, for the sake of self-sufficiency, the $100 billion funding necessary to develop non-conventional and alternate energy resources in Canada?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will be happy to take notice of the question, Madam Speaker.


REPLACEMENT FUEL FOR GASOLINE
Gary Michael Gurbin: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker, to the Minister of State (Mines), in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


An hon. Member:: She is not here.


Gary Michael Gurbin: I shall then put the question to the Minister of Transport, who is acting for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
With import prices rising, and dependence on imports probably not decreasing significantly, and since the government seems to have given up on oil self-sufficiency by not providing adequate funding, are there any specific plans to develop gasoline replacement fuel that could assist particularly Ontario and the other non-oil producing provinces in their energy needs?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: I am sure, Madam Speaker, that there are a number of research projects looking into alternative sources of energy. I will make sure that my hon. friend is given a full list of the research projects presently in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he tell the House whether Canada intends to renew its peacekeeping contributions in Cyprus-a renewal that I think will have to be made in a few weeks' time-or if we are perhaps looking at the policy of the previous minister, of re-examining our peacekeeping role in Cyprus?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, no final decision has been made yet, but I may say that I do not anticipate any substantial change in our present commitment.


Pauline Jewett: I wonder if the minister would be good enough to give me a little more information. Will it be the same commitment? Will it cover the same contribution of troops, and will it last for the same length of time?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I must reply to the hon. member of the NDP that we do not intend to alter the force sent to Cyprus nor the procedure followed as long as we continue to play our peacekeeping role. We intend to keep our commitment as long as

May 22, 1980
Oral Questions
Greece and Turkey ask us to remain there to avoid a possible conflict.


CHARITABLE DONATIONS-CANADA-U.S. RECIPROCITY AGREEMENT
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I think he is aware that the reciprocity treaty between Canada and the United States regarding donations given to charitable institutions is being challenged by some of the IRS offices in the United States.
Is he aware that there is a problem and, if so, could I ask what he is doing in negotiating with his American counterpart to make sure that charitable institutions in both countries do not suffer because of misapplication of the terms of the treaty?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, 1 am not in a position to answer that question at the present time, but I undertake to inform the hon. member.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but in his absence I will address it to his parliamentary secretary.
For the past few years, processors of dairy products in Canada have been systematically taken over by a small group of multinational corporations, concentrating control of wholesaling and retailing of dairy products in Canada in the hands of a group of mostly foreign-owned corporations.
Since this practice has already placed the interests of Canadian consumers and processors of dairy products in jeopardy, would the minister assure this House that his department will undertake an investigation of takeovers of processors of dairy products in Canada, and ensure that the interests of Canadian consumers are being well served?


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I will be pleased to draw this to the attention of the director. As the House knows, it is not customary to say when an investigation is proceeding, and I cannot say whether one is proceeding at the present time. 1 will certainly make sure, however, that the hon. member's concern is conveyed to the director.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he tell us what action his department is taking with respect to the reported taking of killer whales and other endangered species, in contravention of the International Whaling Convention, by the Soviet Union?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, we are certainly very disturbed by this situation and we are making representations with respect to it. If the hon. member desires further information, I will be glad to attempt to provide it.


Donald W. Munro: I should like some additional information, Madam Speaker. 1 should like to know the nature of the objections, and what plans the government may have to prevent a recurrence in the next season of the taking by one of the signatories of the International Whaling Convention of endangered species.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, this matter is under review. We are certainly making representations in the appropriate places and we will continue to do so.


FOREST FIRES
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. At present, there are over 230 forest fires still burning in the three prairie provinces, as well as many more in northwestern Ontario and British Columbia, as a result of prolonged hot, dry weather. Thousands of lives are endangered by these fires; indeed, at least two communities have already been evacuated.
Will the minister put at the disposal of civilian fire-fighting authorities all available armed forces equipment and personnel in order to help ease this very serious situation?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: 1 can assure the hon. member, through you, Madam Speaker, that the armed forces are at the service of the civilian population wherever they are. At the request of the Saskatchewan government, we have provided a squadron of aircraft to check on these fires and to help transport people who are fighting them. We already have two helicopters in northern Ontario, two in Saskatchewan, and two Hercules aircraft helping people wherever help is needed. The hon. member can be assured that the armed forces are at the service of the Canadian people all the time, wherever they are needed.
May 22, 1980


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, 1 thank the minister for that answer. 1 did not realize I was setting him up for such a good answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: My supplementary is also directed to the Minister of National Defence. At least one of these fires, affecting over 12,000 acres, was caused by artillery exercises at Canadian forces base, Shilo, Manitoba. Will the minister order the suspension of all such military exercises at all Canadian forces bases in areas of extreme forest fire danger?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Madam Speaker, in some areas which
are kindling dry, we have ordered a stop to certain military operations. In others, we have taken additional precautions to make sure there is no danger of forest fires.


LABOUR DISPUTES
Mr. Mike Landers (Saint John):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the National Harbours Board Police Association in Saint John, New Brunswick, has been on strike for a period of six weeks, and in view of the fact that the only outstanding issue is a small wage percentage increase, would the minister intervene in this matter to ensure an expeditious settlement?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, in relation to the National Harbours Board Police Association strike at Saint John, prior to the strike commencing on April 25 our department provided full conciliation and mediation services. Since the strike has been under way, the department has been monitoring the situation and watching for an opportunity when the parties would be prepared to consider a possible settlement. I will undertake to get further details for the hon. member as to any developments in the past day or so, and I will report back to him.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Would the minister confirm that Sterlake Enterprises, of Hamilton, Ontario, has been awarded a $1.2 million DREE grant for locating a plant in the Winnipeg area, and whether the government gave the Niagara region the same financial consideration for the establishment of a plant as that received by Winnipeg?
Oral Questions
Expansion): Madam Speaker, may I take that question as notice? Within a day I will give a full answer to the hon. gentleman.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, would the minister further confirm that the taxpayers, through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, gave an additional $3 million in loan guarantees to Sterlake; and what alternate plan does the federal government have to address the serious unemployment situation in the Niagara region?


Mr. De Bane:: I will certainly make a full report to the hon. gentleman.


INQUIRY WHETHER PROJECT RELATED TO SALT MINE IN ILES-DE-LA-MADELEINE ELIGIBLE FOR GRANTS
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I waited some time before putting it, as I knew the minister was quite busy. I should like to ask the minister, with regard to the Iles-de-la-Madeleine salt mines project, whether that project is eligible for grants from his department and, if so, whether he intends to announce those grants soon.


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, some two or three weeks ago when that topic became an argument in the referendum campaign of the PQ government in Quebec, I stated that I would not allow myself to be influenced by demagogic arguments and the indecent fashion in which the Quebec government tried to use the project during its campaign. But at that time I did say to the people of the islands that right after the campaign 1 would go to the islands myself and explain to them the reasons that will underlie and justify the decision the government will take in the matter. But even at that time I wanted to assure them that the decision I will announce will be to their advantage. In passing, 1 point out that the Quebec government has already announced to the people that the project will go ahead regardless of the decision we make. The people of the islands therefore take the project for granted, and I shall advise them of the reasons within ten days at the most.


Roch La Salle: The minister did not quite answer my question. I asked him if he could tell the House whether this project is eligible for grants under the criteria established by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and, if not, what reason could he put forward to refuse.


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, in effect, the hon. member is asking me to announce the decision today. I want to give him the strongest assurance that my decision will be based on indisputable ground. However, I do not wish to announce the decision today because 1 would like to reserve the news for the people of the islands. The hon. member knows full well that if I say this project is eligible then the conclusion would be easy

May 22, 1980
Oral Questions
to draw; if, on the other hand, 1 were to say it is not eligible, 1 would have to explain why. So 1 reserve this for the people of the islands, and you can rest assured that my decision will be supported in such a way that all people of good, faith will concur in it and approve it.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Given the fact that an announcement was made in both the Ontario legislature and in the House of Commons which would have required Inco to take particular action with respect to its contribution to acid rain, and with regard to the rumblings we are now hearing from Inco that it may not be in a position to meet those commitments, is the minister in a position to tell us whether the government of Ontario will insist that those conditions be met?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I have no reason to believe that any change will take place in the control order which has been issued. Indeed, I would publicly urge against any such change if it were to be suggested.


RAILWAYS
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. The minister is meeting with his western counterparts on June 3 in Victoria, I believe. Can the minister tell the House whether the question of the disposal of the abandoned rights-of-way will be on the agenda? If not, could the minister indicate whether, in fact, he has reached a conclusive decision as to the policy with respect to the disposal of these lands?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I could not say whether this is a specific item on the agenda. I suspect it will be however. On the substance of the question, 1 would expect to follow the policy outlined by my immediate predecessor.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, could the minister undertake to assure the House that he will implement that policy? 1 am glad that he will follow the policy of the previous administration, but would the minister undertake to ensure that that policy will be implemented as quickly as possible, inasmuch as this matter has been outstanding for quite some time?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will do my very best to do that, Madam Speaker. For those who are not familiar with the policy, it consists of leaving the responsibility to the provinces for disposing of the rights-of-way left by the abandonment of rail lines.


FOREST FIRES
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of forestry. In light of the several motions moved under the provisions of Standing Order 43, one by my colleague from Peace River, and several others in respect of the very serious situation of forest fires throughout the country-one which complicates even further the difficulty the industry is facing right now- has the minister considered the advisability of meeting with several of his colleagues-for instance, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and the Minister of National Defence-to see whether it would be possible to work out some kind of strategy on the part of the federal government whereby the provinces, the industry and the environment could be protected?
Furthermore, has he considered the advisability of calling into action the interdepartmental committee which was set up as a result of the meeting in January with the minister responsible for forestry to seek its advice as to how the federal government could become involved in this serious situation?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I welcome what I take to be very constructive suggestions on the part of the hon. member. There has been continuing consultation between my department, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As the hon. member knows, the Department of National Defence does, in certain circumstances, provide assistance. In view of the very serious situation which has developed, I will take into consideration the other suggestions the hon. member has made, and get in touch with him.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, 1 had intended to direct my supplementary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but perhaps the minister for forestry might be able to answer it.
A report has been tabled-the Forest Fire Review report- which is a study of the serious effects of last year's fire season in the territories. Has the minister met with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to see whether the recommendations in the report could be implemented with dispatch, in light of the fact that the extent of the fires this
May 22, 1980

year seems to exceed the rather dramatic events which occurred in the territories last year?


John (Moody) Roberts: There have been some discussions among myself and representatives of the minister and, I believe, between our two departments; but there has not yet been on my part any specific discussion of the recommendations of last year's committee. There may have been on the part of the officials concerned. 1 will investigate that aspect as well.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In response to questioning on Tuesday, the minister stated that the report of the Arctic Waters Advisory Committee on drilling in the Beaufort Sea was thoroughly reviewed by himself and his department. This report stated that the government "is not and will not be prepared to make important decisions which will be required in the future if drilling activities continue."
Rather than give what I would call blind assurances that there are no risks involved in this drilling activity, will the minister explain what plans he has to improve the government's capability to respond to the environmental risks associated with increased drilling activity in these Arctic waters?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Madam Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that his leader asked questions on this subject earlier in the week or in the latter part of last week. There is a contingency plan with respect to drilling activities. If there should be any mishap at all-and, as I say, the possibility is very minimal indeed, according to all the expert advice I have received-we have a contingency plan. 1 am prepared to talk about that contingency plan in the standing committee this evening. We shall no doubt go into that matter.


Peter Ittinuar: Also on Tuesday last, the minister referred to advances in technology in connection with drilling in the north. May I say that these have to do only with drilling in the north, not with environmental preservation and protection. He further referred to safeguards with respect to relief well-drilling this season, no doubt in regard to the September 25 deadline for the termination of all drilling activities.
Will he assure the House that in no circumstances will any drilling or production testing be allowed after this date, as happened last year, regardless of pressure from Dome or any other company active in the Beaufort Sea?


John Carr Munro: I can assure the hon. member that neither I nor the government will, under any circumstances, make a decision based on pressure from Dome or anybody else. The fact is that there is a 20-day grace period
Oral Questions
after September 20 which could be used for continued drilling, if all the advice we have with respect to weather conditions and all other risks which might be involved is positive in the sense that there is very little, if any, risk at all in continued drilling during that grace period. It will be judged solely on the basis of that expert advice. If the advice indicates drilling is not warranted, we shall adhere to the deadline.


OIL IMPORT COMPENSATION PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Carnell Crosbie: My question, Madam Speaker, is addressed to the Prime Minister, who earlier in the question period agreed with the Minister of Finance that the policy of the government is to phase out or do away with the oil import compensation program.
Will the Prime Minister explain what the time-frame is for that operation, because the last figure we have is $3.1 billion, a cost which is going to increase now because of recent increases in the price of oil? Is it to be phased out this year? Where will the amount in excess of the $3.1 billion come from? Where does he propose to get it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in answer to a previous question, I indicated that it would be done over a period of time. Therefore, the answer to the part of the question related to this year is "No". But the hon. member must understand the policy put forward by the government. It is a policy of blended prices and, naturally, we would have to continue to pay the international price for imported oil. But we will pay less for the oil.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: When?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Even the hon. member from Kingston will understand that they are not going to accept lower prices for our imported oil.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Also, if she had been more attentive to the policy which was stated by the minister and various members of this government, she would understand that the blended price means we are going to pay the international price for the imported oil and that we will pay less than the international price for Canadian oil. The result will be a blended price.


John Carnell Crosbie: We all realize that this is a blended government, or a blanded government, but even a blended government cannot perform miracles. The Prime Minister said, on CBC radio on February 10:
We obviously would have to subsidize the price of imported oil. We would continue to do this as we did in the seventies.
This was a pledge to the Canadian people, before the election of February 18, that he would continue to subsidize the price of imported oil. Today he tells us he is not going to

OraI Questions
continue to subsidize the price of imported oil. You are not Mandrake the Magician. You cannot fool the Canadian people indefinitely with blended prices on blended prices and blanded prices. How long will this commitment last? The Prime Minister implied that all during the eighties he would subsidize the price of imported oil as he did in the seventies. Is he now doing away with that commitment, as he has done away with so many others?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the element of cross-subsidization which we began in 1974 will, indeed, disappear as soon as the blended price is in. We will pay to foreigners the international price, and the price in Canada will be a lesser price.


John Carnell Crosbie: Where will the money come from?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What Canadians will pay will be a composite of those two prices.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, a supplementary on behalf of simple, uncomplicated Canadians like myself who cannot understand this new algebra or new mathematics. There are $3.1 billion which the government admits it is going to cost for oil import subsidies this year. How is the Prime Minister going to replace all, or part, of that? Who is going to pay to make that up? The taxpayers will subsidize it, the $3.1 billion, under the present program, but that is going to change with the blended program.
Who, then, is going to pick up the money that is saved under $3.1 billion? It is the Canadian people, is it not, and therefore the government will not have to subsidize because they are going to collect it from the Canadian people-from taxes on heating oil and taxes on all oil products, another sleight-of-hand, gerrymandering that is planned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand the hon. member is making a suggestion. I will have the minister look into it.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. When the minister was in Brussels recently, he was quoted as saying that the National Defence budget for next year, 1980-81, has not been set and that the NATO 3 per cent goal will only be reached if the 1979 appropriations are carried over.
Will the minister tell the House whether the National Defence main estimates tabled by his government on April 22, in the amount of slightly over $5 billion, are in fact his budget, or not?
May 22, 1980


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I must inform the hon. member for Victoria that over the last five years the average increase in the defence budget has been about 3 per cent and that we plan on having the same figure for 1980-81. The present budget or, if you prefer, the current estimates indicate a similar rate, namely, an increase of 3 per cent in real value.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I must say that the minister's parliamentary secretary is much more forthcoming and straightforward in her answers to questions.
Could the minister tell the House if he was briefed, either before he went to Brussels or while at that meeting, on the cost overrun of the Airborne Early Warning system, whose costs seem now to have got out of hand?
Can the minister tell the House what action he took, as the minister representing the Canadian government, to enforce appropriate cost controls for that program so that Canada is not liable to pay a fixed percentage of unlimited costs for the new AEW system?


Maurice Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any program or measure taken by the Department of National Defence which is not controlled at budget level. At times it can happen that these costs will increase due to inflation or certain circumstances beyond our control, but the budget as a whole is very well controlled. When certain expenses increase in an uncontrollable manner it is because we do not have any control over inflation or it is due to some other factors.


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, 1 wonder if I might ask the government House leader if he could inform the House of his plans for tomorrow and into next week. I understand he is prepared to designate next Friday as an allotted day for the opposition. Could he confirm that for me, please?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I want to confirm that next Friday will be an allotted day. The business for tomorrow will be the Federal Business Development Bank Act and the Bret-ton Woods Agreements Act, on both of which we hope to be able to complete second reading stage.

As for the events of next Monday, Madam Speaker, there is a change which is important to note, namely that the president of Mexico is going to speak in the House, not at 11 a.m. but at 2.15 p.m., contrary to what may have been announced by some


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
May 22, 1980
[Stage Direction]
media. The oral question period will be at 4.30 on the same day, and after that we shall pursue consideration of the old age security bill, to grant senior citizens an increase of $35 in their guaranteed income supplement.
After this bill is passed we intend to begin consideration of another piece of legislation to provide government with supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1980-81, namely Bill C-30. If before next Friday, which is an allotted day, an opposition day, as I have just mentioned, if we have enough time we hope to be able to complete the study of Bills C-19, C-28, C-3 or of motion No. 1 in the name of the government.
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, on a number of occasions I have asked the minister whether he would be prepared to make the appropriate reference to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence so that there could be reports by parliamentary delegations to that committee, which is something which has been done before. I have indicated that we would be prepared to do that without debate. Is the government House leader prepared to make an announcement today as to whether that is appropriate, and could he put the appropriate order on the order paper so that we could proceed?


Yvon Pinard: The appropriate notice will be given no later than today, so that we hope to be in a position to adopt the motion tomorrow or at the latest at the beginning of next week.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, there is one other matter which concerns the House of Commons. There was some discussion during the period of time that the committee on televising the proceedings of the House of Commons was in existence, that committee being under Mr. Speaker Jerome. That committee does not exist at the moment, but that discussion ranged around the possibility of engaging in a pilot program to televise the work of standing committees of the House of Commons. There had been some discussions about that. The discussions did not lead to any final conclusion.
1 am not assessing blame when 1 raise that matter-not by any means-but would the government House leader give consideration to arranging for the television of a standing committee of the House of Commons or at least equipping one room on a temporary basis, or whichever would be the least expensive, for televising the work of committees so that we can have a pilot project on that? 1 think that if that does not happen, there is a great part of the work of the House of Commons which would not be seen. I understand there is space available now through satellite transmission to carry the televising of the committees of the House of Commons. There is a considerable amount of space and time available. If the government House leader would consider that, I would be
Business of the House
grateful. When he is considering it, could he tell the House whether he has any feeling about reconstituting that committee on televising the House of Commons under the chairmanship of the Speaker of the House of Commons, as was the case in other parliaments?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague will recall that a few months, or rather a few years ago, it was our government which decided to bring Parliament closer to the people by televising the debates of the House. A committee was established at the time to launch this experiment which has now proven successful, and it was in this spirit that a committee of the House was appointed by the Speaker to ensure that the systems then being tested would bring about the results that we have today, that is that the debates would be televised according to the concept of the electronic Hansard.
Now, Madam Speaker, the suggestion concerning the committees deserves consideration. However, I must say to my hon. colleague that televising the debates of the House has made us realize that certain procedures are outmoded, and it is important to consider the fact that there is room for improving many elements of the procedures of the House.
While respecting the spirit of Parliament, we should modernize it. We can also make it more effective and more human.
I would not want to be so narrow-minded as to limit the experiment of television to a single committee. I believe that in the next few months, in consultation with all hon. members, we must try to bring about a reform through which we shall be able once again to show to the public now watching us in the House of Commons through television that we can be effective while respecting the rights of the opposition and that we are also able to adjust ourselves to the requirements of the eighties.
All these changes, all these modifications, all these reforms should be discussed by representatives of all parties, and I do not think that it would be wise at this stage to launch a very limited experiment, at least not before the summer recess in order to televise the proceedings of a single committee.
If my learned colleague wants to think about reform proposals, I know that he has already submitted a project containing some good ideas, such as shortening the length of speeches at second reading, which I would gladly support. Certain other changes seemed less acceptable to my mind. In any case, we are open to discussion, and I invite all members who have constructive suggestions to make to do so as soon as possible so that we may, to the great satisfaction of the Canadian public, and of course of parliamentarians, make Parliament even more interesting than it is now.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I share with the government House leader the feeling of complete
1302

May 22, 1980
Business of the House
acceptability of the process of televising the House of Commons. As he will recall, the motion brought forward by the then president of the Privy Council, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), after suitable amendment and discussion was approved unanimously by the House of Commons.
I appreciate his interest in parliamentary reform-it is an interest that we have as well-and I wonder, therefore, whether it is the intention of the government House leader-1 gather it is his intention and I wish he would confirm it-to give a reference so that Parliament can get to the business of looking at the procedures of the House of Commons. Would he be prepared to indicate to the House when he would be giving a reference so that the committee can get to work with regard to reforming the processes of the House, and can he tell us whether he plans on doing that before the summer adjournment, because I think the interest in reform is shared by both [DOT]sides of the House.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the hon. member suggests that the matter be referred to committee. It is a suggestion which merits consideration. But there are other ways of achieving reform without necessarily going through a committee. I know the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization gave the matter lengthy consideration in 1975. It produced three reports which are quite interesting and which could be applied in parts.
I will take his suggestion into consideration, but I want to assure him that reform can be accomplished in several steps but nonetheless in a global perspective rather than through isolated actions which would be inconsequential as regards the changes we want to bring about. Such reform could be accomplished not necessarily through a House committee but directly through consultation with my colleagues and then by a government motion.
In any event, we will most certainly consult members from both sides of the House before suggesting any change whatsoever.


Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, now that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has indicated that his legislation regarding veterans and their widows is just about ready, will the government House leader keep in mind the provision of legislative time for that legislation as soon as it reaches the order paper?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: I will certainly keep in mind what the hon. member mentions, and I trust that we will be able to give him satisfaction before the end of the year.


Mr. Hargrave:: Madam Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the President of the Privy Council. I
should like to ask the government House leader if he would use his good offices to give a referral to the Standing Committee on Agriculture on the subject of the very critical western agricultural drought, so that it can be properly discussed for immediate consideration and action in that standing committee?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I will, with pleasure, consult the ministers concerned, in particular the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and probably the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), and, after consultation, take the hon. member's suggestion into consideration.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, my question is for the government House leader. I should like to ask him, while the Minister of Transport is here-I see him behind the curtain lecturing the Prime Minister who appears to be terribly intimidated-whether it is true that there is an intention not to bring forward the ports act legislation which was scheduled to be brought in by the previous Liberal administration and was then brought forward by our administration. First of all, is the rumour accurate that the government does not intend to bring forward that legislation? If it is not true that the government intends to bring it forward, can he say when it will be brought forward and what kind of priority the government places on that legislation, because it has very serious implications for the commission port in my constituency?


Yvon Pinard: 1 will check that, Madam Speaker.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
MR. MCKNIGHT-MEDICARE PROGRAM-CONTRIBUTIONS by SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which arose out of statements made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) in this House on May 14. After my quick lesson yesterday, Madam Speaker, I should like to start again and quote from the middle of the paragraph on page 1061 of Hansard for that day, where the minister said:
-to ask the local population and community to react to financial barriers being imposed when they should not be imposed in the light of the huge payments being made by taxpayers in all of Canada for medicare in Alberta, as everywhere else-though not in Saskatchewan, by the way.
I should like to bring to the attention of the minister that over the last number of years the taxpayers of Canada have contributed to medicare in Saskatchewan in 1977-78 to the tune of $193.5 million, in 1978-79 to the tune of $225.9 million. I am pointing that out because perhaps the minister has not paid attention to the province of Saskatchewan and does not feel that the rest of the taxpayers of Canada are contributing to health care in that province.
May 22, 1980

1 should like to point out to the minister that up to 30 per cent of the doctors in the province of Saskatchewan are billing their patients directly. This has continued for the last two to three years. I should like to point out the actions taken by the government in Saskatchewan to rectify this practice which members of the NDP and some other members in the House find reprehensible. What the province of Saskatchewan has done is to introduce a bill in 1979 to amend the Saskatchewan medicare insurance act to require physicians to provide patients with information on how to receive reimbursement from the provincial insurance commission. This is not a great deal of help to people who will suffer a financial loss of probably 80 per cent.
in closing, let me state briefly that at present Saskatchewan is suffering along with other provinces from direct billing by physicians. 1 hope it is the minister's responsibility to rectify this problem.
If you find this to be a question of privilege, Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), that the Minister of National Health and Welfare recognize that the people of Canada contribute to medicare in the province of Saskatchewan.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Thank you very much. Madam Speaker. Through you, I congratulate the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydmin-ster (Mr. McKnight) for this second Tory speech in favour of medicare we have heard in two days. That pleases me and reminds us of the erosion problem suffered by that institution, the best Canadians have to serve them and which of course we want to see remaining whole to serve Canadians.

I regret that the hon. member has misinterpreted so seriously the answer 1 gave on medicare more than a week ago. If he would forget about making a speech on medicare, he would see that I have said very clearly and repeatedly that Saskatchewan does not impose financial barriers in the way some other provinces have. I do not even know why he rose on the subject. I am sorry to be that blunt-perhaps the heat in this room makes me call things by their name-but I should like to know what is behind the matter he raised, because on the face of it there is nothing in it that constitutes a question of privilege.
It is pretty clear from my answer that Saskatchewan has not raised financial barriers as have many other provinces. It has an indirect barrier to which 1 did not refer, and that is the barrier of extra billing. However, the fact is that in the last two years the extra billing has been reduced to some 3.5 per cent of the claims, which is not bad.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: 1 am sure that members of the NDP would agree with me that it should be reduced to zero, but unfortunately it is still 3.5 per cent.
Privilege-Mr. McKnight
For the second day in a row we are faced with a Conservative member trying to espouse the cause of medicare, with the NDP applauding. I had decided not to raise this subject during the course of the inquiry by Justice Hall so as to give his report full justice. 1 thank hon. members of the opposition for bringing up the matter through alleged questions of privilege which do not exist.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 have to rule on this question of privilege. I think the hon. member is expecting me to tell him that he has no question of privilege. Obviously this is a dispute arising between two members where interpretation of what was said is not agreed upon.
I think the time has come for me to read to members instances where, a question of privilege does apply, because it seems to me that members are bringing up questions of privilege quite often. Of course, the Chair encourages members to bring up questions of privilege when they are quite sure that there is a privilege involved, but I think I have had to rule sufficiently often on questions of privilege which were simply disputes between two members. Members should try to be a little bit more mindful of the reasons for which one can invoke a question of privilege, and I will read the reasons to members.
1 should like to refer to Beauchesne's fifth edition, which reads as follows:
A dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
The failure of a minister of the Crown to answer a question may not be raised as a question of privilege.
Statements made outside the House by a member may not be used as the base for a question of privilege.
Many matters, such as the absence of a minister of the Crown from a committee studying his estimates, may constitute a grievance but not a question of privilege.
Even that is quite a serious matter. In this particular case the member is raising a question of privilege based on remarks made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) on May 14. He is raising that point today, on May 22. Beauchesne's fifth edition also indicates the following:
A question of privilege must be brought to the attention of the House at the first possible opportunity.
There was ample opportunity for the member to bring up this question of privilege. The member was in the House. I do not know if he was in the House the day after the minister made this statement, but he was in the House several times since that time. It seems to me that several days have passed during which time the hon. member did not feel that his privileges had been breached. Beauchcsne continues as follows:
Even a gap of a few days may invalidate the claim for precedence in the House.
Therefore, on these grounds, which I am sure are quite obvious, I must rule that there is no question of privilege.

May 22, 1980
House of Commons



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Madam Speaker:: I have the honour of tabling in the House an extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Commissioners of Internal Economy held on Tuesday, May 13, 1980, on the revision of salaries of House of Commons employees.


IRANIAN ECONOMIC SANCTIONS ACT
Mark R. MacGuigan: for leave to introduce Bill C-31, to provide for the imposition of certain economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran.


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

Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, there seems to be unanimous consent for this motion to be introduced now. It reads:
That on Monday, May 26, 1980, notwithstanding Standing Order 2(1), the House shall meet at 4.30 p.m. and shall conduct its business as if it had met at 2 p.m.
That private members' hour shall be suspended for the day's sitting;
That the address of His Excellency the President of Mexico, to be delivered in the House chamber earlier in the day before members of the Senate and the House of Commons, together with all introductory and related speeches, be printed as an appendix of the House of Commons debates of that day and form part of the records of this House; and
That His Excellency's speech, together with all introductory and related speeches, be made available to the media for transmission in the usual way by the House of Commons broadcast system.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion introduced by the President of the Privy Council. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It is so ordered.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3, 55, 150, 242, 336, 357, 360, 583, 589, 606, 658, 659, 660 et 817.
Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Text]


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the government aware that the Paris, France, telephone directory in effect listed Quebec, prior to May 22, 1979, as an independent nation by referring to it as Ambassade du Quebec and, if so (a) what is the government doing to correct this falsehood with those concerned (b) is the government taking steps to determine whether or not Quebec's office in Paris has been granted certain diplomatic privileges such as duty-free liquor and cars, ordinarily granted only to recognized diplomatic personnel?
2.	Is the government aware that a press official of the French foreign ministry stated in a press interview in February of 1979 with reference to Quebec's house in Paris: "In effect, it's an embassy. Mr. Deschamps, the delegate general, is the equivalent of an ambassador" and, if so, what representations has or is the government making to the French government in this regard?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. Yes. The government is aware that the Quebec office in Paris was so listed in the 1979 edition of Paris telephone directory, (a) The Canadian Embassy in Paris contacted the appropriate authorities on the subject. The Embassy learned that while this directory is published under the aegis of the French ministry of "Les Postes et Telecommunications", its content and marketing are in the hands of a private concern. The error was corrected in the 1980 edition of the Paris telephone directory, and the Quebec office in Paris no longer appears under the heading of "Ambassade". (b) The officers of the delegation enjoy privileges similar to those of international organizations. They were negotiated between the Canadian and French governments in the early sixties.
2.	Yes. The statement which was attributed to a press officer of the French foreign ministry was in fact made by the secretary of Quebec's Delegate-General in Paris. It expressed her own view of the situation rather than that of the Quebec government. No action is therefore required.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the total cost to the taxpayers of Canada of all aspects of introducing the metric system up to and including the date on which this question is answered?
2.	What is the over-all total estimated cost before the entire operation is completed?


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State, Small Businesses):: 1. Metric Commission Canada expenditures to date have been:
May 22, 1980

1971-72	$ 44,541
1972-73	$ 530,943
1973-74	$1,590,792
1974-75	$2,634,101
1975-76	$3,316,100
1976-77	$4,380,300
1977-78	$5,753,000
1978-79	$7,540,640
2. Projected Metric Commission Canada expenditure estimates are available for:
1979-	80
1980-	81
1981-	82


[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
Pierre Bussières: 1. The
over-all total budget for the head office project of the Bank of Canada has not changed since question 1875 was answered April 18, 1977, supplementary July 21, 1977, and question 2879 was answered August 4, 1977. The final cost of the construction component was $1.7 million below the budget, it is expected that the cost for other components, which are nearing completion, will fall within the budget.
2. Final consolidation of all of the head office operations of the Bank of Canada in Ottawa will have occurred before mid-year 1980. At that time it is estimated that some 1,500 persons will be permanently employed in the new head office complex.


Mr. Cossitt: What was the total amount spent by the government in the former constituency of Leeds and the present constituency of Leeds-Grenville under Parks Canada, including the St. Lawrence Islands National Park and the Rideau Canal, since October 31, 1972, up to the date that this question is answered?


John (Moody) Roberts: 


Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many priority beds, by location, are available to the Department of Veterans Affairs in hospitals and nursing homes that are not administered by the Department?
2.	How many are not presently used by the department?
3.	Is there a charge for a reserved bed that is not in use?
4.	Is there a waiting list of eligible persons wanting to occupy a priority bed?
Expenditures-Parks Canada St. Lawrence Islands National Park
Year	Operation and Maintenance	($000's) Capital	Total
From October 31			
1972-73	77	52	1291973-74	241	156	3971974-75	262	282	5441975-76	399	362	7611976-77	434	909	1,3431977-78	543	901	1,4441978-79	612	785	1,397lo March 31	1979-80	629	747	1,376Total Expenditures	3,197	4,194	7,391


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: St. John's, Nfld.	84	Toronto, Ont.	1200	Halifax, N.S.	200	London, Ont.	767	At facilities in N.S.	85	Kingston, Ont.	150	150*Saint John, N.B.	83	Regina, Sask.	116	50*Fredericton, N.B.	57	Saskatoon, Sask	100	100*Moncton, N.B.	35	Edmonton, Alta.	246	100*Campbellton, N.B.	25	Calgary, Alta.	146	Quebec City, Que.	150	Vancouver, B.C.	870	Montreal, Que.	55	Victoria, B.C.	170	2.	* DVA does not formally exercise its right of priority access to these beds. While the agreements are still in effect, the requirement for priority access to active treatment no longer exists.3.	No.
Rideau Canal
Taken over from Transport in	1973/74		
1972-73	_	_1973-74	1,734	2,996	4,7301974-75	1,878	1,471	3,3491975-76	2,241	2,723	4,9641976-77	2,494	4,591	7,0851977-78	2,655	4,636	7,2911978-79	2,933	3,958	6,8911979-80	3,019	3,580	6,599Total Expenditures	16,954	23,955	40,909Grand Total	20,151	28,149	48,300


[Stage Direction]
4.	No, for active care beds. Yes, for chronic, personal and intermediate care.
Mr. Herbert: 1.	As of March 31, 1979 (a) how many persons in the SX classification were employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (b) how many were (i) Francophones (ii) females?
2.	What arc the present totals?
3.	Was there a structural change in the department since March 31, 1979, and, if so, what effect did such a change have on the number of SXs employed?

Question No. 242-Mr. Herbert:	Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):
1.	What was the (a) total cost (b) design fees (c) furniture and special 1. (a) 11; (b) (i) 1; (ii) None, facilities costs for the new Bank of Canada building?
2.	How many persons are permanently employed in the building?
2. Same as above.

May 22, 1980
Order Paper Questions
3. No.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	As of March 31, 1979 (a) how many persons in the SX classification were employed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (b) how many were (i) Francophones (ii) females?
2.	What are the present totals?
3.	Was there a structural change in the Department since March 31, 1979 and, if so, what effect did such a change have on the number of SXs employed?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: 1 - (a) 37; (b) (i) 2; (b) (ii) 1.
2.	(a) 38; (b) (i) 3; (b) (ii) 2.
3.	The Department of Fisheries and Oceans was officially created on April 2, 1979. Eight additional SX positions were established for which staffing actions are under way.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	In the fiscal year (a) 1972-73 (b) 1973-74 (c) 1974-75 (d) 1975-76 (e) 1976-77 (f) 1977-78 (g) 1978-79, what amount of revenue did the government receive from the capital gains tax?
2.	For the same years, what was the monetary cost to the government to collect the tax?


Mr. Yves Demers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: I. (a), (b), (c) and (d). See question 1699, Thirtieth Parliament, third session, answered October 10,
1978.		
	Tax Year	Amount (millions of dollars)
(e)	1976	310(0	1977	415
(g) The year 1977 is the last year for which data is presently available.
It is not possible to provide an answer on a fiscal year basis. The above are estimates by taxation year of amounts of revenue received by the government attributable to the taxable portion of capital gains, based on calculations by the Department of Finance.
2. Since capital gains are not taxed separately, information is not available as to the monetary cost to the government of collecting the tax.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the Auditor General's report for the year ended March 31, 1979, at page 507 which states in part, that the personnel information system of the Department of Supply and Services was found by users "to be inaccurate, untimely and incomplete" and that absence of an "adequate information system has led to the creation of duplicate systems and has hindered personnel management", is the government taking steps to correct this situation and, if so, what are they?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
personnel information system referred to in the Auditor General's report was developed and introduced within DSS about ten years ago. Since that time, the technology for such systems has made great progress and, as a result of a full review made in 1978, it was decided to replace this system rather than try to upgrade it. In 1979-80, the personnel information system in the services administration of DSS was replaced by the Personnel Administrative Reporting System (PARS). PARS is a terminal oriented system using current EDP technology and is capable of providing accurate, timely and complete information in support of the personnel management function. Introduction of PARS in the supply administration of DSS is planned for fiscal year 1980-81.


Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed on staff in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Ralph Ferguson: There are no lawyers employed on staff in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The Department of Justice has however, assigned a total of five lawyers to provide the day to day legal counsel required by the department.


Mr. Howie: How many war veterans from New Brunswick are waiting for a decision to determine (a) eligibility (b) increase in their disability pension?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: (a) The Canadian Pension Commission does not maintain statistics regarding applications for eligibility for pension by province.
(b) The Canadian Pension Commission does not maintain statistics regarding applications for increase in disability pension by province.


Mr. Howie: How many war veterans from New Brunswick have been waiting for more than six months for a board decision to determine their entitlement to a disability pension?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The Canadian Pension Commission does not maintain statistics regarding applications for entitlement to a disability pension by province.


Mr. Howie: How many war veterans from New Brunswick have been waiting for more than six months for a board decision to determine their right to an increase in their disability pension?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The Canadian Pension Commission does not maintain statis-
May 22, 1980

tics regarding applications for increases in disability pension by province.


Mr. Howie: Since April I, 1975, what amount was spent on studies related to marijuana by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Aideen Nicholson: Nil.
[ Translation]


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to draw to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council question No. 785 which stands in my name. 1 do not do this by way of criticizing the government for delay at all in view of the date of the question. The question reads as follows:
Has the Department of Public Works, the NCC or any other department or agency made any agreement with the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton or any other local government in the national capital, to grant land or the right to use land for the extension of the Knoxdale-Hunt Club Arterial Road or any part thereof through lands owned or controlled or used by any government department or agency?
That is the purport of the question. 1 must tell the parliamentary secretary that the question is of great importance to a large number of ratepayers and residents in the areas of Manordale, Woodvale, Arlington Woods, Tanglewood and Merivale Gardens in the city of Nepean. I bring this matter to his attention specifically so that he could ask the Minister of Public Works if he can expedite an answer to that question. 1 realize there are problems with respect to that, but if the parliamentary secretary would do that, certainly I would be very grateful.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has drawn the urgency of answering this question to my attention. I will do my best to get a quick answer and to talk to the Minister of Public Works about it.
In general I should like to say that to date we have answered 126 questions in the short period of time since the House has been sitting, which I think is not a bad record.


Walter David Baker: They have done very well.
Constitutional Change



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville) moved:: That this House welcomes the result of the referendum in Quebec and pledges itself to interpret that vote as a clear call for constitutional change.
He said: "Madame ie President," we decided to put on the order paper today a general motion which calls upon the House to recognize the vote in Quebec as a vote that called very clearly for constitutional change. We thought it was important to do that so that members of Parliament of all political parties had a chance to speak out in united voice about the kind of Canada they want to see in the future.
[ Translation]
On Tuesday May 20, it is clear, Madam Speaker, that the people of Quebec voted against the status quo. Like many other Canadians, they made known their wish to build a new country. It is important to realize that this is a second chance for the renewal of the Canadian federation.

I must compliment the Quebecois for their intelligent, peaceful and democratic debate. In many countries around the world, in many different societies, the problems we are dealing with here could result in war, killings, violence and unrest. In Canada our differences are a clash of ideas, not of guns; our differences are a clash of words, not of fists.
In this debate I do not want to speak of winners; I do not want to speak of losers. I want to speak about the future of my country, which I think is very promising.
I also want to compliment the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of our country who spoke in a very positive and magnanimous way the night of the referendum and here in the House yesterday. I want to compliment the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the leader of my party, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), for their openness and conciliatory attitude in the House of Commons and on referendum night in Quebec on May 20.
This is not a time for self-righteousness. It is not a time for English against the French. It is not a time for east against the west. It is not a time for the federal government against the provincial governments. It is not a time for farmer against worker. And it is not a time for one Canadian against another. But it is a time for all of us to work together, to seek a common consensus and a common compromise for the Canada of tomorrow. It is a time to build a country with a new federation that has a central government strong enough so that we can have economic equality among all the regions, yet a country that is flexible enough that all the regions have freedom to express their uniqueness and their differences.

May 22, 1980
Constitutional Change
In addition to constitutional change, we need an economic development plan that is fair to all provinces, and we need to patriate the Canadian economy so that we own and control the house we live in and we have a Canada owned by Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Finally, we need a change in attitude in Canada, one of understanding and co-operation among all the people of this country. We are a wealthy country, we have resources, we have the educated people, and with imagination, with constitutional and structural changes, we can build a country where we can feed, and provide adequate health care for, all our people; a country where we can help the poor and the underprivileged, where we can find a place for Indian, Inuit and our Metis people, where we can have a special place for Quebec and French Canadians, and where we can have a special place for and thrive on our multicultural background and make it all a part of a new Canada.
[ Translation]
It is important to understand that the result of the referendum is a clear indication of a will to change. As a majority of Yes votes would not have meant the end of the country, a majority of No votes is by no means a guarantee of survival, it is obvious that the 40 per cent of Quebeckers who voted Yes demand substantial change. We must keep in mind that the majority of those who voted No, that is nearly 60 per cent, also demand substantial constitutional change. Also, we must note that some of those who voted Yes are in favour of federalism, but said Yes for tactical and strategic reasons.

It is also very important, 1 believe, when one looks at the vote in Quebec, to recognize that the "Oui" vote was strongest among the young; the "Oui" vote was strongest among the educated, the leaders of tomorrow. This reinforces the urgency of change in our country, and the urgency of making changes as soon as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I believe that we do not have very long to find a solution, otherwise dissension across Canada may be impossible to stop.
Just think about what has happened in this country since 1967, Mr. Speaker. Let us take our minds back to the year 1967, our centennial year, a year of great promise and great hope, a year of celebration in our country.
[ Translation]
Since 1967, a year of festivities in the province of Quebec, it is clear that many citizens are not too happy with the status quo. Here are some examples from recent years. In 1968, the Parti Quebecois was formed. In 1976, it had become the government of Quebec, and four years later, the Parti Quebecois had managed to rally 40 per cent of the votes for a mandate to negotiate sovereignty-association. It is clear that
many Quebeckers are not happy with the status quo in Canada.

Since our celebration in 1967 we have seen in the west increasing unhappiness and the founding of several small separatist groups, political parties, including the Unionist party that hopes to make me and all of us in western Canada Americans, something that as a westerner I will fight against by arguing for legitimate change within a federation. I have nothing against my friends in the United States, but 1 want to remain a Canadian; I want to remain a Canadian now and a Canadian in the future.
A recent poll by the Canada West Foundation showed that 13 per cent of western Canadians wanted the west to separate from Canada and form a separate country, and I think that is very serious. Some 4 per cent wanted us to join the United States. A CBC poll conducted in Swift Current, in my province, showed that 19 per cent of the people there wanted a separate country and 6 per cent wanted to join the United States. I think that is evidence that western alienation and unhappiness is growing in our country.
Since our celebration in 1967 we have seen increasing unrest in Newfoundland to the point where a distinguished journalist named Charles Lynch recently described a speech by Premier Brian Peckford as sounding more separatist than Rene Levesque.
Since our celebration in 1967 the Indian, Inuit and native people of our country have been increasingly frustrated with their status in Canada. Last month the Indians asked to participate in constitutional talks and to have some of their rights enshrined in a new Canadian constitution. These and other frustrations in our country are very real, and they must be met. We do not meet them by constantly putting people down, by clubbing people on the head and by isolating them. That only fosters a feeling of anger, a feeling of discontent and a feeling of alienation in our country.

With respect to Quebec, neither my party nor 1 are in favour of sovereignty-association, and the leader of my party has said so many times in Parliament and across the country. But I must congratulate the present government of Quebec, as my leader did in Parliament last year, I believe, on other political decisions, such as the project to nationalize the asbestos company, the automobile insurance scheme, the labour legislation, the farming legislation and its position on the status of women and the highest minimum wage in North America as well as other progressive measures. All these things have been accomplished within the federal system. I also agree with the general principle of Bill 101.
Bill 101 guarantees as many, if not more, rights to the English in Quebec than many of the other provinces guarantee to the Francophones who live outside Quebec. The English
May 22, 1980

minority in Quebec has schools and school boards, while in provinces such as Ontario there are many French schools. But in spite of the fact that there are half a million Francophones in Ontario, they are not allowed to have their own school boards. Here in the national capital the parents of tens of thousands of young people who attend French schools are not allowed to have French language school boards.
Instead of condemning everything that is done by the Quebec government, as some have done by comparing that government to the governments of Cuba and Haiti, we should praise what is right, progressive and good and condemn and dissociate ourselves from that with which we disagree. As 1 say, we disagree very strongly with sovereignty-association.
1 was very happy to notice, in La Presse newspaper of May 17, just last Saturday, an article which quoted a former Liberal MNA who had been a cabinet minister in the province of Quebec. The gentleman was Victor Goldbloom who is an Anglophone from the Jewish minority group in Quebec.

And I quote the headline:
The PQ nationalism does not exclude minorities
The Quebec society is one which is very democratic.

When someone like Mr. Goldbloom makes a statement like that, we should take cognizance of the fact that, just because we disagree strongly with one of the concepts of a people, we do not have to condemn the whole direction of the people. [Translation]
Quebec is different. It is a distinct society by reason of its history, its language and its culture. Moreover, its school and judicial systems are different from those to be found elsewhere in Canada. In my view, a new constitution must recognize this difference.

There are many differences and many problems in western Canada as well. I have already referred to the growth of the separatist movement, the Unionist party and the like, all of which we oppose. However, our differences in the west are primarily of an economic nature. For a long time there has been an increasing economic alienation of western Canada from Ottawa and the government.
But western Canada is not monolithic in a cultural sense. One need only look to Alberta and Saskatchewan to see the many historical, cultural and institutional differences which exist in the prairies. In Saskatchewan there is a long history of co-operation, of public ownership and of public participation in the economy. In Alberta the orientation has gone in the other direction.
However, there are many problems which are similar. We have problems in agriculture. We fought to build a Canadian Wheat Board, and we want to keep a Crow rate as a statutory rate to help our farmers. We also want to process our food resources in the west, to build up an industrial base and process some of the raw materials of western Canada in
Constitutional Change
western Canada to provide our people with jobs and the resulting economic benefits. We would also like to have a freight rate system that is more fair and does not discriminate against western Canadians in the development of our goods.
In terms of the constitution, there are many things that the western Canadian premiers are now asking of Ottawa. Recently at a meeting in Lethbridge, Alberta, the four premiers issued a communique saying that resources should be under the control of the provinces, that the provinces should have more input and more control over communications in our land, and that the federal institutions should be reformed so that they reflect a more accurate make-up of our country which would allow for more provincial input into the institutions of Canada.
What the western premiers are saying is something that we will have to consider in the months and years ahead-that they want a certain devolution of power toward the provinces on the one hand and, on the other hand, a strengthening in the centre of provincial voices and provincial views so that the provinces could have some input into institutions such as the Supreme Court and the Bank of Canada. Perhaps the Senate could be changed to a council of the provinces, or something of that nature.
These are some of the feelings one finds in western Canada.
I stress very strongly that most of those feelings are directed toward forming a new country within a federation, a country which we all wish to keep together.
To all those, whether in Quebec, in western Canada, in the maritimes, who have lost faith in a federal arrangement for Canada and to all those who no longer believe that the Canadian federation can meet their needs, we of the New Democratic Party reply that a federal structure is the solution to the various problems that exist in this country. Having said that, Madam Speaker, we cannot accept either the constitutional status quo or a renewed status quo. On the contrary, we consider the new federation must reflect the values of democracy and social justice.
I would like to recall rapidly some of the advantages of a federal arrangement and point out at the same time why the NDP, our party and myself are convinced that this political formula is best for the future of Canada. It is particularly interesting to see that the first individuals who were politically inspired by the old principle "In union there is strength" were not the Fathers of Confederation but the Iroquois who created the first kind of federation in this country. They understood that a federal arrangement was a guarantee of greater stability. Today we can confirm that idea, a very, very important idea. A federation is a more solid alliance than a treaty of association between two or several sovereign states. Another advantage is the absence of monopoly over the political power. In a federation, the political power is divided among different

May 22, 1980
Constitutional Change
levels of governent and within a democratic framework; that constitutes the best defence against an authoritarian regime by nature and against an intensification of social conflicts. It was de Tocqueville who wrote, I think, and 1 quote:
I believe provincial institutions to be useful to ail peoples, but none seem to me to have a more real need of those institutions than those whose social system is democratic.
It seems obvious, Mr. Speaker, to the largest part of the people that a federal arrangement assures a certain economic viability that would not be present in other situations. I will give you only two proofs of that. The process of greater economic unity in Europe-and I am referring here to the European Economic Community-and second, the recognition by the leader of the Parti Quebecois himself, Rene Levesque, in his platform, of the necessity of an economic association between Quebec and Canada.
Finally, as another advantage, one must be aware that a federation is not necessarily incompatible with the development of the peoples that make it up. It is rather the structures of the federation and the ways in which governments use those structures that can create a form of oppression of minority groups. So, in theory, it is possible to conceive the existence of a development for political groups and peoples.
And, Mr. Speaker, even Mr. Rene Levesque, Premier of Quebec and leader of the Parti Quebecois, acknowledges that because a month ago he wrote in the April, '80 edition of the magazine iAction nationale, and I quote:
instead of the present regime, it may be possible, in theory, to imagine a form of renewed federalism. But this renewed federalism should aim at changing Quebec's place in a way that will not weaken it but strengthen it.
Rene Levesque said that a month ago.
In principle, we of the New Democratic Party are not against this proposition since we believe that the development of the people who make the Canadian federation should be promoted. And as far as the Quebec society is concerned, we believe that during the next negotiation round, the idea of a special place for Quebec in the renewed federation should not be ruled out.

Mr. Speaker, I want for a few more moments to digress from the sort of problem we often deal with in this House-the concrete world of taxes, inflation, unemployment, expenditures and so forth-and to address briefly a problem that is much less tangible but in my opinion all too real. This is the problem of attitude. It is very difficult to talk in concrete terms of attitude, but it is the problems of attitude and of perception that underlie the way in which the central government goes about using its power.
It seems to me that power concentrated in the centre has all too often taken on the shape and the image of the centre, rather than reflecting the reality of the regions. This is a multicultural country; our people have come from many lands. The people who settled and built my province, for example,
have names like Konkin, Fedorak, or Tchorzewski. Even when adopting the English language they have left their cultural mark. The differences between my province and Newfoundland and Ontario are not as marked as those that exist between Saskatchewan and Quebec, but they are there and they are important. Thus it is important that the central body, the institutions, reflect those differences. We have different cultural values in Canada and those differences should not be treated as an impediment to progress; they should be seen as an attribute in this country.
To return to the question of perception, we must at all times remember that what one culture defines as having great importance is not necessarily so defined by another culture; those things which one culture defines as having equal value are not necessarily so defined by other cultures. By not recognizing the existence of these differences, by not seeing them as attributes and by not incorporating them into policies and programs-those which we describe as universal as well as those we describe as regional-we run the risk of increasing the alienation and regional conflicts with which we are all too familiar.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I shall cite but two examples, Mr. Speaker. I hope they will not seem petty or frivolous as they are examples that are important to many people. I remember Robert Cliche. [Translation]
And I think that hon. members remember clearly Mr. Robert Cliche, who was once the leader of our party in the province of Quebec and a very well known judge-

He was very popular and an important figure in the province of Quebec. I remember when Robert Cliche talked about the housing program of CMHC. He mentioned that this agency of the central government was building houses in Quebec to architectural plans, which I suppose were adopted by officials in Ottawa, and which had incredibly small kitchens. Robert Cliche pointed out that in the homes of Quebeckers the kitchen has always been a very special place. It was and still is a focal point, a place of socializing, a place of conversation. All this was ignored by CMHC planners who designed houses with small kitchens. In the scheme of things, this is a small problem but 1 think it is indicative and symbolic of the much larger problem of attitude at the centre of the regions of this country.
Another example is the matter that was raised in the House three or four weeks ago by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky). This example is very important to the part of the country that 1 come from. I refer to the recent policy of the government of ending the Saturday morning postal service in rural communities. In a constituency like mine people really do not understand how the central government can be so ignorant of the importance of this service to the continued viability of their communities, and therefore to the continuation of a way of life that they value. In a small community of 200 or 300 people or even 3,000 people, Saturday is the day when people
May 22, 1980

come to town to shop, to visit, to socialize, to meet friends, neighbours and relatives, to go to the coffee shops and cafes, to go to the co-ops. They also go to the post office. All you have to do in a small community is stand in front of the post office on a Saturday morning and you will meet over half the residents. That is important to us, Mr. Speaker. A lot of people feel alienated when such a service is removed.
Whether we talk about housing programs, the postal service, rail policy or a multitude of other policies and programs, the widespread feeling that the central government is literally and figuratively too far removed from the lives and aspirations of the diverse people of this country is, it seems to me, justified. Too much has been undertaken by planners and mandated by governments which indicates that there is no awareness or appreciation of the differing values in this country.
As we set out on this ground project of constitutional reform, we must begin, as the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, by putting our own house in order and by putting our own institutions in order. We can begin that process by making sure that our perception of what this country is all about is correct. I think that all of us in this Elouse realize how easy it is to lose sight of what is wanted in the constituencies when we are burdened with the administrative and other responsibilities of office. We must take steps to ensure that the voices of all the peoples and all the regions are heard and that their aspirations are realized as much as possible.
I see that my time is about up, Mr. Speaker. If you will allow me another minute or two, I should like to conclude by saying that the task before us is no easy one. I think we have started off with the right tone, however. We started off by being open, by wanting to build bridges, wanting to reach out to people, wanting to build a federation with a centre strong enough to make sure we have genuine equality of opportunity, yet flexible enough that each region and each province can demonstrate its uniqueness. That uniqueness can grow and flower, Mr. Speaker, and make all of us better and more wealthy because of it.
We are a string of communities, a string of regions and a string of cultures around this country. The combination of all those cultures and communities is more than just the literal addition of them. We are more than a community of communities. The combination of all of that is Canada. It is the combination of all of that that 1 think is going to make this country one of the really great countries in the years that lie ahead.
I plead with the Prime Minister, with members of this House, with all of the provincial premiers and leaders, that in the next few weeks and in the next couple of years-because I believe that we do not have too many more years to go-we maintain this policy of openness, this policy of trying to draft a new constitution, a new framework with new economic policies, with new attitudes that will make us, once again, one big, united family that recognizes our differences, that is proud of those differences and that grows because of those differences.
Constitutional Change
Those are differences that make us a country called Canada that is unique and prosperous in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the hon. member who moved the motion now before the House as the topic to be discussed on this allotted day. It is very simple and, if I may, I should like to read it again:
That this House welcomes the result of the referendum in Quebec-
Obviously, as far as the first part of the motion is concerned, as we saw yesterday, the reaction was spontaneous and unanimous on both sides of the House: all hon. members from all parts of Canada, are truly happy with that result. 1 resume the quotation:
-and pledges itself to interpret that vote as a clear call for constitutional change.
The second statement is also obvious in that the reaction of the hon. members of all parties proved clearly yesterday in this House that the results of the vote in the province of Quebec must be interpreted as proof that the province of Quebec has decided to choose Canada while at the same time calling for a renewed federalism.
As far as I am concerned, the way I interpret the results which gave the federalist forces about 60 per cent of the votes in Quebec as opposed to 40 per cent to the Yes forces, is this, Mr. Speaker: they are clearly indicative of two conclusions. The first, that a large majority of Quebeckers have expressed their wish to remain within Canada; and second, that a large majority of Quebeckers have also heard, accepted and understood our message to the effect that by voting No, they would be voting for major constitutional change. If, in addition, we take into account the fact that amongst those who voted Yes, quite a number did so, by their own admission, to exert pressure with a view to getting a renewed federalism and those people wanted change while remaining within Canada, in the final analysis, we see that, in that May 20 referendum, far more than 60 per cent of the Quebeckers indicated clearly that they choose to belong to Canada. Therefore, my interpretation is that the vast majority of Quebeckers chose Canada Tuesday night, but that they did so in the hope that institutions can now be changed in the near future. And what leads me to come to that conclusion is the style that permeated the referendum campaign in Quebec these last few weeks. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the campaign unofficially began by the tabling of the notorious question in the Legislature, to be followed subsequently by a debate. All the observers that I have met, at least a large number of them, agree that during the debate in the Quebec legislature the PQ members did not deal at length in their speeches with the question itself but mostly discussed matters other than sovereignty-association. Conversely, the opposition members, a much smaller group,

May 22, 1980
Constitutional Change
denounced the question as being ambiguous, long, confusing and designed to garner votes under misrepresentations. But since the PQ members were in a majority situation in the legislature, it so happened that their comments had an impact on the public and indeed at that stage of the referendum campaign, the PQ had taken the lead and was winning over the federalist forces.
After that, the referendum campaign was officially launched and then a strange phenomenon happened. Many would have thought that it would have been hard for federalist forces to rally, but quite the opposite. In fact, federalist forces came together and united in the most perfect harmony and in the strongest unity to take a united stand against the sovereignty approach. Under Mr. Ryan's remarkable leadership, we saw the Liberal members of the Quebec National Assembly, the members of the National Union and of other opposition parties join forces with members of this Parliament and in the most complete harmony express to all Quebeckers their will to build a modern Canada, a country that meets the requirements of its regions and where the constitution will be renewed as soon as possible.
This was a turning point because, from the very beginning of the referendum campaign, we saw the exemplary union of federalist forces of all parties both in Quebec and in Canada and this, to my mind, largely contributed to the great victory of the No vote during the referendum campaign.
Also, the style adopted by both forces was a determining factor in the decision made by the voters in the province of Quebec. If we analyse briefly the campaign style of the Parti Quebecois and the Yes side, we realize, and this may seem paradoxical, that their approach was very negative. I suggest that this seems paradoxical because they were trying to get a Yes answer, while their approach was essentially negative.
The Yes supporters attacked federalism, federalists, and they even tried in some instances to attack individuals rather than to stick to the substance of the debate. They even failed- and it was perhaps a strategy, and if so, it failed-to deal in depth with sovereignty-association and to define it to a population which was obviously concerned and wanted to know exactly where the Parti Quebecois and the Yes supporters wanted to lead them with a question which was denounced from the very beginning of the campaign as deceptive and ambiguous.
And we saw on May 20 how the general public's common sense had the better end. The question itself aroused suspicion, being much too long and not really understandable by the average Quebec men and women, the average citizens. And the people told themselves: If the question is so long and complex, probably those who put it have something in the back of their minds. I think this was a natural reaction by Quebeckers, at least in my constituency.
It would have been much simpler to ask plainly: Do you support sovereignty-association or not? and explain the
implications during the campaign. The skepticism caused by the lengthy and ambiguous question was strengthened by the fact that the question was being put by a political party proposing Quebec's independence. Federalist forces made this very clear in my view during the referendum campaign when bringing it to the attention of Quebeckers. Finally the people from the Parti Quebecois used their majority position to force their question upon the National Assembly and in the referendum.
And Quebeckers realized that the lengthy and difficult question, ambiguous for most people, was put by a political party with a clear platform to seek independence for Quebec. Once again the common sense of the people prevented them from going the Parti Quebecois' way, not only because the question was confusing and too lengthy, but also because it was put by a party with an avowed objective of independence that appeared to be hiding their choice behind a 125-word question.
But something more decisive than the ambiguity and length of the question and the fact it was put by a political party seeking independence is that Yes forces, the PQ majority failed to show Quebeckers-as theirs was the burden of proof that the change to sovereignty-association would bring about advantages not provided by the current system, federalism, and I think that the No forces exploited that well in all regions, and the question was legitimate. 1 think that with a question as important as this one where people were asked to give the government the mandate to negotiate sovereignty-association, a question which was 125 words long, and that was what the Parti Quebecois wanted, 1 think it would have been normal and wise for the Yes side, during the referendum campaign, to try and prove to the ordinary people, to the general public that a change was desirable because it would benefit Quebeckers.
Not only was proof not given by but the Yes forces, those who argued for the Yes cause, seem to have deliberately avoided talking about sovereignty-association and therefore about its advantages, if any. This, in my opinion, showed disrespect for the electorate and the people of Quebec. But once again, as 1 have said, common sense prevailed. Quebeckers were distrustful as soon as the question was made public because it was long, because it was ambiguous, because it was asked by a political party whose political option was to achieve independence, and it seems to me that the fact that the Pequistes skirted the definition of sovereignty-association and its consequences only added to this mistrust and encouraged the great majority of Quebeckers to reject the option, to refuse to give the mandate asked for and to say no to the referendum question. So, this is my modest and very summary analysis of the results of the referendum, results that should be interpreted as an outright rejection of sovereignty-association by Quebeckers, an option unknown to them and about which they have been systematically denied any explanation and, conse-
May 22, 1980

quently, of which they do not know the benefits, if any. On the other hand the results of the vote show very clearly and very positively that the huge majority of Quebeckers are in favour of Canada, their feeling of belonging was very obvious but, at the same time, most Quebeckers, if you add up to those who voted No all those who voted Yes and who wanted constitutional changes but within the federation, we realize that the large majority of Quebec citizens want major constitutional changes and very soon.
I am delighted with the result because it makes two things clear; first, that a majority of Quebeckers have expressed their preference for staying in Canada; and second, that they have heard and accepted our message that voting No is a vote for change. In interpreting this victory we should remember that many people who voted Yes really want change which would keep Quebec in Canada. So, all in all, the victory for Canada is clear. The job now is to get on with the work of reform as rapidly as we can, and this is exactly what we intend to do. It is our hope that the government of Quebec will accept the will of the people and express its willingness to participate creatively in the work of constitutional reform.

It made me conclude that the large majority of Quebeckers want to stay in Canada and promote a renewed federalism. 1 mentioned the type of campaign made by the Yes supporters, but the type of campaign of the No supporters had also an influence and a significant one.
On our side, I think we tried to make people proud of belonging to Canada and we have been very successful. 1 think people in Quebec accepted our proposal that they should choose the road that the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada, (Mr. Trudeau) had often described as the road to excellence, where you try to be heard at the federal level so that this country will be governed in harmony between the two great founding peoples and so that individual freedoms and minority rights will be protected.
I think that our commitment to Canada and our approach commanded great respect, because people understood what we were asking from them, in spite of injustices that occurred in the past which no one denies, but that nonetheless happened within a relatively very short period of time. After all, in my humble point of view, a nation is still very young when it is only 113 years old. There are various ways of correcting injustices. Contrary to the Parti Quebecois, which was advocating a kind of territorial withdrawal which would be an act of frustration and would result in the loss for the Quebec people of huge resources, both cultural and material, and which would also be unfair to our French-speaking minorities outside of Quebec, what we were proposing was-instead of collective sulking and a sort of confinement in a limited territory-a noble effort to show that in this country which is still very young, French and English people can live in com-
Constitutional Change
plete harmony, in mutual respect, and of course in the greatest equality, Mr. Speaker. 1 for one believe in it, and think that our message was well accepted by the Quebec people as a whole. In 1980, in a country which is about 113 years old, we can still meet the challenge of diversity or, in other words, as 1 have just said, allow two great founding people to benefit from the cultural wealth of each other and let several other cultures be respected and develop in the Canadian mosaic. I believe that what 1 said in my region, and what many others said in their own region, helped to strengthen the will of Quebeckers to meet this challenge, to have confidence in the future and to go on building a great country which can remain united and be really strong. I have the impression that the vote on the question asked by the Parti Quebecois resulted in a refusal of the concept of sovereignty-association, but also, and this can now be stated as an obvious fact, gave massive support to a healthy, fair and equitable development of the beautiful and vast country which is Canada. This this is why I am in complete agreement with my colleague of the New Democratic Party who moved today's motion when he concluded, as 1 am convinced we must all conclude, that it is now obvious that Canadian attitudes have begun to change clearly and significantly, and I believe that this will lead to constitutional changes which will come about effectively and quickly. I am happy that the Prime Minister unequivocally reaffirmed yesterday in this House his desire to bring about a renewed constitution and the flexibility of his approach.
Before closing, 1 would not want to miss the opportunity to quote some of his comments which are essential at this stage of the evolution of our Canadian history. Two days ago, we saw the victory of the No option of which we have just commented on the meaning for Quebec, but the fight is not over. It has just begun, Mr. Speaker. It is important to emphasize this short passage of the statement made yesterday afternoon in the House by the Prime Minister of Canada, and I quote:
-I have asked the Minister of Justice to begin immediately a tour of the provincial capitals in order to obtain the views of the premiers on the best way to follow up on their will to change. As for us, our only prerequisites for change are the two which I outlined in Quebec as early as January, 1977.
First, that Canada continue to be a real federation, a state whose constitution establishes a federal Parliament with real powers applying to the country as a whole and provincial legislatures with powers just as real applying to the territory of each province. Second, that a charter of fundamental rights and freedoms be entrenched in the new constitution and that it extend to the collective aspect of these rights, such as language rights.
1 had said at the time and 1 say again today that we consider everything else to be negotiable. What we want is to give Canada a new, modern and functional federal constitution which will enable our governments to better meet the needs and aspirations of all Canadians.
Well, Mr. Speaker, there is hardly anything left to add to the comments made by the Prime Minister of Canada; except for the federal link as well as individual and minority rights, everything else is negotiable. This is where we stand and I have every reason to believe that with some good will, a change of attitude has been shown and continues to be shown, but now it is time to alter our institutions in a harmonious climate without undue delay.

May 22, 1980
Constitutional Change



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)- Labour Conditions-Health and Safety measure to protect uranium miners; the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)-National Defence-Winners of competition for design of patrol frigate; the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett)-Status of Women-Studies on employment strategies for women.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nystrom:
That this House welcomes the result of the referendum in Quebec and pledges itself to interpret that vote as a clear call for constitutional change.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There have been some discussions or consultations with respect to how the order of speakers might best be handled today because there is a considerable number of members who wish to enter the debate. Some proposals have been put which, it is the understanding of the Chair, may be convenient and suitable to members of all parties, and if that is the case I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to proceed in that fashion.
The elements of the understanding appear to be that, while ordinarily the next speaker would not enjoy the 30 minutes given to the first two speakers, in fact the House might agree to give the Conservative spokesman, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), 30 minutes in which to speak.
The second element of the understanding is that speeches after eight o'clock this evening would be limited to 15 minutes for each hon. member.
The third element, if 1 might call it that, of the understanding is that it is hoped that this order of business would produce a capacity to have speeches from four members of the New Democratic Party, five of the Conservative party and possibly-perhaps likely-five of the Liberal party.
If there are hon. members who want to expand on that, that is fine, at the cost of some problem with the amount of time
which may be available generally. However, as soon as it appears appropriate the Chair will seek the unanimous consent of the House to proceed in that fashion.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the elements you have outlined are accurate and agreeable to this side, and by my calculations, if we adhere to those time limitations, the Liberal party will have five speakers, we will have five speakers and the NDP will have four speakers. We are proceeding on that firm understanding.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, 1 just want to say that our understanding is what you have said from the chair, that if need be the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) could have 30 minutes. After eight o'clock the time will be reduced to 15 minutes per speaker; we will get four, the Conservatives will get five and the Liberals will get five.


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might make a suggestion. I know that this has not been cleared with the House Leaders on either side, but in view of the number of people who might want to speak on this very important issue, perhaps it might be appropriate to reduce the time limit after eight o'clock to ten minutes rather than 15 to allow more members to speak.


Erik Nielsen: No.


Mr. Malone:: You may do that voluntarily, though.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The impression I have, with respect to the last suggestion made by the hon. parliamentary secretary, is that he might find the agreement of the House if it were proposed that the speeches were in fact kept to 15 minutes rather than ten, because I did hear some objection to the reduction to ten.
I will now seek the consent of the House. Is it agreed that after eight o'clock this evening speeches shall be limited to 15 minutes, without exception?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is so ordered.


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. I want to say at the outset that the official opposition fully endorses the two elements of the motion before the House this afternoon.
The citizens of Quebec have spoken clearly and expressed their desire to remain in Canada. For many the referendum was an experience in which they shared very deeply. But the outpouring of emotion was not restricted to the citizens of Quebec. Across Canada Canadians have expressed relief and gratitude at the results, which were a clear demonstration that the break-up of Canada was not to proceed, that sovereignty-association was not an option that we would consider.
Now that the referendum is over, it is imperative that Canadians from all parts of the country have an opportunity to
May 22, 1980

participate in the changes that must take place. As Canadians, first, we must recognize that we are among the most fortunate countries of the world. Yes, we have problems; yes, changes must be made in our institutions; but let us never forget that as a nation we have advantages. We have been blessed beyond the dreams of those who in the 1860s gave form to our country.
Second, we must remember that confederation has not failed. During the past 113 years our country has developed into a modern society, a society which is conscious of its minorities, a society which gives everyone opportunities unequalled anywhere else in the world today.
There have been those who have argued that confederation does not and has not worked, those who have advocated that a province or a region would have a better future if it were on its own. Canadian history is replete with examples of politicians who have advocated the dismemberment of our country. Those politicians of division are still with us today, but they have never been able to convince the majority of Canadians, who have followed their own common sense, to follow their siren call for ending the Canadian experience. Often they were motivated by frustration or perceived injustice which they felt was perpetrated on their region or on their province. But never were Canadians willing to follow their proposition that our future would be better apart and that we should end the grand experiment called Canada.
The Fathers of Confederation grappled with attitudes and problems similar to those that face us today. Tension then, as today, existed between English and French-speaking Canadians, and even then between east and west. But I am reminded of the words of one of the Fathers of Confederation, George Etienne Cartier, when he said in 1865:
Shall we be content to maintain a mere provincial existence, when by combining together we could become a great nation?
Surely that is the sentiment of every member of the Elouse and also virtually every Canadian, that we are a great nation only because we have combined together in a common cause.
Just as in 1867 Canadian leaders saw the need and the advantage of joining together and forming a new nation, so also today that advantage has not changed. It is important, therefore, that we renew our dedication to the building of our country. Having said that, let me say that it is important that we grasp this moment of opportunity. The important question must be answered not by words but by action.
Many supporters of the No option were convinced to vote No because of the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other federal leaders that constitutional change would become a priority. Additionally, a significant number of those who voted Yes were convinced that the only way in which constitutional change could take place was by voting Yes and delivering a shock to Ottawa to get on with the job.
Constitutional change should not be viewed by either the federal government or the provinces as an exercise where one has to give up or give in, but rather as an exercise in nation building. It does not have to be a win-lose confrontation. What
Constitutional Change
is fundamental is the attitude that will be brought to the exercise.
In the past many of us have said that the Prime Minister has been inflexible in his approach to constitutional change. The attitude to adopt must be one which embraces openness and the willingness to see the other person's point of view. It is an attitude which cannot be dominated by a win-at-any-cost approach. Unfortunately, our history is littered with the debris of constitutional proposals and conferences which attempted to bring about constitutional renewal but were not successful because of the attitude of the participants. In the end, if people are not willing to change their attitudes, no matter which structures we anticipate, no matter what conferences we call, they will end in failure.
Speaking in the House yesterday, my leader said, in terms of attitude:
More than the law and more than the constitution is at issue here. There must also be a positive attitude among citizens and among governments, an attitude which is consistent with the changes in law and the changes in form.
First of all, then, we must accept that the status quo as now understood is not acceptable. A genuine feeling exists that a new constitution is needed for Canada, a constitution in Canada which can be amended by Canadians.
It is for these reasons that it is important to reach out to those Quebeckers who voted and who wanted to see constitutional renewal. It is important that we do not reject those who, because of their frustration, voted Yes but who did not want to end the federalist experience.
Despite the euphoria and good will that have poured out throughout Canada and in this House since May 20, 1 believe that a word of caution must be expressed. Of course we want constitutional renewal, and the referendum vote should be interpreted exactly that way. But there is an inherent danger that we can create false expectations that constitutional renewal will be easy to achieve and that, once achieved, the structural problems will not give rise to new frustrations. We must also be cautious that we do not give the impression that constitutional change will end the differences and the divisions which have occurred in the past.
Second, it is important to stress that this desire for change is not only a Quebec phenomenon. My leader said in the House recently:
May 20 was but a date in a continuing process. It is by no means an end but a beginning, and now it is up to us in this Parliament and in the parliament of the territories and the provinces of Canada to implement changes which are being sought by Canadians all across this country.
We cannot make the mistake that only Quebec wants change. Nor can we fall into the trap that one region has more legitimate grievances than another. Just because certain regions have not chosen to have similar referendums does not indicate less determination to address and alleviate long-standing grievances.
So at this time of good will we also face a serious peril-a real threat that disappointment and anger can replace this goodwill if we fritter away our opportunities. All of us recognize how quickly good will can be replaced by anger and

May 22, 1980
Constitutional Change
accusations. We must avoid giving any comfort to the separatists, wherever they may be, to conduct our activities in such a way that the talks would not lead to new satisfactory arrangements. There are obviously people in this country who are hoping that these talks will end in failure. This cannot happen. The talks must be real and they must bear results.
Additionally, we must caution members of the House that results will not be achieved overnight. We can pass as many unanimous resolutions in the House as we want; these will not result in overnight change, it will also take more than a few months. While there may be advantages to setting target dates, I for one would caution members of the House that the setting of strict time limits by which renewals should occur has inherent dangers in it. There have been premiers, as well as members of this House, who have said that within two years a new constitutional renewal could take place. While targets are acceptable, 1 do not think we should be locked into those kinds of time frames.
Yesterday the Prime Minister, when speaking in this House, stated that a federal-provincial conference would be called in the near future for the purpose of discussing the future of Canada. While we welcomed this announcement, it is important that we note the manner in which these conferences have functioned in the past. They have provided a forum for leaders from all regions of Canada to meet and discuss the problems the country faces. This exchange of views has been beneficial.
But there is also an inherent weakness in this approach. For one, these conferences provide a forum in which to express grievances as well as to put forward points of view, but unfortunately too often they have not brought about resolution of conflicts. Some might say that this is a harsh judgment of the federal-provincial history of this country, but a study of that history will show many of these conferences failed. While the participants were well-meaning, the legacy of the conferences did not result in the changes sought by the people. By their very nature the membership is composed of political leaders who must defend provincial or federal interests. Too often those interests have thwarted any compromise that could have broken the impasse.
Additionally, these conferences are composed of personalities, and often the personalities have been in conflict with other participants around the table. A reality of a democratic society is also that these participants from time to time face elections. They have to meet the people. That as well can result in positions taken which, through other circumstances, might not have been pressed as hard.
Yesterday in this House questions were asked of the government as to whether consideration was being given to expanding the format of constitutional conferences after the initial federal-provincial conference to be held later this year. My view is that consideration should be given to expanding the membership in these meetings into a broader-based constitutional meeting which would include political leaders other than the Prime Minister and the premiers. The hon. Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Clark), the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), and for that matter elected leaders in the provinces, represent a large number of Canadians as well as regions which this government does not represent in this House.
I welcome the assurances of the Prime Minister to consult with the Leader of the Opposition with a view to exploring the possibility of expanding the format. As well, consideration should be given to including representation of groups in Canada that have a special interest in constitutional change. I think all of us know there are many of them and they seem to be increasing every day.
The suggestion of Premier Hatfield on the night of the referendum that a regular schedule of meetings be considered is a worth-while proposal. I think it would be advantageous to have regularly scheduled meetings rather than a target date by which constitutional renewal must take place.
One must ask the question: What do Canadians want in a new constitution? I believe many of the grievances we have heard in the past are not constitutional in nature but rather are due to frustration from governmental agencies, regulatory bodies and government in general not serving the interests of Canadians. For example, membership on many of these agencies does not reflect the regions and does not reflect the participation that the various members of those regions would like to give. If the federal government is interested in retaining the status quo, the bureaucracy with all its resources will reflect that attitude and will further frustrate Canadians.
There has been a difference of opinion between my leader and the present Prime Minister on the role the regions should play. Let it be clearly understood that my leader and this party have never stood for the dismantling of the federal government. Rather, we want to see it strengthened. We want a strong federal government that can address and resolve national issues; let there be no doubt about that. The reference of the Prime Minister of "Who speaks for Canada?" in my mind was a divisive attempt meant to reflect on my leader-that he was not interested in preserving national institutions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather it was a recognition by my leader and our party that strong regions contribute to a stronger country. Strong regions are not a threat to Canada. A strong Atlantic Canada with strong economic bases is of advantage to all of us. A strong western Canada, building on its resources and its agricultural base, is of benefit to all and should be recognized as such.
During this debate other members of my party will address the issue of constitutional renewal from the perspective of their constituents and their regions. I want to spend some time dealing with the views we hear expressed in western Canada.
Much has been said of the deep-seated resentment in western Canada. Let there be no doubt that the resentment toward the manner in which the federal government has ignored western Canada runs very deeply. It is not an accident that the government does not enjoy representation west of Winnipeg. How many members of Parliament from western Canada have stood in this House, from one Parliament to the next, and read
May 22, 1980

the history or litany of grievances which we experience in western Canada? I do not have to repeat them; everybody knows them. But it is important that we recognize that those grievances are legitimate. They are as legitimate as the aspirations of the people of any other region of Canada.
For example, only recently there were promises made during the election campaign, promises that were changed, promises that were called into doubt or promises that were cancelled. It is that attitude which has resulted in the alienation we now feel.
But underlying specifics such as provincial control over resources, lack of secondary industry, or the loss of comparative or competitive advantage in the western freight rates, there is a deeper feeling of grievance. It is, that expressions of our aspirations, the grievances we have had in the past, have been interpreted in this House and in federal institutions as not being as valid as the grievances of other areas. I stand in this House not simply as a representative of western Canada. 1 stand here as a representative in the federal House of Canada. Let there be no mistake about it: we cannot nor will we accept that the points we want to make and the building to which we want to contribute should in any way be lessened because we come from western Canada, or that our grievances are not valid today because they have been repeated so often. It is important to remember that the west wants to grow, but it does not want to grow at the expense of Ontario or any other part of Canada. Rather we see our growth as benefiting the entire country. Western Canadians share the View that federalism is based upon the concept of sharing. We want to do our part and we will do our part. 1 ask this government to change its ways, not to hold us back or be less interested in us than other regions.
1 want to spend some time in consideration of Canadians whose background is neither French nor English. It must be clearly understood that Canadians who are recent immigrants, or who have been here for a few generations first and foremost want to be Canadians. The referendum period for them, even though they did not live in Quebec, was traumatic because many of them had come to Canada to escape deep-seated and long-standing animosities in their homelands. They came here because they wanted stability. Too often they had been forced to leave because basic human rights in their homelands had been violated, or radical changes either in government or in their boundaries had taken place. These people look upon constitutional renewal as a strengthening of our federal system to create stability and the preservation of human rights.
The Prime Minister has stated his determination to enshrine a bill of rights in the constitution. He mentioned that in the House yesterday as well. It is my view that no greater contribution could be made by the Prime Minister to those Canadians of whom 1 have just spoken than incorporating the bill of rights of the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker into the new constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Constitutional Change


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: During the time when I had responsibilities as minister of Indian affairs and northern development I became acutely aware of another region of Canada that is too often left out of the mainstream of Canadian life, and I speak of the two Canadian territories. The north also wants to be part of this renewal in Canada. The north is an awakening giant, an area which gives us an opportunity to be nation builders. When one takes a look at the various countries of the world one sees that Canada is one of the few that has a frontier where we can still build as a nation.
Residents of the north, be they native or white, want to be Canadians first. They do not want to be colonists of the federal government. The time has long passed when commissioners can be appointed to make decisions without regard to the residents or their representatives. The north will develop institutions that are similar to ours, but they will be modified to reflect the native population and the special conditions that exist north of 60.
Another contribution this House could make, and we as members of it, is that we not stand in the way of native people and residents of the north by deciding for them what is best from the view of those of us in the south.
I face the future of Canada with great optimism. A country is more than a constitution and it is more than its institutions; it is a feeling, it is one of belonging and it is personal.
Speaking personally, if I could for just a minute, I had been in Quebec City a number of times prior to when the right hon. former prime minister asked me to serve in his cabinet. We had a cabinet meeting in Quebec City. That was the first time it was impressed upon me that I, as the son of an immigrant, was able to be in that part of Canada and look at the shores of the St. Lawrence River where my father had landed 50 years before without any future other than the hope this country gave him, and to realize 50 years later that this country had given me an opportunity to serve.
There are opportunities that this country gives each of us in a unique way. I am filled with hope that we will grasp the opportunity that awaits us. This is a growing country, a young country and a country that is facing change; but our future must be one of a united nation, from sea to sea and from our border to the Arctic.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, 1 too welcomed the decision of the people of Quebec to vote No in the referendum on Tuesday. This was a result which indicated a love for Canada and a faith in this nation on the part of the residents of that region. The good will felt by the rest of Canada toward Quebec as a consequence of this decision provides an opportunity to make real progress in the next round of constitutional talks.
This opportunity is also a challenge, because if we do not make significant headway now the negative feelings the previous speaker mentioned, which are real, and the feeling of hopelessness on constitutional talks, will be felt not only by the Quebecois but by all Canadians. There is presently a hope in our ability to overcome the obstacles which have created

May 22, 1980
Constitutional Change
roadblocks in the past and that we now must meet in order to face the challenge we have as a nation.
We face more than one challenge, and we must be clear about that. Constitutional talks do not deal with just the Quebec issue, although naturally recent events have tended to focus on that particular problem which we face as a country. There are other issues: Native people were not involved in the formulation of the original BNA Act or amendments that have since come into place. They now wish to have full participation in discussions which will affect their future as well. We cannot straitjacket ourselves or our country by believing that we will solve all the problems of all the people of Canada by discussions among 11 men. Constitutional change in Canada must include participation by native Canadians. They are too often left out of any constitutional discussions and considerations by government.
Fortunately, recent federal governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have realized that the aspirations of native people within Canada must be taken seriously. Unfortunately, recent governments have not come to any conclusion about the exact nature of the role of native people at the discussion tables.
It was just a little over ten years ago that the then Liberal federal government concluded that the best way to deal with native problems and native aspirations was by a mainstreaming approach, by an assimilating approach. If I may refer to a Liberal policy paper at that time, the so-called "Chretien white paper" of 1969, it said that all these conditions of the Indians are the product of history and have nothing to do with their abilities and capabilities. Indian relations with other Canadians began with special treatment by government and society, and special treatment has been the rule since Europeans first settled in Canada. Special treatment has made the Indians a community disadvantaged and apart. Obviously the course of history must be changed. Just ten years ago that was the policy of the Canadian government.
In the short run what they were saying was that the Indian Act, enacted under the authority of section 91 of the British North America Act, should be repealed, and in the long run that the policy of the federal government implied that ultimately any specific references to Indians must be removed. That approach would have meant that the native people would have no role in constitutional talks had they taken place ten years ago. Today, ten years later, the federal government does realize that exclusion will not mean positive change for native people. What it has not figured out is just how native people will be consulted in the constitutional talks.
In his speech last month to the national conference of Indian chiefs and elders, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised that his government would be working closely with Indian representatives in any reform of the Canadian constitution. The fact is that the Prime Minister's remarks could have as easily referred to any single Canadian or any other group within our society. It is not our business to rank the various
social and ethnic groups in order of their capacity or their status at the negotiating table, but at the very least we will have to recognize that Canada's native people are Canada's original residents and are, therefore, entitled to full participation in any constitutional talks.
The Prime Minister's remarks last month have, quite frankly, proven unacceptable to the native people of this country. The New Democratic Party recognizes that this country's obligations to some of its native people are written in the treaties, but that those treaty rights are not there for the Inuit or the Metis people of this country. Aboriginal rights, such as those pertaining to hunting, fishing and land use, are well documented but they are not accepted by many Canadians. The current land claims negotiations have a grounding in historic precedent and in law but are not showing any progress.
Therefore, it is certain that the fairest and most just way of recognizing Indian input is not by excluding them from participating or by hoping that the problems will melt away, as suggested in the white paper. Instead, native participation must be full and ongoing in future negotiations.
We are all partners in confederation, and if our obligations to Canada's original people are not made clear in constitutional talks, then confederation will be a misnomer for native people. I would hope that in his trip across the nation to meet with the provincial leaders, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) will also meet with representatives of the native people of Canada.
Northern residents are also concerned about the future of this country. Northern residents in this vast country have expectations about their role in constitutional change. Residents of the territories, both white and native, cannot be excluded from determinations that affect their future. To do that would be a denial of the principle of self-determination, that somehow others will express the concerns of northerners without being elected representatives of the people living in those regions. Northern residents in the territories, as in the northern regions of most provinces, have concerns that must be addressed in any constitutional changes. Decisions regarding how economic development will take place should not be left to those living elsewhere in Canada or, worse, to those living outside our borders.
In addition, just as the railway to the Pacific was a condition before British Columbia would enter confederation, we must provide certain initiatives, such as equalized freight rates and guaranteed medical services, to enable northerners to be part of the economic growth of our country and to benefit from those social services which we believe all Canadians are entitled to as a basic minimum standard. Such social services are sadly lacking in many northern communities and are a disgrace in light of our relative affluence as a nation. This is a serious problem. There are other serious problems which can be resolved or at least partly resolved as a result of constitutional talks.
Another problem which we face is in the area of regional disparity. Regional disparity is a serious challenge to the unity of this country. If we are able to continue living together in a
May 22, 1980

confederation and if we are to consider ourselves a united composite of different regions, we will have to recognize that serious regional disparities are there and that we must do something about them. These disparities are nothing less than a product of a century of patchwork economic development in this country. They are representative of a lack of a national policy and planning that is based on our resources.
The examples of regional disparity are many. The northern part of this country has been the site of resource extraction with little planning and with little benefit to the residents of those regions. If we are to live together in this community of Canada, we must begin to place development in the north in its proper perspective. It must be development not just for the sake of development. It must be development not just for the sake of the south and central parts of Canada, but development which is also for the sake of the north. Inevitably this will mean that some development will not take place because it would be detrimental to the north and its inhabitants. Sometimes we will find that certain developments should take place that will be of social and economic benefit to the northern regions, but that they will need the assistance of the provinces, the territories and the federal government in order to bring about that development.
In other parts of the country there are also regional disparities. The Atlantic provinces have traditionally been an area where regional disparity has hurt the unity of this nation. A specific example there can be found in the industrial Cape Breton area where the Sydney Steel Corporation plant is not operating at the capacity of which it is capable. The province of Nova Scotia alone cannot provide the input to ensure that jobs are protected and that the Sysco plant is modernized. This requires federal government assistance. So far the federal government has been reluctant to keep its part of the bargain. In order to prevent an economic downturn in Cape Breton which would isolate it from the well-being of Canada, the provincial and federal governments must work together.
Any changes in the framework of our constitution must allow for provincial and federal projects to overcome present regional disparity. Changes in our constitution cannot be allowed if they result in the federal government being too weak or too impoverished to assist in the development of the entire nation. After all, the federal-provincial conferences of the past have not really produced the results for which we have asked. It has been a long process which has been very difficult and frustrating for many Canadians.
I would question whether or not we really knew what we wanted in our constitution over this past decade. Are we simply to move some items from section 91 to section 92 and back again? Are we simply to make cosmetic changes that will create an illusion of progress? Or are we to have a constitution that will soothe the various wounds that open from time to time in this country, or is the constitution to be a foundation for creating the type of Canada that we want for ourselves and for future generations?
Of course, we hope that we will accept the latter choice, for if we do we will not only avoid the pitfalls of continuous
Constitutional Change
tinkering with a delicate instrument like the constitution, but we will also be able to use our energies to build a nation in which we will all be able to exercise our cultural and economic goals. In this respect I would like to remind hon. members that historically what has been called English Canada has always been a generation behind French Canadians in determining its own aspirations.
At the beginning of this century Henri Bourassa, as an MP in this House, rose to call for a Canadian identity. He was rebuked by those who wished to remain part of the British Empire. Twenty years later we accepted the wisdom of Bou-rassa's remarks. When Quebec premiers called out for the strengthening of the role of the provinces within confederation, the rest of the country ignored them and was appalled at the thought. A generation later we heard the same call coming from each and every region of this country. In the sixties when Quebec was asking to be maitre chez nous or master of their own destiny, the rest of Canada was accepting increased foreign control of our resources, our industry and our future. It has ofter been said that Quebec wants too much independence and that English Canada wants none. We are now in the 1980s and another generation has passed by. It is time for all Canadians to be asking to be masters of their own destiny.
How we resolve the Quebec issue and the other problems that we face, not only the answers that we arrive at but the process which we go through, can be an example to others in this world. The referendum held on Tuesday with its unique approach and its peaceful progress was historic in a world where such decisions are usually made through use of the bayonet. Where we go from here will be of importance in history.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank my party leader for suggesting that we use our opposition day-which is normally an opportunity to score political points-in a nonpartisan manner to give members of the House an opportunity to discuss this important issue.
In a similar way I hope that the Prime Minister and the premiers will realize that 11 people cannot answer all the questions that the nation must ask of itself. With that in mind I would encourage the first ministers to take the approach suggested by the leader of my party yesterday and form delegations that are non-partisan in approach and membership to discuss future constitutional action. The need for this was made very obvious in the House this afternoon. The first three speakers from the opposition all represented western ridings while the government speakers represented eastern ridings. That is a result of the composition of this House.
The mood of the country is open to changes in the constitution, especially after the decision of Tuesday night. This openness to change, however, might well dissipate if all points of view are not aired in an open and non-partisan manner. The only way to decide our future, Mr. Speaker, is to work at it together.

May 22, 1980
Constitutional Change


Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin this speech, which is the first opportunity 1 have had to address this House at length, by extending my warmest congratulations to Madam Speaker on her election to the very important office she now holds.
As a new member of Parliament I am honoured to be a participant in a debate on constitutional reform.
I believe it is customary, Mr. Speaker, for a newly elected member to share with the House a few observations about the nature of the riding he or she represents. In describing Kitchener, 1 cannot help but feel a very deep sense of pride in the history and accomplishments of the city I grew up in. 1 also feel a strong sense of responsibility, as the voters of Kitchener have placed a trust in me to voice their concerns and make a contribution on their behalf to this Parliament.
Kitchener in many ways is a microcosm of Canada-a cultural kaleidoscope of the Canadian experience. Many people associate my riding with Canadians of German descent. They comprise 32 per cent of our city's population. Oktober-fest, for which our city is now famous, rivals its predecessor in Munich. People of Irish, English and Scottish extraction comprise 45 per cent of my constituents. Twenty three per cent of Kitchener's residents are largely those whose ancestry is French, Polish, Dutch, Italian, Portuguese, Ukrainian, Chinese, Japanese, East and West Indian, Ugandan, Pakistani and Lebanese. Most recently, Mr. Speaker, Kitchener was fortunate enough to be able to welcome 1500 Indo-Chinese refugees who were brought over through the efforts of privately sponsored groups in the Kitchener area. These refugees have much in common with the German Mennonite settlers who arrived in the Kitchener area from Pennsylvania in 1800. As pioneers, they brought with them the technical skills and traditions of their homeland. They set in motion an intermingling of cultures and ideas that is still evolving 180 years later.
Mr. Speaker, the community spirit and sense of social concern, expressed in sponsoring the Indo-Chinese refugees is a recent example of the numerous and varied voluntary efforts and organizations that exist in Kitchener. Some of these are: the regional branches of the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Heart Foundation, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Rotary Club, the Kinsmen, the Knights of Columbus, and numerous other church and social organizations.
The multicultural centre provides a focal point through which the many ethnic groups of the area can enjoy each other's heritage. The Kitchener-Waterloo folk arts festival, which is an example of this, is being held this June and I am looking forward to attending.
The people of Kitchener, Mr. Speaker, are an open-minded citizenry. They are also very industrious and resourceful. From its austere beginnings with a few hundred settlers, Kitchener is now a thriving and prosperous industrial centre with a population of 135,000. There are 314 manufacturing plants and a total work force of 75,000. The female labour force is 45 per cent of the total, well above the national average. So as you
can see, Mr. Speaker, both men and women pull their weight in the economic enterprises of Kitchener.
Just as a footnote to that, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to be aware that the chances are better than average that on a daily basis the members of this House and the people of Canada own, use, or consume products manufactured in my riding. Some of the national industries located in Kitchener include Electrohome, BF Goodrich, Uniroyal, Schneiders, Greb Shoes, Krug Furniture and Budd Automotive.
Mr. Speaker, 1 should now like to focus more directly on the issues of national unity, the referendum and constitutional reform leading to a renewed federalism. As the member of Parliament for Kitchener, I feel very strongly about the mosaic that is Canada, and the different groups which over the years have made our country unique. The cultural mix of my riding spans virtually every corner of the globe. Interaction between French, English and other cultures makes us that much more complete as a people. However, Mr. Speaker, Canada is at a critical point in its history. Throughout the nation there are forces driving us apart, rather than bringing us together. In Atlantic Canada the promise of large oil reserves has led to controversy between the provinces and the federal government. In Ontario there are many who are fearful and resentful that the hold Ontario has exercised as the economic leader is slipping away.
In the west alienation in British Columbia has increased. In the prairie provinces, and particularly Alberta, there is talk in some quarters of separation. My unshakeable conviction is that the status quo, symbolized by the British North America Act, is no longer an option in Quebec and no longer an option in Ontario or in any of the provinces. The decision in favour of fundamental change has already been made, brought about by the dynamics of Quebec society since the "Quiet Revolution" of the 1960s, and crystallized in the results of the referendum vote on Tuesday.
The people of Quebec have stated that they wish to remain in Canada, but they do so based on certain assumptions about the rest of Canada. One of these assumptions is that the government and people in the rest of Canada recognize and understand the consensus in Quebec and that there must be fundamental alterations in the constitution.
A second assumption, Mr. Speaker, is that those of us who live outside Quebec will be willing to work with Quebeckers to build the structure of a new Canada, and more broadly, Mr. Speaker, that all Canadians, no matter in what region or province, will co-operate to build the structure of a new Canada.
A third assumption, Mr. Speaker, is that this constitutional reform will not be postponed indefinitely in a fog of words, procedural delays and competing priorities.
These assumptions indicate that the people in Quebec are reaching out in confidence and trust to the people in the rest of Canada. Thus, Mr. Speaker, you can understand why the response of English-speaking Canada to the federalist option of the beige paper is extremely important. Quebeckers have

May 22, 1980
taken a leap of faith by voting No, and voting Yes to Canada. They must be given the assurance that their own eagerness for change will not be met with sullen dedication to the status quo.
Constitution-making is never easy. It is usually impossible except as a result of pressures caused by war or revolution. Because of this, for the rest of us to give the necessary assurances to the people of Quebec also requires us to make a leap of faith-faith that Canadian moderation, good sense and willingness to compromise can lead to success. By giving these assurances, we commit ourselves to the difficult task of hammering out a new constitution. That constitution must reflect more completely the diversity and complexity of modern Canadian society. It must also be capable of handling the external challenges of a world in turmoil, as well as the internal social and economic pressures which Canada and Canadians will face in the years ahead.
Whatever the risks of acting boldly and decisively, the dangers to Canada of doing nothing are far greater. We must not succumb, Mr. Speaker, to lassitude and apathy merely because of the magnitude of the task and the failure to achieve consensus on important issues at past federal-provincial conferences.
1 say this for three reasons. First, 1 believe that we are nearing a pivotal period in Canadian history when the demands for change from Quebec will be met with a wave of dissatisfaction with the existing arrangements in other parts of the country. The impending clashes between Ottawa and Alberta this year, and probably later with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, will certainly highlight serious constitutional and economic issues.
Second, the years ahead are years when unprecedented external geopolitical and economic pressures will make abundantly clear to all participants the indispensable role which the federal government must continue to play.
Third, the approach to constitutional reform in the 1980s will be to consider a package, rather than a piecemeal series of patches to the old arrangements. We will not be attempting to put new wine in old bottles. This should make possible hard negotiations as well as the accommodations and compromises which will be essential if success is to be achieved. We will not be starting cold. In fact, a great deal of work has already been done by various governments and interprovincial committees. Most provincial governments have published statements in favour of change.
In that the people of Quebec have taken the initial risks and committed themselves to Canada first, I believe it is appropriate, as a start to constitutional reform, to examine the issue from Quebec's perspective first as presented in Mr. Ryan's beige paper. This is a start, and obviously all provincial governments will be involved as will all the people of Canada. Constitutional reform will affect the daily lives of all Canadians and, as such, all Canadians must have a meaningful voice in its construction.
Constitutional Change
For years many Canadians have been asking, what does Quebec want? There could be no clearer statement than the one contained in the beige paper. This document is generous in spirit, civilized in tone, and is addressed to all Canadians. It recognizes the need for a strong central government. It invites comment from all Canadians.
The beige paper identifies 13 fundamental objectives, and then outlines a structure consistent with these goals. These objectives or principles form a key element in any future constitutional discussion. They should become familiar to all Canadians.
The first is to provide Canada with a constitution which is both modern and Canadian. The authors of the paper attach great importance to the symbolism of Canadians themselves- not the parliament of Great Britain-collectively and solemnly affirming the commitments and structures on which Canadian political life will be based in the years ahead.
Five principles are concerned with human rights. One involves a declaration of the equality of the two distinctive societies which give this country its unique place in the family of nations. This goal involves both linguistic rights and guarantees to Quebec which will enable it to maintain its unique personality despite the pressures arising from its position in North America.
This group of principles would also require the entrenchment in the constitution of the rights and liberties of individual Canadians. The fundamental rights of the first inhabitants of this country, the Indians and the Inuit, are specifically recognized, as are the preservation and development of the rich cultural heritages of the many multicultural groups of Canada. Equality of opportunity for all Canadians is emphasized, with a strong federal role in the redistribution of wealth to ensure the reality of this promise.
Two principles outline the commitment to the federal system. Two orders of government will continue, each sovereign in its area of jurisdiction. A specific pledge is made to guarantee the free circulation of individuals, goods and capital to all parts of the country, and a system of laws protecting the fundamental equality of all citizens. While an intergovernmental body is proposed to permit participation by the provinces in the government of federation, the beige paper explicitly states that the central government must be, and I quote:
-strong enough to serve the whole country in the face of whatever new challenges the modern world presents, whether internally or externally.
Five principles are concerned with the need for strong provinces, to ensure the development of their distinctive human and physical resources. The beige paper calls for clear definitions of the responsibilities of the two levels of government. Because Canada is so large and diverse, the beige paper opposes ad hoc extensions of federal powers and advocates a formal system for arbitrating constitutional disputes which clearly recognizes the duality and plurality of our population.
There is also need for explicit recognition of the provinces' role in international relations in areas under their jurisdiction within the framework of foreign policy.

May 22, 1980
Constitutional Change
Canada can never be a unitary state. Indeed, the forces at work in the last two decades have underlined its diversity and the need for a new approach which will underpin and build upon that diversity.
The beige paper provides all Canadians with an outline of a new federal system which accepts the fact that Canadians must find their unity in their diversity. It also defines the institutions and division of powers such a new federal system requires. Few will accept this outline in every detail. I do not. 1 think it should be questioned. Much sharp discussion and hard negotiation can be anticipated. In particular, finding a balance between decentralization and maintenance of an effective federal government will not be easy, but carried on in the spirit in which the beige paper was written, such negotiations give promise not of failure but of success.
Indeed, at a recent symposium held at York, Mr. Thomas Wells, the Conservative minister of intergovernmental affairs, accepted the 13 principles underlying the beige paper, declared that the Ontario government favours comprehensive constitutional changes, and stated:
We regard the Quebec Liberal party proposals as a reasonable and constructive basis on which to negotiate new constitutional arrangements for Canada.
The authors of the beige paper, as reasonable people, have addressed their thoughts and concerns to other Canadians. They ask us to recognize the problems which they see in our current constitutional arrangements and to undertake with them the great task of achieving change which will be acceptable to all, to achieve, in Mr. Wells' words, "a genuine national reconciliation."
In conclusion, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that achieving this without violence or bloodshed will further enhance Canada's reputation as a great country, a nation to be modelled after.


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to intervene today with respect to the motion involving constitutional reform. I might say that undertaking constitutional reform involves something which takes a much longer time than not only a modest afternoon but indeed the next few years that have been allotted for it.
I hope I do not sound a note of pessimism-that is not my intention-if I suggest to you that I think the next few years are going to find constitutional reform important but probably of secondary nature. It seems to me that as we look at constitutional reform we will have to go through a much more fundamental process, and it is that fundamental process to which 1 would like to direct my remarks today.
I think part of the difficulty we have had over many years is the inability to understand who we are and where we would like to go. I have some considerable mistrust in constitutions. I have noted, and I am sure other members have, in the history of this century at any rate, that some of the most democratic constitutions, constitutions which had the most intensive language with respect to human, civil, cultural and linguistic rights, are those that exist in countries which have the most oppressive governments. I meant what I said and I hope it is not a note of pessimism.
The principles which the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang) and others have mentioned must be based on something and I think they are based on certain realities, or ought to be based on certain realities about this country. I think there are probably some considerable difficulties for us, Mr. Speaker, as we attempt to determine what the fundamental realities of Canada are, because we have spent so long in making sure we don't know very much about the country. We have spent a long time and worked very hard in denying our own history, in, to put it another way, not paying enough attention, and in taking the country for granted.
I think the three fundamental realities of this country are going to dominate the next ten years and that is why I suggest that, over the next ten years, the idea of Canada, not the Constitution of Canada, is going to be the most important thing to address ourselves to.
Let me deal with the first of those realities as I see them, Mr. Speaker. I think that any stranger happening upon this land would come up with the first reality fairly easily. We are known best, and we know ourselves best, by our parts-by the parts of the country. Many speakers today have talked about regionalism. They have talked about their particular provinces, i think I could go from coast to coast and, like other members of this House who have had the opportunity to travel, I could take you to towns, cities, villages and neighbourhoods in Newfoundland right through to British Columbia, and in every one of those towns, cities, villages and neighbourhoods you will find the same instinct. People in St. John's, Newfoundland, think that that is the best place to live.


Mr. McGrath:: It is the centre of the universe!


David Edward Crombie: My hon. friend from St. John's East says it is the centre of the universe. It may be surprising to a number of hon. members present to know that there are people in Toronto who think that that is the best place to live.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


An hon. Member:: Oh!


David Edward Crombie: The hon. member says "Shame" but I do not accept that. I was in Timmins a year ago, on Boxing Day. It was 40 below, but the people there think the only place to live is in Timmins. And everybody in Victoria knows that the rest of the country is lining up to get in.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Edward Crombie: So, I could go from coast to coast, Mr. Speaker, and in each province, each city, town and village, and in each neighbourhood, the people know that that is the place to live. Regionalism in this country is a state of mind, one which is founded on geographical location, and it is rooted in an historical experience. That is why regionalism is so strong in this country. It is an historical experience and it is a geographical reality. That is why it is not an aggravation, why it is not a fly in another person's ointment. It is not an
May 22, 1980

imperfection because the regionalism from which we come, the towns, the cities, the villages and neighbourhoods-1 mention neighbourhoods only because in large cities one tends to identify with neighbourhoods-is real, authentic and necessary. It is from those areas that we get a sense of identity about who we are. It is in those areas where we have more control, in fact, over who we are and the ability to better ourselves and raise our children in value systems in which we can have a strong involvement.
The values which affect people most are those which come from small places. Countries other than ours which have large populations and small territory know the only way in which you can organize human nature is by having a strong value system and, as I say, that usually comes from small places. That is the first reality I see, Mr. Speaker, about this country. We are known by its parts and we have a regionalism which is enduring because it is authentic.
The second reality that I see is the opposite of the first. If regionalism is the first reality, then the second reality is the opposite of that. It takes the whole string of communities that the hon. member from Saskatchewan mentioned earlier, and binds them together. It is the opposite. Because the reality which organizes us best and determines that we are Canadians exists, I think, in the physical land itself. Most countries have something which defines them and tells them who they have been and who they are going to be. In some countries it is their art, in some countries it is the legislature, in some countries it is the military power, in some countries it may be the history, as in the United States, but in this country 1 think it is the physical aspect of the land itself.
I could take any member of this House on a boat, on a train, plane or bike, or we could walk it, to any part of this country. After they got off they would feel enormous pride about it. But they would feel something deeper. What they would feel, 1 think, is that the sense of Canada that they know is given to them from the land. Indeed, most of our historians have tried to explain to us-whether it is Lower or Creighton, Morton, Shortt, Harold Innis-that the fundamental reality of the country which takes us beyond our particular is the land itself.
This country in the past 20 years or so seems to have accepted the view that we are here in spite of geography and in spite of history. It is, indeed, the opposite. This country is here because of its geography and because of its history. I am reminded of the thesis, Mr. Speaker, of Harold Innis that this country takes on the configuration of the fur trade. All those towns and the building of each staple product as it came, exist because of geography and not in spite of it. It is interesting too, if you look at the lives of most of our historians. They had an intimate relationship with the land in personal terms. If you read Lower in his "Colony to Nation"-he was the most lyrical of our historians-his sense of the bush and his need to go canoeing, like the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), is part of it. It is a sense of having to renew with the land. I don't think we should misunderstand what that means to us. It has animated every aspect of our life, not only our historians.
Constitutional Change
Take also the art which has endured. The Group of Seven and Tom Thomson in this country have endured because they reflected the land, and this is the message which comes from the paintings of the Group of Seven and from Tom Thomson. Interestingly enough there are no people in the art of the Group of Seven or of Tom Thomson, and there are no people in Donald Creighton's artistry with history in this country because they were reflecting the land. If you look at that art it is rugged, it has colour to it, and it is eternal. And that is where the strength comes from. I think that is also true of the music of this country. I do not know whether I should mention Gilles Vignault, but I think it is all right.


Some hon. Members:: Why not?


David Edward Crombie: If you listen to his music you find that music tells you about the land. In 1962 when Monique Leyrac, as reported in the French press but not the English press, won an international award in Hungary singing Vignault songs, those three songs were about the land.
When Gordon Lightfoot sings, he sings about the Canadian railway trilogy. We know that is the land. For the maritimers present let me mention Stompin' Tom Connors. The best song Stompin' Tom Connors ever wrote was not about the mari-times but, indeed, about another town in Ontario. If you have ever picked tobacco, you know something about hard work, and he wrote a song called "Tillsonburg". "My back still aches when I hear that word".


An hon. Member:: Don't forget the "Squid-jiggin' Ground".


David Edward Crombie: I will leave that to the hon. member who follows me. I could use the squid-jiggin' ground. I have only 20 minutes; the hon. member can sing his own songs.
It is also true in sport. There are some people who think that hockey was invented, if not by Harold Ballard, then by Allan Eagleson. Hockey was not invented by either one of those people. It was invented by the frozen ponds in the land of this country. Maybe they should put some of the money back into it.
If you go down to New York to visit the United Nations building and look at all the flags of all the countries represented in that body, those flags represent either the history or the ideology, or both, of the countries they represent; all except one-ours. It is a leaf, and it reflects the land.
So the second reality in our constitution building is recognizing that the geography and the land and our response to that land will always be there. No matter what politicians and other people say, that is what unites us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: The third reality which I would like to mention and one which I wish I could spend some time on, because we have spent so little time on it, is our traditions. 1 have been impressed with the desire on the part of all hon.

May 22, 1980
Constitutional Change
members of the House, and, indeed, all commentators, people interviewed on sidewalks, on television on radio and so forth, for a new constitution. Constitutions do not happen every two weeks. Every time we have a new thought, we do not build a new constitution. Constitutions are not merely a reflection of a particular generation. Constitutions reflect past generations and the values they engender, as well as current values, and as well as our hopes for future values, and 1 think it is that aspect that is worth mentioning. This third reality is the traditions of this country. They are good traditions; they are not bad traditions. Traditions are collective memories.
The licence plates of the province of Quebec used to say "La belle province". Now they say "je me souviens", "I remember". That is right; we should remember. The collective memories of this country are worth remembering as we build a new constitution.
This country has been a monarchy since Louis XIV. It is not fashionable to mention the monarchy, I think, but I do so because 1 was impressed some years ago when I read a book called "Freedom wears a Crown" by John Farthin. Farthin pointed out that the reality is not the royal family or whatever affection we have for the lady who is the Queen or the man who is the King at a particular time. The reality of the monarchy is the Crown, and from 1864 to 1867 in all of the discussions in the confederation debates the reason we did not have fundamental discussions about fundamental human rights and civil liberties of any significance or account was because they were assumed. They were built by generations, and the Crown reflects the civil liberties you have, Mr. Speaker, and that 1 have, and that my children will have. Whatever one wants to do in the future in this country with the monarchy, let us not confuse it with the significance of the Crown.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: 1 was going to mention female athletes as another tradition-1928 was a good year for female athletes- but I will not get into that.
I think the most fundamental tradition in this country is one for which we are involved in no small enterprise because of the first reality of our particularisms. There are over 3,000 miles from one sea to another, and because of the second reality of the strength of the land itself, we are involved in what Parmenides wrote about. I hope 1 have that right. The Greek scholars here can correct me if I am wrong, but 1 read something by him which struck me. Parmenides said that the riddle mankind has-and it struck me that that is our riddle-is the riddle of the multiple and the One. He said:
Is the One alone real and the multiple merely illusion? Is the multiple alone real so that the world is irremediably and irreducibly pluralistic at its core? Is the world a gigantic process consisting in the unification of a multiplicity destined to be brought into a higher unity with the One?
That is pretty heavy stuff. Hon. members might want to read that tomorrow. Some may want to take it home to Hamilton, but in a sense most of us have been talking about that today because our contribution to the ancient Greek
riddle of the many and the One is the concept of federalism, and we do it better than anybody else in the world.
Canadians know more about it and have dealt with it longer than any other people. It has allowed us to have not just unity; it has allowed us to have more than unity. It has allowed us- not only the Europeans who came here but before the white man came here-to create. There were Indian confederacies. The federal principle has allowed us to take the first two realities and make them one, because what it has done is to allow that diversity and that unity to exist. That federal principle has guided us for centuries. We have had five constitutions under it, not one. There were constitutions in 1774, 1791, 1841, responsible government in 1849, and in 1867. We have amended the constitution on a number of occasions. That constitution and that federal principle have served us for a very long time. It has served us in good times and bad times and in war time and peace time.
That BN A Act is not a piece of paper that you chuck away.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: It has allowed us to do what we want to do. We can make things smaller or larger. It is a house of many mansions. We need only to decide what we would like to do with it, and it will serve us again. The federal principle requires only two things. First, it requires tolerance, and not tolerance which is based on assuming that we are all brothers. The American understanding of tolerance is to make sure that they can deal with their similarities. The Canadian way has been the opposite, out of necessity. We have to understand toleration by celebrating the differences, and it is the celebration of those differences which is the glory of the country.
The second thing it requires other than toleration is the constant need-and 1 got into trouble once before, so I will make it clear-to talk, discuss, and negotiate, because negotiation and discussion are the mother's milk of the federal system. Those who would argue that we should draw lines are also the people who end up shooting.
The federal principle will continue to serve us, and we will be able to continue to solve the riddle of the many and the One, as long as we not only exercise toleration by making sure those differences are appreciated and celebrated but also make sure that we understand the necessity of discussion and negotiation.
Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to speak on this matter.


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


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, we are presently living in a crucial period of the history of our country. The problems we will have to solve are difficult and complex. As members of this Parliament, we must uphold and promote together the values which unite us. Naturally we will
May 22, 1980

not always be in agreement but, as Brown, Macdonald and Cartier, we will have to find a new formula for today's Canada. This formula will have to take into account the fundamental needs of our society, including understanding, in order to meet the challenge of tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, that lets you know the extent of my use of both languages. 1 am going to keep trying, let me tell you.
I wanted to enter this debate today because 1 have given, like most hon. members, a lot of thought to the future of Canada. 1 have watched as the battle raged, rejoiced as the results became known, and felt both a sense of happiness and a sense of foreboding as 1 watched on television the final vote and the response to the recent referendum in the province of Quebec.
I think we must all be careful because something in excess of 40 per cent of the people of the province of Quebec said they did not like the way the country was going and they did not like the relationship between their province, the federal government, and the rest of Canada. As I watched that evening, it became clear to me that the one thing we must not think is that they were defeated, because there were no victories and there were no people who lost.
What happened in Quebec that day was that a number of people who wanted to see some fundamental change went to the polls and expressed two somewhat different views of how that change ought to take place. It is now our responsibility here in this Parliament, in all the legislative assemblies in the country, and yes, even in the municipal councils and across the electorate, to look seriously at what kind of change can be brought about that can satisfy the majority, that will lay the ground work, and that will establish the base from which Canada will grow into the future.
As I said in my few brief words in French, whatever French it may have been, we in this Parliament probably have the most difficult task because we must set aside our parochialisms, we must put aside the divisiveness which frequently creeps into many of our debates and which will, in one way or another, determine what shape the country will have in two, three or four years' time. We cannot all win on every point, and there will be necessity for give and take; there will be the necessity to recognize that not everything that everyone wants can be accomplished at one time. We have to take the lead in that regard. We in this Parliament have a job which will probably-I say this without overblowing our importance- parallel the very first Parliament of this country. It is an exciting time at which to be in the House of Commons, because the decisions that we make here over the course of the next few years will be the decisions that the people of Canada will live with through the next 50 years.
Whether or not we recognize the aspirations of the many parts of Canada, whether we put it into writing, whether we establish a constitution-no matter how we write it, no matter how carefully we try to incorporate everyone's desires and everyone's feelings-in the end what will matter most will be whether or not we will approach this task with good will,
Constitutional Change
whether we approach this task without the burden of having to take positions simply for the sake of being re-elected.
I worry when I look around the country because you can almost tell from experience over the last few years-and I have had the benefit, which others had, of having sat in a provincial parliament and of watching provincial politics as somewhat of a student-when we are about to have a provincial election, because slowly the words creep into the debate that it is the federal government's fault. It is called, as my colleague says, Ottawa bashing. It happens all across the country in every provincial Parliament. The unfortunate part is that it takes place a couple of months immediately prior to the election and it takes two or three years to resolve it, if ever at ail. It sets the mood that has people in British Columbia believe that someone in Quebec put the French on the cereal boxes, and it sets individual against individual. It makes people in other parts of the country believe that perhaps the problems that they encounter in their day to day lives are the will of someone else in Canada.
1 think that politicians will have to stop and take stock of what their role is to be. We will have to be much more serious about it. We cannot be frivolous about the future of this country. We cannot simply engage in debate for the sake of scoring some political points which may well undermine the confidence of the electorate. When I pick up the paper and read of the premiers of the provinces, I find that, without going into detail, one by one they stake out their position for the negotiations that must take place. If it is not resource rights, it is more autonomy; if it is not more autonomy, it is that Ottawa has not treated them well in the existing confederation. The problem with that is that, like everyone else, they are able, for one reason or another, to convince people who live in this country that these illusionary, imaginary things are real.
If you travel across the country and speak to the individuals in many communities, you find that they are not arguing, not blaming each other, that they are not blaming the people in Hamilton, in spite of the conflict between themselves and Vancouver over the football games that are played. Do not think that the people in British Columbia are undermining or in any way destroying their place in the Canadian society. Yet one might get the impression from time to time that the politicians who presume to speak on their behalf are trying to leave the impression that this is in fact what is happening. You find farmers in Alberta who are being blamed for oil price rises, strangely enough, by people in British Columbia. You find that the politicians in general are not responding in a less partisan way.
I want to suggest some things about this. First of all, I think it would be useful in this Parliament if we could clearly set out some time, over a period of years, when Parliament would be able to sit as we are doing today-maybe even with some people present-and talk about what our role as Parliament ought to be in the new confederation. There is no question that there will have to be a dramatic change in the formula which

May 22, 1980
Constitutional Change
now exists. What I will do is to deal with two or three of those changes right after eight o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. May I remind all hon. members that an order was issued this afternoon by the House, the effect of which will be that speakers who take the floor as of eight o'clock this evening will be limited to 15 minutes. That raises the problem for the hon. member who currently has the floor. Rather than go into some convoluted logic on it, the Chair will arbitrarily assign the remaining time of six minutes to the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the process of constitutional reform has begun. For just a few hours this week Canada's newly elected Parliament understood and shared a common purpose. It is almost sad to realize that Rene Levesque's pledge to dismantle confederation was needed to prompt a little patriotism throughout Canada. Even so, like many others 1 savoured the results of the referendum in the hope that Canada will survive at least this century and beyond, if possible, intact.
Although the No vote must not lull English Canada into inaction, constitutional reform must not be seen as the cure-all. When was the last time the average Canadian read our constitution or, for that matter, the British North America Act? The cold fact is that a constitution can only provide a framework and not a sense of national purpose. A constitution guarantees a certain minimum standard of behaviour. It is important for all minorities-the French, the Italian, and many others-in that it provides guarantees. But this is only a base to build upon. I think a great many Canadians from every province would agree that the country's problems stem not from our constitution but, as I said, from our politicians. Every four years some provincial premier spends two months blaming every conceivable problem in the land on the federal government, and then they have an election. This is one problem that constitutional reform cannot resolve. It will require instead greater honesty among our politicians, and a more critical electorate.
A catch phrase that is making the rounds these days is the one about control of our resources. Western provinces, and now the eastern provinces, argue that given control of their oil and gas reserves harmony will follow. The real question is: who has control now? With a couple of exceptions like Petro-Canada and Saskatchewan Potash, most of our resources are controlled by foreign companies and not the Canadian government. If there is to be a transfer of control over oil and gas, it should be from Exxon to Petro-Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Constitutional reform may be a start. National unity will come when it is understood that no matter where in Canada one is born, there is an equal chance to build a good life.
Canada's resources must be used to promote the stable growth of all parts of Canada. The oil and gas will eventually run out even in Alberta, and together we must prepare Alberta's economy for that day. At the same time we must allocate some of the oil and gas revenues to assist the underdeveloped regions in this country. The point is that federal guidance is necessary in order to smooth out the highs and lows in the economy. Whoever is given jurisdiction over Canada's resources must be able to see beyond provincial boundaries.
For the people of Ontario I want to say, on behalf of those I know, that they are eager to share with all others in the distribution of economic opportunity. If, over the years, as my smirking Conservative colleagues might think, others feel Ontario was less than understanding, I want to suggest very strongly that it was not the citizens of Ontario who were to blame. It may have been the government, but it probably was the very people who operated on Wall Street and Bay Street and who now operate on Jarvis Avenue in Edmonton-Jasper Avenue in Edmonton.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: We can enshrine language and cultural rights. We can develop an amending formula. We can bring home our constitution. In fact, we can rise to any challenge, and we can achieve most any dream.
I should like to comment on the suggestion of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) that Canada is land and frozen ponds. Canada is 23 million people. They are industrious, sensitive, generous and diverse. They are people who can and will rise to any challenge, who can and will realize a national dream. The only thing that stands in their way is the desire of politicians to use them for their own ends. I want to suggest that, if we gave the people of Canada a chance, they could make this the very finest land in the world, and I think we should give them that chance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the opportunity I am given tonight of participating in this debate on the constitutional question. I am happy to see that the New Democratic Party decided to devote one of its allotted days to the constitution and that we should be invited to speak to a resolution inviting the House to interpret the referendum vote of Tuesday last as an unmistakable call for constitutional reform.
May 22, 1980

Mr. Speaker, 1 agree with the request that the House of Commons launch a constitutional reform. 1 have believed in the need for it for a long time and still believe in it. It is unfortunate-as the former speaker pointed out that, and if 1 recall his words correctly, he said, "It is ironic"-that the PQ party should have been the one to provoke us into proceeding with a reform of our constitution. That really does not bother me very much but, what is important, is that we should, as parliamentarians, as government, commit ourselves to changing the terms of our constitution.
Mr. Speaker, we undoubtedly need a new constitution in which will be enshrined basic and linguistic rights. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that, as far as the basic issue is concerned, it would be wise to say that we should set any deadline. We should expect that writing a new constitutional document, deciding on a new basic constitution is something that is going to take a lot of time, a lot of patience, a lot of energy. But there are certain things we should be able to do.
There is one thing that the referendum that took place in Quebec last Tuesday should enable us to do. There is now in Canada, as we saw in this House yesterday afternoon, a feeling of wanting to do something. Several of us said, particularly in the last three, four or five years, that we wanted a new constitution and in fact this government in June, 1978, brought forward a document entitled A Time for Action and a legislative measure that was referred to a special joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on the constitution. We of the Liberal party have been committed to constitutional reform for a long time. We are happy today to see that because of what happened in Quebec, because the campaign of the No side also advocated change, Canadian parliamentarians, provincial premiers and, I imagine, provincial parliamentarians interpret that vote as a desire for change, and they are committing themselves to undertaking a constitutional reform.
Mr. Speaker, we must clearly understand that we must use the feeling that exists now but it can only do certain things because it is impossible to elaborate, to build-I am using words like "build"-a new constitution because it is more than a simple matter of writing a document. A constitution is more than just a legal and political document. A constitution must express a desire by all Canadians to live together, to build a better society, a society in which each and everyone will be respected.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, one thing we should be able to do is patriate the constitution. This we could do, thanks to the feeling we now share. Not because of some threat. We should never accept that anyone, either French or English-speaking, proceed with constitutional reforms under the threat of some deadline. We should do so because we want to. And patriating the constitution is one of the important elements of constitutional reform with which we want to proceed.
Constitutional Change
The second element is the amendment process and amending formula. In my view, this is the second important part in that debate. And I would say further that we should make sure that the feeling that is prevailing this week does not vanish before we reach that goal. But the third important part, after patriation and the amendment process the amendment formula and the constitutional reform process is the content itself. And there difficulties will arise. Let us not fool ourselves, let us have no illusion.
It will be difficult because trying to reconcile all the different interests in Canada will be hard and long work, but what is important, Mr. Speaker, is that we should repatriate our constitution, that we should make it into a Canadian document, and that both Houses of the Canadian Parliament, either by themselves or with the provinces, can work on constitutional reform. We should be able to agree before too long on an amendment formula and a process to bring it about.
As concerns the federal Parliament, one thing should be done urgently, and that is that, at least as concerns federal rights, we should pass legislation to entrench in the Canadian constitution basic individual rights and linguistic rights, and I did say legislation respecting federal rights, and this according to the principle of Bill C-60, so that when the provinces want to do the same for provincial rights, they will be able to do so.
However, what I am saying applies only to basic individual and linguistic rights and federal rights, because 1 respect the fact that some rights come under provincial jurisdiction. However, there should be a mechanism to allow the legislative assembly of a province anxious to entrench in its constitution certain fundamental and linguistic rights of provincial jurisdiction to do so. In the case of New Brunswick and Acadians, this would allow us to entrench in a new constitution or in the existing one certain fundamental and linguistic rights which are of federal jurisdiction, but also certain provincial rights, because since about 13 years, the former Robichaud government and the present Hatfield government have undertaken to entrench in the constitution certain linguistic and basic rights. Even if we did so only to help the Acadians, 1 believe it would be worth while because there are not very many Acadians as New Brunswick is not a very large province.
Mr. Speaker, if in a small province like New Brunswick with a relatively large group of Acadians, people are not able to agree on their political future, how can we expect to agree throughout Canada? It is not a matter of figures, a matter of quantity, but a matter of will. And if we in New Brunswick do not succeed in giving assurances to Acadians who want to protect their language and their culture, and in making Anglophones understand that it is good for New Brunswick, if we are not successful in that endeavour in a small province like ours, if we cannot express that will, how can we expect to express it throughout the country? Then, it is not a matter of figures, it is what might be called a moral issue, a matter of will.

May 22, 1980
Constitutional Change
Mr, Speaker, 1 say that we should commit ourselves to changing the constitution, to repatriate the constitution within a process of constitutional reform. As federal parliamentarians we should propose a legislation on basic rights and linguistic rights. 1 emphasize that we should not limit provincial rights. That mechanism would allow any province anxious to do so to enshrine in its statutes linguistic and basic rights whenever it decides to do so. And that would be important for the Acadian minority in New Brunswick.
With respect to the reform process, Mr. Speaker, 1 must say that in our previous approach-and 1 want to make here a positive criticism of my party's approach on that issue-in the past we always had intergovernmental negotiations. The constitutional negotiations that we have had since 1966 have for the most part involved governments only.
Mr. Speaker, we must see to it that something is added to that. Obviously, there is a need for negotiation between governments but in my view the importance that parliamentary assemblies, the federal Parliament and provincial legislatures may have in solving that problem should not be minimized. Provincial and federal assemblies should have a mechanism which could be semi-permanent. We should probably consider having a Canadian parliamentary assembly on the constitution, not a parliamentary assembly which would be empowered to decide on a new constitution, but between governments, there are sometimes close links with respect to civil servants or policies and it is possible that these might thwart the process.
But one should not minimize what elected parliamentarians might accomplish in a forum composed of a delegation from the Canadian Parliament, a delegation from the legislatures and the Canadian Senate. It could be interesting to see what the upshot of such discussions could be; these discussions could be held on a regular basis for one month, six weeks or two months a year somewhere in the country to decide not only on the need for a new constitution but also on the way in which this result could be achieved. And 1 must stress the fact that a parliamentary assembly should not make decisions but simply constitute a forum for discussions between elected representatives.
Mr. Speaker, i think such a process could do much in the way of helping to define various regional interests, cultural and economic interest within the country for parliamentarians can sometimes more readily understand one another's aspirations and this is what we must do in Canada. I myself, as an Acadian from New Brunswick, should be able to understand the aspirations of Canadians from British Columbia, Newfoundland, Quebec and Alberta. They in turn must also be in a position to understand those of the others. One thing that intergovernmental negotiations do not allow for is a true discussion of those aspirations. They are negotiations between governments which have close links with respect to their civil servants and their policies. One might say that when we have all those people in front of television cameras, it is a good place
to make what is known as set speeches, to put up an act, and that is important, it must be done. But, Mr. Speaker, I would like those questions to be debated outside that format, not exluding that format, but we could have another debating forum to discuss Canada's constitutional future.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, this has been one of the truly uplifting days of Parliament. This has been a tremendous debate. We have heard marvellous speeches. It is something from which we can all draw encouragement, the fact that we as members of a diverse House of Commons, coming from diverse parts of the country, can meet together in debate on the future of our country. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has done a great service to the House by introducing the motion which he has set down on the order paper. Indeed, I would like to congratulate the hon. member, not only for his motion, but for the speech which he made today.
We have heard outstanding contributions in this debate from the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), and the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) who made an outstanding contribution and set out the position on behalf of our party.
I suppose that 1 am in a unique position in terms of this debate or this resolution, a resolution with respect to the outcome of the momentous and historic Quebec referendum. I am one of the few members of this House who lived through a referendum, a privilege which I share with my colleagues from Newfoundland. Indeed, we lived through two referendums. In 1948, after some 15 years of direct colonial rule, Newfoundlanders, by referendum, were asked to vote on whether they wanted to continue that colonial type of administration which was administrated directly by civil servants from Westminster, or whether they wanted to revert to dominion status, which Newfoundland enjoyed prior to 1933 under the Statute of Westminster-which is the same statute that gave Canada its sovereignty-or whether we wanted to confederate with Canada.
I recall very well the trauma of that time. I can feel for what happened in Quebec. I can empathize with the people of Quebec in what they are going through right now in this post-referendum period. Indeed, we were encouraged, and I was certainly very pleased to see the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), following the decisive results of the referendum in Quebec, reach out a conciliatory hand to the minority in Quebec which felt strongly enough about sovereignty-association. They felt strongly enough about the independence of Quebec to go and cast their ballot for that question, in many cases alienating the affection of their relatives and friends by so doing.
That is important because I recall the post referendum period in Newfoundland. I recall very well the night of the second referendum. At the time I was working as an active
May 22, 1980

member of the Young Responsible Government League. 1 lived in a part of Newfoundland which was staunchly anticonfederate. My job as a member of the Young Responsible Government League was to be an agent in the polling booth. 1 did that during both referendums.
Of course there had to be a run-off because, on the first referendum, the outcome was indecisive. There was not a clear majority for either of the three questions. It is interesting that in the first referendum, independence, if you like, or sovereignty-association, if you like, responsible government as we knew it, won the day. But in the second referendum the confederate option won, because there was only two questions remaining. The two questions were whether to confederate with Canada or whether to continue to revert to dominion status.
I recall walking home that night to my house, Mr. Speaker, and looking at my father who was crying. That is how strong our feelings were running at the time. I remember the feeling on the street as 1 talked to my neighbours, and how strongly I felt as I passed our old parliament building. For some reason there were flood lights on it. I remember a lump coming in my throat because 1 felt the sudden realization that we would no longer exist as a separate entity. We had lost. We were the sovereign-associationists of our day and we had lost!
It took years for that feeling of bitterness to subside, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, you will still find it in Newfoundland today, and there are those who would take advantage of that feeling. They do so at their peril. That feeling still exist to a certain extent. I know it existed when I came here as a young member of Parliament in 1957 because the constituency that elected me then did so largely because of the anti-confederate sentiment that still existed. One of the ironies of the time was that we had no political parties, so the confederates joined with the government of the day and became the Liberal party, while the anti-confederates joined with the opposition of the day-hence I am a Progressive Conservative. There were no political parties, you see. Our constitution was in suspension. We had no legislature as it had been in suspension. Indeed, political parties were not permitted to exist save for those that were permitted to organize, as they were in Quebec, for the referendum.
1 remember coming here in 1957 with a certain feeling of bitterness still there-bitter because of the way it was brought about. We felt we had been short-changed. We felt that somehow the British government and the Canadian government had got together and decided that this would, in the long run, be best for us and that in insidious ways they were able to influence the outcome.
I did not realize until 1 came here, Mr. Speaker, the diversity and majesty of Canada. When I went to school 1 learned British history. We did not learn Canadian history. We learned very little about Canada, and the little we knew about Canada in the Newfoundland 1 grew up in we learned from the Canadian Armed Forces who were stationed overseas in Newfoundland during the war. Hence, I can speak with
Constitutional Change
some feeling of this country because I became a Canadian by way of referendum-1 suppose I am a statutory Canadian-a referendum that took place on July 22, 1948.
The constitution that we are now talking about patriating was amended on March 23, 1949, and royal assent was given at Westminster in order to make provision for Newfoundland's entry to confederation.
When I came here in 1957 what did 1 find? We were divided in this House on the question of whether we should have bilingual cheques. Can you imagine that-whether the French-speaking citizens of this country were to receive cheques from the federal government in their own language! Up to that time all government cheques went out in English only. This was a new dimension of Canada for me.
I recall that at that time a French Canadian could not stand in his place in this House and speak in the French language because, if he did, no one would understand him. Not only did the late right hon. member for Prince Albert bring in bilingual cheques, but one of the first things he did when he became prime minister was to provide the simultaneous interpretation that is in this House today.
This is not the Canada of 1949, Mr. Speaker. We have come a long way. This is not the Canada of 1957. An expression was articulated by my leader, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, when he said that Mr. Levesque and those associated with him wanted to separate from a Canada that no longer existed.
It is not for me to articulate the grievances of the Frenchspeaking people of this country, our brothers and sisters in the province of Quebec. I can speak of the grievances of my own province and I will.
Sir, what 1 want to say in the few minutes left at my disposal tonight is this: 1 believe in Canada. I am happy that the people of Quebec, by a democratic expression of their vote, demonstrated belief in Canada. I believe in strong provinces. I believe in strong provincial governments-provincial governments that have the constitutional authority to discharge their mandate, to carry out the obligations they have to their constituents, but I also believe in the absolute necessity of a strong federal government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: If there is one thing that worries me it is the suggestion that somehow, in this quest for constitutional renewal, the conventional wisdom may become a self-fulfilling prophecy and we will divest the Government of Canada of the powers necessary to serve the common good of Canada. That is what worries me more than anything else. I look at the power grab taking place in this country today by some of our provincial premiers, and it shames me. 1 can stand in this House and articulate the views of my constituency; I have the responsibility of serving my constituency, and 1 have the concomitant responsibility of serving my province, but I have an equal responsibility in this House to serve my country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 22, 1980
Constitutional Change


James Aloysius McGrath: That is why 1 reject those who would put forward the proposition that the Government of Canada can only enjoy those powers that the provinces delegate to them, that somehow the Government of Canada is perceived as merely the agent of the provincial governments. I reject that notion, Mr. Speaker. 1 reject it for many reasons, not the least of which is that it would create a Swiss type confederation in Canada, with a Government of Canada that had no power to serve its people to speak for Canada.
I hope, sir, as was so eloquently expressed today by my colleague, the hon. member for Rosedale, that in our pursuit of constitutional renewal we do not look on the British North America Act as a piece of paper and throw it out. It has served us well. It is one of the oldest constitutions in the world. We have been able to grow and prosper under that constitution. It is a constitution that could permit Bill 101 in Quebec. It could permit French Canadians to come to this House and find expression in their official language.
Let us not sit down with the attitude of carving up the pie. If we do that we will destroy Canada. Let us sit down and share in the dream that is Canada, a dream of the Fathers of Confederation. If we do that we will succeed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State, Trade):: Mr. Speaker, it is almost superfluous for me to say, after all those who spoke earlier in this debate, that I join in the motion introduced by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). I congratulate him for his altruism and for that of his party, through him, because less than 48 hours after the results of the referendum became known in the House of Commons, he has enabled us to reaffirm solemnly the commitment made by the federalist forces to the people of Quebec that a negative vote on the question asked by the government of Quebec meant in fact a step on the road to change. It is for me symbolic that the dust having hardly settled on ballot boxes the House has already had the opportunity to hear the three national parties represented in this House state that it is very important for the survival of the country to devote the respite given to us to nation building, and I agree.
I was deeply interested by the speeches made by the hon. members for Provencher (Mr. Epp), Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) and the one made by the previous speaker, the member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I would like to say that I was deeply moved when, 30 years later, he referred to the heartbreaks induced by both referendums in that province and the fact that even after all those years, the people of that province still remember. I express the wish, Mr. Speaker, first that in 30 years from now we will still be in this House of Commons to say as Quebeckers: I remember the referendum in 1980 but
also I would like to say then: You know, I was on the No side at the time and 1 do not regret it since Quebec has taken its place in the Canadian federation, its rightful place, and that happened only a few months or a year or two after the people of Quebec stretched its hand out to the rest of Canada as it did the night before last.
1 am happy that the hon. member for Provencher took the opportunity tonight to draw attention to the regionalistic dimension of this desire for change. Let me explain. Everyone knows as well as 1 do, Mr. Speaker, that the Pepin-Robarts report gave a diagnosis of the situation, with which I agree, and said that there were two currents of change in Canada. One current, from Quebec, could be termed the nationalistic current, and the other, of which Alberta is perhaps at the moment the torchbearer, the regionalistic current.
I was glad that the hon. member spoke of this dimension because 1 think one of the biggest mistakes of the Quebec government was to presume and state that the other partners in confederation had no desire for change and that a No vote would simply allow all Canadian federalists to sit back and watch the world go by. But we realize now, and the hon. member has proved it, that this desire for change exists not only in Quebec but that it is echoed, and forcefully so, for perhaps differing reasons, in the regionalism of western Canada which is demanding adjustments to our constitution and institutions.
Finally, it is perhaps the hon. member for Rosedale who fascinated me most, because he indirectly opened a door which I myself wanted to open, and that is to warn all those who will be responsible for constitutional change, those who will bring it about, not to be lured by change for the sake of change.
Let me explain this. The hon. member said "You know, in the final analysis, the constitution of 1867 served us well." You will be surprised to hear that from a Quebecker; it is probably true. It would be sad to cross out our whole past for the sake of change and to feel obliged to build anew without putting to some use the experience that we have acquired and must preserve. 1 like very much the saying which has become very popular now, that instead of pulling the old house to the ground and building a new one, it is better to keep the nice architecture, the high wails and the large and aired rooms of the old one and to renovate them, to upgrade the insulation, to improve the heating system and to keep our link with the past which survives through the house and is beautiful.
You know, 1 have the feeling that if there ever was a myth that has been excessively used during the debate, it is the idea of status quo. Obviously, nobody wants the status quo. It has become the villain in Canadian politics. But is there only anything like status quo in Canadian constitutional law? 1 wonder and I am asking every hon. member. Not sure. Strictly speaking, the constitution of today is not that of 1867. It has changed and developed along with the times and needs, in line
May 22, 1980

with other legislation, the British North America Acts-there are a whole series of them-the Statute of Westminster, through constitutional amendments, both provincial and federal. The constitution of today, whether in the tax, monetary or power-sharing areas, is not that of 1867. One can rightfully say that we live today in a system which was conceived in 1867, but one could not say that the rules of the constitution under which we live today are those of the 1867 constitution. We are living under rules which have evolved. If these rules, therefore, have evolved, it is because the formula itself is not so bad after all, and this is one of the reasons-there are indeed others-why I believe in federalism. 1 believe in it and, until proven wrong, I shall continue to do so.
Alas!-and here I agree with the hon. member for Rose-dale-the problem we must face today is not, strictly speaking, a problem of constitutional reform. Of course the federal government, in March 1978, and before that, in October 1977, presented during federal-provincial conferences a whole series of proposals for constitutional reforms, on such esoteric matters as the declaratory power, the power to spend, natural resources or offshore rights on the continental shelf, which are all very important, of course, but which are all matters with which I am not sure that all Canadians can easily identify.
Reforms had therefore been suggested and the process was underway to make certain necessary adjustments, which leads me to say that we should beware of using the term status quo in Canadian constitutional law because it does not reflect reality. 1 do not believe that this is the real crisis; the real crisis is one of identity. And, as I said earlier, 1 would like to warn those who will bring about this reform against making simply a legalistic reform, a reform of the legal texts, against playing a political give and take game during these federal-provincial conferences mentioned earlier by my colleague from Gloucester (Mr. Breau) which could be compared to a circus where everyone is trying to gain some advantage so that when they go home, whether it be to Edmonton, to Quebec City or to St. John's, they will beableto mark political points. Unfortunately, this is just about what has happened in past constitutional conferences and even during federal-provincial conferences on energy or the economy, and we have to avoid falling in this trap.
Indeed, you can believe me, Mr. Speaker, even if 1 said earlier that the major issue may not be constitutional reform, but rather a change of attitude-and I shall unfortunately not have the time this evening to explain in detail what this change of attitude should entail-this change can have various manifestations, for instance, the creation of bilateral consultation mechanisms, a decentralization of decision-making, the creation of a House of Federation, a mechanism of shared membership among the provinces and the federal government, and so on. That could be discussed at length. But that has
Constitutional Change
nothing to do with the constitution as such; it is rather the institutions themselves that will have to adjust.
As 1 was saying, let us not kid ourselves, this is indeed the last chance that Canadians will have to reidentify with their country. The hon. member for Rosedale talked about the land, and I did like his image. For some it might be the land, for others, the sea, but the fact still remains that our crisis is one of identification. Mr. Speaker, if we cannot find a way to solve that crisis of identification, and very rapidly, I am afraid there will not be any need for a second referendum, and perhaps involving not only Quebec but other partners as well, for Canada as we know it now may no longer exist five years hence. It is the danger as I see it, the danger I apprehend and the reason once again why I would dare hope that that reform, that desire for change on the part of all Canadians will be expressed in two different ways. First, of course, to clean up that hotchpotch of necessary proposals for change, but that can sometimes blind us, make us think that here is the solution, the miracle solution is the spending power, the declaratory power, the offshore rights under the continental shelf, ownership, oil wealth. Some think solving that will solve the problem. No. But let us clean that up as rapidly as possible. Perhaps that can be done at the conference that will take place in July.
But that is not all. It would also be necessary, in a second step, that the conference in July be the starting point for that reflection and over-all reform that would finally enable us to better identify ourselves with our institutions. As I said, several proposals have been made, by the Pepin-Robarts commission, or in the beige paper of Mr. Ryan, by the Canada West Foundation or by the government of Ontario, in Bill C-60, or again by the Canadian Bar Association. Many groups have offered proposals, huge documents, reform proposals. There are many good ideas in there, proposals which may indeed help Canadians to better identify themselves with their institutions, which would allow a really dynamic federalism.
One solution could be to ask officials, and I would like this to be done on an intergovernmental basis, to collect and organize all this by the month of July-l am almost finished, Mr. Speaker, I need only 30 seconds more-so that we could, at the July conference, after having organized this hotchpotch, we could establish intergovernmental bodies to study these proposals and reach a consensus as soon as possible and, once again, on an intergovernmental basis. At a second stage, in maybe two years, we will reach proposals agreed on by consensus which could be submitted-one can dream about it-to a national referendum. Then all Canadians could vote on these proposals prepared by politicians.


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano);: Mr. Speaker, 1, too, am quite moved and feel very privileged to partiepate in the debate on the motion. I was very moved by the speeches made

May 22, 1980
Constitutional Change
by hon. members earlier in the debate and 1 find my interests and concerns overlapping those of members in all parties.
I think we all have deep feeling and emotion and a love for this country. Some of us have been deeply troubled as we have moved out of the decade of the seventies. My hon. friend from Rosedale spoke with soul and feeling. He is obviously a man who understands his community, his region and his country, as do the speakers who followed him. 1 was touched to hear my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), give his experience, stating the fact that he is a statutory Canadian in that he joined this chamber and this country as a result of a referendum. We heard that Canada today is an idea, not a constitution, that historians and artists reflect the strength, the beauty, and the magnificence of the land.
My background, my education, my reading, my work, my life, my region of the land, are quite different from those of members who preceded me, and I would like to place perhaps another broad dimension into the debate here today. Canada has come through a decade in which 1 have been troubled, as have others, in seeing the spirit of Canadian nationalism diminished. 1 have often related this denationalization to the social engineers working under the direction and perhaps with the assent of the government which was in power through the seventies.
I, like many Canadians from my region of Canada, carry a deep concern, yes, a resentment at the deterioration in the nationalism I was brought up in. I have seen this deterioration take place in the schools of my land when they stand to sing the national anthem. 1 have seen it deteriorate at the hockey and football games of my land as we sing the national anthem. Many of us are concerned that the spirit and the values which built this great country are diminishing. That spirit and those values carried our forefathers, my father and myself, through two world wars in my family, defending freedom and dignity for men, freedom of speech, freedom of ideas, freedom of movement, freedom of enterprise in a free marketplace, freedom to set individual goals and work to achieve them, all within a sense of order necessary to serve and protect the common weal and the common good.
We know that the racial crisis that we are in the midst of in this land has roots deep in the history of the nations of our French and British forefathers. But in spite of this historical antagonism, Canada came together as a nation with a constitution surely for some very fundamental reasons in addition to the land that we have heard of today, the love, the idea, and the referendum.
In May of 1979, a year ago, 1 received from a constituent an article in the Washington Post. It was written by John Conway, a Vancouver person, a scholar who moved to the United States as a lecturer in law and history. His article was written as an interested Canadian observer looking at Canada and what was happening to it from outside the land, not involved in the day to day work of it. The article was entitled "Canada is Coming Apart". In the files of clippings and literature which I have gathered, and which most of us have
gathered on this issue, that article stood out in that it expressed something I fully did not know from my knowledge of history and my schooling. He pointed out that Canada came into existence for three reasons resting upon a genuine distrust of the American democracy, founded on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as opposed to British constitutionalism.
He pointed out that Canada in its beginnings was afraid of American annexation. Indeed, he reminded us that in 1896 Theodore Roosevelt even talked of declaring war on Britain to conquer Canada, its resources and its land. The Quebec French Catholics did not like the idea of being forcibly etched to the bosom of the Protestant American Union. This was one of the feelings that was in the origins of Canada. English Canada, on the other hand, was founded by some 35,000 loyalists who had backed the defeated side in the revolutionary wars of the United States and had settled along the shores of Lake Ontario. They feared the Americans and disliked their political and social institutions. Concern about American annexation lasted in this country into the twentieth century.
The second reason Conway gave for confederation was economic. If British North America was to be united and strong against American attack, it must have a strong, stable, expanding and mixed economy. This led to tariffs to support founding industries in Canada, in Ontario and Quebec against American competition.
From the very beginning of Canada this policy was a source of irritation to the farmers on the Canadian prairies and to the harvesters of the natural resources on the west coast of Canada in British Columbia.
In British Columbia we have always had to compete in world markets with products from our resources. Our export dependence far outweighs that of Ontario and Quebec. In addition, we have had a slender hold on secondary manufacturing and processing of resources which are important to stable payrolls and long-term growth in those regions. This means that national policies have a very different impact on my part of Canada from that on other regions like Ontario and Quebec.
Canadian tariffs and quota restrictions are seen as a negative drain on our payrolls and on consumers and higher prices for consumers in all of Canada, while the benefits go largely into central Canada. I do not put this out antagonistically; I just seek understanding of that attitude which prevails. Antidumping Tribunal decisions which disturb western payrolls and industries and which transfer the market advantage to Ontario are indeed dangerous policies within the delicate nationhood we have.
The third reason he pointed out for confederation was the growing might of the British Empire. Canadians could not compete with the might of the industrialized forces of the United States, so British preferential trade agreements were in our history a great boon to us and were a great offset against a very powerful neighbour to the south. British preferential
May 22, 1980

tariffs are now being phased out, as three quarters of our trade is with the United States.
These three founding reasons have faded. We are intimately related to the United States economy in that 74 per cent or 75 per cent of our trade is now with the United States. The United States has no intention of taking us over through the force of arms. We know that, although its influence and economic power over us are a challenge which we must recognize and face. The British Empire has faded like all previous empires. It appears, therefore, that of the founding reasons for our nation only one in part remains, and that as a nation we are searching and looking for the base upon which to reconstitute ourselves.
Although anti-Americanism is raised from time to time in Canada, so far it is only the product of the intellectuals. I do not see the rank and file average Canadian perceiving it as an issue. Even in British Columbia we are concerned about the extent of Japanese economic domination over our resources and over the secondary industries adding to the value of those resources. Could it be that in addition to the land the only other rationale for reconstituting our nationhood lies in more self-determination and control over our resources?
We in British Columbia want to see initiatives on two fronts, the economic front and the constitutional front, where amendment is necessary. We are impatient with a struggle and a structuring to concentrate power to the centre. We want to see a federalism based on co-operation and with guarantees for inputs from the regions of this great country. Most of us in the west believe that the problem is economic, and would like to see a healthy economic environment exist in order to resolve the cultural and language problems which are within our bosom.
At the moment we have an impatience with the posturing for duality of language, law, and culture. It will take a great deal of talk, such as we have had in the meeting of minds, hearts and feelings in this House today, to create the understanding needed for duality of language and an at home feeling from sea to sea to come about in this country. 1 believe there are federal powers, as my predecessors have said, which must be strengthened, and that a strong central government is absolutely necessary for this country in order for it to take its rightful place in the community of nations. But to do so by the central government's grabbing the resources of the regions is indeed a strain on the threads which tie and bind us together.
Quebec has been the first to speak out. The west feels that its frustrations, although of different origins, are equally valid. Conway writes that without the empire, without the unifying ideology, and without the charter myth such as the Declaration of Independence, we are retreating into regionalism and indifference. I think May 20 snapped us out of indifference. Now we in this chamber have to talk our way out of regionalism.
He also challenged that all three political parties in Canada have failed to address these fundamental issues upon which the survival of our country depends.
Constitutional Change
In closing, let me echo the words of my colleague, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie). The present constitution really needs two things. It needs tolerance-"Let us celebrate our differences"-and talk. This chamber needs heart-to-heart talk. We have lost ourselves in closed caucuses which do not allow us to express in this House the sense of regionalism that we were elected to bring to the federal government. That debate started back in Britain in the late 1700s, and I think we in all parties have to address it today.
I should be able to stand up and talk to hon. gentlemen across the way and to my left and my colleagues here openly, in front of the media and the Hansard of Canada, and express the feelings and the emotions of my home in my part of Canada. 1 should not have to be locked into a caucus of silence when I do so. Without talk how are we ever going to understand each other and defeat the regionalism which has descended upon us? 1 believe the challenge before us lies in this chamber today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I want to do something a little bit odd this evening by finishing off the address I started on the seventh day of the throne speech debate. You may remember that you were in the chair and that I had the last ten minutes, and tonight 1 have a bit more time. I think it is timely, since 1 was talking about the protection of minority language rights and minority rights in general, that I finish off that part of my speech and talk a little bit more about what 1 think has to happen in terms of constitutional change from the perspective or vantage point of an Ontario member of Parliament.

But first, Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat part of a speech 1 made before this House some four years ago. 1 said at that time that many English-speaking Canadians born in Canada forget all too easily the fate that a minority group must suffer. Just ask a newly arrived immigrant in Toronto if it is easy to be accepted by the majority. The answer, 1 reckon, will be a loud no.
New Canadians must face difficulties because of their linguistic and cultural differences. They must face discrimination because of the colour of their skin or their religion. Immigrants generally accept these difficulties. They consider them as the price tag of their acceptance in this country, Canada. The same is not true of French-speaking Canadians. They represent more than a minority, Mr. Speaker, they are part of a minority with has a status of equal partner in the Canadian nation-state.
In my opinion the Official Languages Act is a wonderful thing and contributes to the unity of this country. It spells out the legal right of Canadians of both official languages to be served in their respective language by the national government throughout the country.
1334

May 22, 1980
Constitutional Change
Where it is feasible, I think that the people want the government to establish this service. But now, Mr. Speaker, we must go further, especially after the results of Tuesday's referendum in the province of Quebec. We must entrench linguistic rights in a new Canadian constitution.
1 would say, Mr. Speaker, that one of the main reasons that 1 wanted to come back to this House, as I mentioned the other night, was to see a new constitution, and to see minority language rights enshrined in that constitution. 1 applaud the speeches of some of the premiers of this country, such as Mr. Davis, Mr. Hatfield, and even Mr. Lougheed, who are prepared to enshrine minority language rights in the constitution. That may help to win the hearts of those in Quebec who really delivered for us the other evening when they voted overwhelmingly No to sovereignty-association for the province of Quebec.
But there are other aspects of the constitutional debate that have to be analysed. As a member of the House from Ontario I think that Ontario has to make many sacrifices if the other regions in this country are to feel at ease with being part of the continued Canadian confederation. I want to talk for a moment about resources because resources are to western Canada what language and cultural rights are to Quebec.
I am glad that the premier of my province has made a public commitment to enshrine minority language rights in the constitution of this country. But I also think that the premier of my province and his government, the members of the provincial legislature and the members of parliament from Ontario, have to recognize the legitimate aspirations of those people from western Canada with respect to resource management and ownership.
I would agree with some of the comments made by Premier Blakeney when he said in Toronto recently that one cannot talk about federal taxation on revenues flowing from oil and natural gas if one is not prepared to apply the principle across the country no matter what the resource. I think the people of Ontario will have to realize that they cannot expect the western provinces, in particular Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, which have most of the oil and natural gas in this country, to accept a lower price, to accept federal taxation of that resource, unless resources in the province of Ontario are equally taxed.
1 have a couple of things in mind here, Mr. Speaker. Uranium is a great export from the province of Ontario and, to my knowledge-and I stand to be corrected-there is not on it the same kind of export tax, if indeed any, that applies to the export of oil and natural gas. With regard to hydroelectricity or electric power, I saw some figures this afternoon when I was signing a question which will be produced in the House in a few days from the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) about the sale of hydroelectric resource to the United States. It is my understanding that electric power in general, when exported to the United States, is not subject to the same kind of tax that we have levied on exports of oil and gas to the
United States. So, to use that old adage-and I hate to use it-what is good for the goose is good for the gander, I think for too long people in Ontario have lived comfortably and have perhaps behaved a little like ostriches, not willing to recognize the legitimate aspirations of other parts of the country.
It is my hope to see in this debate what was so eloquently expressed this evening by my colleagues on all sides and I took particular delight in the comments made by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) who, in my view, united themselves with most, if not all, members of the House in the desire to hatch up regional differences, to maintain a strong, united country but also to maintain a federal power and the national Parliament which has the ability to protect all people across this country, whether it is to protect minority language rights, English in Quebec, French outside of Quebec, or whether it is to protect the federal power in setting national standards in certain programs which we have accepted in the last 20 or 30 years as the right of every Canadian. One that comes to my mind is medicare. I would say quite frankly that one of the worst things I did when I was a member in the Thirtieth Parliament was to vote for a piece of legislation which, en bloc, had the effect of transferring the powers over medicare to the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: 1 would hope that we may correct that in this Parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: We need a strong national government to maintain a good medicare system and equal access to medicare. We need a strong national government to ensure that all the resources of the country, whether it is oil in the west, or uranium and hydroelectricity in Ontario, are shared equally across the country. All the resources, such as off-shore fishing on the east and west coasts, belong to all Canadians, and it is only with a strong federal power and a strong national government that these resources will be shared equally among Canadians.
We need a strong national government to ensure the freedom of movement of goods, labour, and capital across provincial boundaries. I think that what the hon. member for St. John's East said a few moments ago struck the core of the problem. In the last few years this basic principle has been seriously eroded. I think that some of the talk about decentralization, about the devolution of power and the need to weaken the central authority, is really a figment in the imagination of certain bureaucratic and political elites in this country. That is not to say that we in this chamber and our public service here in Ottawa are also not an elite that wants to protect its own sphere of interest, but I think that if we are really going to solve all of our problems we have to look beyond our petty interests, whether those interests are the ones I have described, the political and bureaucratic elites federally or provincially, or whether they are the petty concerns of people in their
May 22, 1980

respective provinces. We have to agree to put these aside, and we have to agree to unite and all make sacrifices.
The vote the other night was great for us from English Canada. We appreciate no end the decision taken by the majority of people in the province of Quebec; but the heat is now on the rest of us from outside of Quebec not to break the faith of those people who voted in Quebec. So we must push for constitutional change, and 1 hope that the good wishes expressed in the House in the last couple of days will not dissipate as the referendum results move farther away from us.
I think we reali7.e-and I believe this sincerely-that we have very few years left to make sure that this country stays together. The problems in this country, whether they be language rights, the legitimate recognition of the economic aspirations of the provinces or the sharing of wealth in this country, must be attended to. We must in this Parliament, as 1 said the other night, pledge ourselves to come forward with a new constitutional document.
I was quite glad to hear the response of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the question from the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) in terms of participation of the member for Oshawa and of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in any federal negotiating team.
We have had two elections in the past year. They have left a bitter taste with some members, not just those of the former government. I might remind hon. members that I was one who paid the supreme sacrifice last May, and then came back. It has been a tough year, but politics and our political fighting in election campaigns are what make this country democratic. As indeed the Prime Minister said about the referendum, where else but in Canada could one part of the country legitimately debate openly the future of that part of the country and put it to a democratic vote? We are a very mature country.
Since two elections are past us, and since the referendum is past us, we in this House can bicker back and forth about specific programs. Perhaps I should not say "bicker", as we all have legitimate differences. But on constitutional matters I really hope in a most sincere way that we will put our differences aside. Whether it is an all-party federal negotiating team with the provinces, or whether it is some other kind of mechanism, 1 hope we can all submerge our differences and agree that we must make some sacrifice. It will not be easy.
It will not be easy for someone like me to go back to metropolitan Toronto and tell people that higher oil and gas prices must be levied or must be gained by the western provinces, and that growth must shift further west. It will not be easy for me. It will not be easy for the hon. member for St. John's East if he has to go back to Newfoundland and say to the people of Newfoundland, "You cannot claim all of the jurisdiction over offshore mineral rights". Those are some of the sacrifices we as members will be called upon to make in the next few years. I hope all of us are equal to the task.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Constitutional Change


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, 1 too am very grateful to be here in the Parliament of Canada on this occasion, on the occasion of talking about the referendum in Quebec, on the occasion of talking about constitutional renewal for Canada. It has been, barring the Newfoundland referendum, one of the most important events in Canada since the Second World War. It is all very well to say that other provinces, regions and cultures have problems, grievances and some feelings of being wronged, but no other part of the country had come to the point where it felt it had to have a referendum asking whether or not its people wished to have a quite different role to play in Canada, a sovereignty-association role. No other part of the country has felt it necessary to do that. It seems to me that in itself makes this an occasion for us all to realize, if we have not yet done so, that French Canada, particularly Quebec, is different. It is not a province like the others, nor has it ever been.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: Since none of us can be experts in this, I can do no more than say I think that many of us in Canada, many, many Canadians in all parts of this country, have over the past three or four years, particularly since the election of the PQ in the province of Quebec, really come to feel in our souls that there is a duality, that there is a dual society in Canada. The duality is the vast numbers of us who are predominantly English-speaking, of a great variety of cultures, but the mosaic is within the English-speaking group, on the one hand, and a large, significant and historically important French-speaking group on the other. By the way that group itself may become more and more a mosaic of cultures as new people come into Quebec.
1 think it is the politicians who have not yet recognized that Quebec is different. 1 think it is some politicians, anyway, who have not yet accepted this marvellous duality that is Canada. Many, many people have accepted it. 1 have been reading in the Vancouver, Ontario and maritime newspapers in the last day the man-on-the-street interviews. Of course we cannot say that they are scientific samples, but time after time people are saying that what Quebec has been feeling, needing and wanting, and what French Canadians generally right across this country have been feeling, needing and wanting, is different.
As one woman said in Vancouver, which is in my province, "British Columbia and all the western provinces must realize that the intensity of Quebec's cultural issues is far greater than the west's economic questions." There are many more, more than 1 think we have ever seen before, along that line. In a sense it took a referendum to do it, but I think it has been a culmination of many years for many Canadians getting a fundamental grasp and feel for the duality of this country.
I would hope that there would be no difficulty getting agreement very soon on one measure. 1 hope to speak to the premier of my own province to see if I can persuade him to come along. I am referring to the entrenchment of language rights. 1 think this is the time at last when we could get and

May 22, 1980
Constitutional Change
should get agreement right across this country on the entrenchment of language rights.


Some hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: Of course one of the really difficult things will be deciding on the division of powers. We all know that. There will be lots of discussion on what we will do when we abolish the Senate.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What will Stanley do if he cannot go there?


An hon. Member:: Good luck, Stanley.


Pauline Jewett: There will be lots of important discussions- one just needs to read the beige paper, for example-on the courts and their composition, as well as the fascinating subcommittee of the council, that is proposed to deal with dualis-tic matters. But the big one will be the division of powers, and we all know that.
We have heard a lot of talk in this very fascinating debate today about whether or not we can have a reasonably strong federal government particularly in the area of economic development, or whether we will have a society where all economic development matters are left in the hands of the provinces. It is interesting to observe that over the last decade or so it has been the provinces that have been taking the initiative in economic matters.
It was never true in the past that the provinces took very many initiatives, certainly not in social and economic matters. But in the last decade or so-in fact some people would say since the Second World War-the federal government has been on a continental drift. There has been no Canadian economic development policy. Some people would say that there has not been any since Sir John A. Macdonald. But even looking at the last dozen years, there has not been a national economic development policy. The only major development at all was the establishment of Petro-Canada.
How do we know whether we as a people, we as members of provinces, we as citizens of different parts of the county, want to have a strong federal government, particularly in economic matters, when we have allowed the role of the federal government to drift totally over at least a decade? In other words, we not only have to address constitutional reallocation but, indeed, even before we make decisions on that, we have to decide as a people whether we want to see the federal Government of Canada in co-operation with the provinces have a Canadian economic development policy. It is crucial, to me, that we make that decision.
I was very moved, as I think we all were, by the speech of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). As he was speaking I was wondering whether he and the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) had ever engaged in a friendly debate because, as I understood the hon. member for St. John's East, he was saying that one of the marvellous things about being a Canadian is that you can feel a part of
every part of this country no matter where you live and no matter where you come from-you can feel it.
I have heard lots of people in British Columbia say, when they were afraid that Quebec might separate, "Quebec belongs to me too". We do have this feeling, or many of us, about every part. I have it for New Brunswick because of my father's background, about Ontario because of my education, and about B.C. because that is where I live. I have it about other parts of Canada too. I think everyone has it even though they may never have left home.
The hon. member for Rosedale was saying that he thought a fundamental reality of this country was regionalism, a state of mind rooted in historical experience. With all due respect, 1 think that day is over. One of the fundamental facts of this generation in this country is mobility-we move around.
I am practically a senior-I won't use that phrase; I am practically an old timer in British Columbia. I have been there six years but most of the people I meet there now have only been there two. The big feature of Canada is its mobility. I agree with the hon. member that there was a period when all of our paintings, particularly the Group of Seven, were only of landscapes. That is not true any more; we are a society of people. There was a period when we stayed home and never moved; that is not true any more. We move right across this country. We move and we must encourage, through government action, more young people to move backward and forward across the country.
1 have only one more theme I particularly want to address. Two or three hon. members have referred to the suggestion that more than governments be involved in the constitutional negotiations. Or course, not being in a government, I think that is a splendid idea. We have to look at the way it might be done. It was suggested by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) that it might take place after the first ministers' conference; that there might be a sort of constituent assembly after that first ministers' conference. 1 think my leader's suggestion was that the actual delegations at the first ministers' conference should have a multipartisan make-up both from provincial and federal spheres, and that there should be at least leaders of other parties in the delegation. At this time of, I hope, a joyful renewal in Canada I think that would be an act of magnanimity, but more than that, an act that has a chance of real success. The delegations would have to do a lot of talking among themselves first, but it would have a chance of real success to have the federal delegation multipartisan, and the provincial delegations the same. I would hope, therefore, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would take that into consideration very seriously.
The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) had an interesting suggestion as well. His was more a way to involve more members of Parliament in a forum of discussion; it would not be more than a forum of discussion, but to mix them up with members from the provincial legislatures. I think that is an additional means of furthering our understanding of one another and, therefore, deserves to be thought about seriously,
May 22, 1980

in this case by us as members of Parliament with our counterparts in the provincial legislatures.
1 for one look forward to the real opportunities that the referendum and its results have given us all as Canadians. I think they have taught us a great deal, as I said earlier, and when both the Yes and the No votes can be construed and are being construed as strong requests for constitutional renewal, we can approach the task not in a spirit, at least 1 hope not, of narrow regionalism. I do not think Canadians feel that way any more. 1 think we can approach it in a spirit of wanting to create through the kinds of policies, particularly in the economic sphere, that this country has been crying for for years- a new Canada. Thank you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I believe in Canada; 1 believe in Canada with the passion of a convert, like so many other new Canadians who have come to this country and who have chosen to become Canadians because of their faith, their hope, and their observations of the greatness of this land. 1 hardly need to dilate upon the greatness of this nation after the eloquent tributes that have been paid verbally today and the last day or so, and certainly 1 hardly need to expand upon it after the tributes that have been preferred, not only in this House, but, above all, by the votes that have been cast by the people of Canada in the province of Quebec, expressing their faith in the most excellent way, far greater than words could ever state, when they voted in the referendum, choosing for Canada.
Given this background 1 want to say that I will not trespass upon the tributes given to Canada, either by those who have spoken so eloquently in the House, or by those who have voted so eloquently in Quebec. However, 1 want to state that I believe in Canada as one who has become a Canadian, like so many others who become Canadians and who have come to this country, as I did in 1951, and in years before and after, people who have come with a faith and a belief, and have come to appreciate what Canada can do for them, and what a great and free land it is. 1 believe in this nation as those new Canadians do.
Perhaps I have that kind of concern that comes not just out of reason, that comes from those who have perhaps always lived here and look at their country with great satisfaction, but with something that comes from experience.
1 was born in Switzerland and I lived in France just before the Second World War began. My father was the Protestant chaplain general of the French army. He saw that that nation, as 1 saw it, was, if you will, complacent; complacent with what it had, complacent with the way things were and, in fact, unwilling to make any changes that would adjust and permit it to face up to the world that was changing about it. My father paid with his life for his efforts to try to awaken France to the dangers of the complacency in that country. And so, perhaps, out of that experience as a child, seeing what could happen to what is called a great democracy, 1 saw also how great was the price that was paid. As Georges Santayana said, and as the words are immortalized on the gates of the prison at Dachau,
Constitutional Change
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
It seems to me, therefore, that one has to say as a Canadian who was not born here, one has a love for this country that is the love of a convert. From having experiences and seeing what happened in other nations, one knows what a great country this is and one wants to be sure it does not happen here. Perhaps it was for this reason that 1 attended conferences in 1971 in an attempt to convince people of the need for dialogue among Canadians, to talk about what was separating us, what was making us different, and what would bring us back together again in a sense of sharing, understanding and cooperation. Perhaps it was for this reason, 1 would suggest, that 1 entered the political arena, to participate in this great dialogue which now, once again, is beginning in great earnest in this country.
Why? Not because of rational reasons, but because of experiential ones. And those who have not learned from the past are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past. Those of us who do not learn from the past of Canada are bound and doomed to repeat the mistakes that have been made in the past in Canada.
I believe that we are faced with two choices. On the one hand, we can enter once again into the trivial argumentation of constitutional haggling of small points and of fine points the unsuccessful route that we have followed until now, or perhaps we might take a bolder approach, and 1 suggest we do that.
A bolder approach would be to enter into a faith in a new country, to undertake a rebirth in this nation that would bring about a new Canada on this continent. In other words, we must look to transcend and overcome the past rather than to bicker about whether or not this belongs to me and that belongs to you. As we focus on what belongs to me and to you, we lose the vision of what belongs to all of us. This rebirth of a nation can come about in three ways. They are essential if this nation is really to come into a new life.
The first thing, 1 think, is to fight the threat from within. The only way a new nation comes into being is the same way, in fact, that some people in Quebec wanted their new nation to come into being, by fighting what people regard and perceive as injustices. If we intend to fight the enemy from within, we must correct the injustices of the past and present with a completely new approach, an open heart, and an openness toward one another. We must have the enthusiasm, the idealism of a population that wants to right wrong, obtain justice for all, and that perhaps has the same kind of inspiration which fired the separatist cause. We need a new spirit within, a moral appeal and a moral renewal.
The second way, I suggest, is by combating the external threats, by protecting our air space from pollution, by protecting our land from pollution, our offshore resources in the 200-mile limit, our fishing rights and our internal channels of communication in the north which some may wish to say are our international channels. We must waken and realize that we are being threatened from without, not by armies but by a

May 22, 1980
Constitutional Change
new form of danger, a new form of threat that can destroy us-pollution and destruction of our resources and the wasting of our country.
The third thing which we could do is to take pride in our country. This subject has already been mentioned, but it bears repeating. One does not create a new nation by trying to argue over what belongs to me and what belongs to you, but by grasping the vision and pride in this country of what we have achieved in the past and what we may be called upon to achieve in the future. We might be called upon to fight disasters, to increase our peace-keeping forces, to continue our work with refugees. We must continue to be concerned about the human rights of people in other nations.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we are shortsighted because we have gotten used to it. We are shortsighted when we look at only our own concerns in this nation, instead of looking beyond and realizing that the world is being torn apart by tyranny, nationalism and regionalism. One need only look at countries such as Cypress and Lebanon, at countries like France with its problems in Corsica, and Britain which is being torn apart through Ireland and Wales with their nationalism, and even the Scottish nationalism-all of which was once the United Kingdom. We can look throughout the world and see one nation after another being torn apart by civil war. There are countries like Bangladesh and Ethiopia. The tragic list goes on and on.
Do we really think in this nation that we are immune from these forces which are tearing other nations apart, from the terrorism and violence which exists? If Canadians were to take the view of persons coming to this country from another country, if they could each step apart and aside and have the view of new Canadians, they would see this country for its totality. They have not become identified with its parts, and Canadians, too, would realize how important it is that we be united in a common cause.
We must look at the dangers that are without and come to appreciate the values which we have. It is only then that we can do, for example, what France was unable to do, to realize that the external threats and the threats of injustices from within will tear us apart like other nations, unless there is a renewal from within. We must renew our moral faith and develop a concept of a rebirth of goals, of our inner selves, each as an individual. It must begin with me, Mr. Speaker, and with you.
The problem will not be solved in this House. But the spirit that now prevades this House, of talking to one another, of really listening and not trying to find fault in the other, to see if we can hear something wrong in order to attack, and instead really trying to understand what the other person is trying to say, and helping that individual put it in the best possible light, that, Mr. Speaker, is dialogue. That is what will hold this country together.
I appreciate the rare privilege this evening of standing in the House of Commons. Though I was born in another land, I was permitted to adopt this land and I have had the good fortune of being able to stand in this House to speak on behalf of my riding and the many people in it who were either born Canadians or who came to Canada. I can say for them that we are grateful for what has happened in the last few days. I am grateful for the privilege of being able to add my few words of hope for a new country with a new start.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps fitting that I should be speaking at the tail end of this debate, because we in the north have been for so many years the tail end of the country. We are about to embark upon discussions with respect to the amending of the constitution of our country. I now make an appeal to be heard on behalf of Canadians who live above the sixtieth parallel.
The common southern conception stops at the sixtieth parallel, and the realization is not there that there are thousands of Canadians who live in Canada's two northern territories which comprise 60 per cent of our land mass. We have been treated by the government of the day as colonists. We have been defined judicially as colonists. 1 cannot help but compare that status with the progress that is being made throughout the world in the new nations which are emerging and which have a good deal less to offer to the development of a country than Canada's north.
The voice of northern Canada must be heard. It is represented in this House by three members, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar), the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), and myself. With the advent of party politics in the Yukon, we now have a government leader who is very able to speak on behalf of our concerns. In the Northwest Territories that development is taking place quite rapidly and their elected representatives should also be heard.
It was notable yesterday when we listened to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) that no reference was made to the participation in any forthcoming talks with respect to the reform of our constitution of the elected representatives of the north. The former prime minister, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) did make that reference-a reference which he seldom neglects to make when he speaks of the country as a whole.
The system which exists vis-a-vis the administration of northern Canada is archaic, to say the least, and repressive, to say the most. When we have elected representatives who must be present at the kind of federal-provincial conferences at whatever level through a minister who happens to come from Hamilton at the moment, this is simply not acceptable. It is no more acceptable than if I were to have the presumption to suggest that I could speak better for the residents of Hamilton and the riding which he represents.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Particularly that minister.


Erik Nielsen: Particularly that one. As suggested by the former prime minister, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition
May 22, 1980

in his remarks yesterday, it is time to recognize that those Canadians living above the 60th parallel should participate fully in any conferences that are going to affect their lives as Canadians.
It seems to me the time is long past that we should be operating under a system which was discarded from 1879 onward. Since that date when Manitoba became a province at the insistence of the territorial movement of that time, there has been no further movement toward recognition, with full participation, of Canadians who are classified as territorials. Indeed, that classification puts us within the definition of what 1 believe to be second-class Canadians.
We have made some progress in the 1970s and a good deal of progress in the last year toward achieving some measure of determination which at least equates that of a municipal council in most parts of the country. We have a long way to
go-
My pitch-so that it is not misunderstood-is not for immediate provincial status, but for a relinquishment of the Liberal philosophy of maintaining a stranglehold on the legitimate aspirations of northern Canadians to make decisions for themselves which their own municipal administrations, like provincial administrations, have the ability to make now. It is a simple question of fairness.
There are many thousands of Canadians in northern Canada, including many thousands of native Canadians, who want that kind of representation in any constitutional talks with respect to the reformation that is about to be conducted. That desire has been made known to the government opposite,
I know, as it was to ours. Under the responsibility of the immediate former minister of Indian affairs and northern development, a good deal of progress was made toward achieving that equality which northerners have a right to expect in any democratic society.
The government leader in the Yukon has already communicated his desire to participate on behalf of the people of my territory-his willingness to participate in any constitutional reform talks that come up. While the Council of the Northwest Territories has not progressed to that stage in their development that we have in the Yukon, they too have elected representatives.
The time is long past, and I hope this course is not adopted by the government when it comes to the talks-I will not call them federal-provincial talks because they should not be that; they should involve a much broader representation than that- the time is long past when participants in those talks must be confronted with a fait accompli designed in the bowels of the Langevin Building. The time is long past when the talks must commence on the basis of a structured plan presented to those participating. The time has come when there must be a realization that the elected representatives of the people in the broadest possible sense, must be the designers of any reform that is to come about in our constitution-a constitution which, incidentally, has served us well, as has been pointed out by many previous speakers, particularly from this side.
Constitutional Change Some hon. Members; Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: It has served us well. The fathers of the BNA Act had remarkable foresight in designing a constitution which at the time was applicable to four provinces-Upper and Lower Canada and the two maritime provinces that participated. In 113 years we have progressed to the point where it needs updating but, as the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) said, it certainly does not deserve to be chucked out on the crest of the impetus we achieved on May 20.
My appeal tonight is that for the first time northern Canadians should be represented by their elected representatives, not by the bureaucrats in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and not by any other bureaucrats at the table. I do not suggest they be full participants on an equal level with provincial premiers but I suggest that the elected representatives of the northern territories, those Canadians who live above the 60th parallel, should be heard in person. They should not be made sit behind the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) or behind any other minister, but should be heard in person and directly. We are Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: As long as I have lived in the north, which is 28 years, we have been fighting to get into confederation when other parts of the country were actively trying to get out or thinking about getting out. We want to be heard, and we want to participate in the kind of constructive building of this nation which we know is possible and which we know is our future heritage. We have so much to offer in resources and in talent in this 40 per cent of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 58(11) the proceedings on this motion have now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, on April 30, I put a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) and asked him how soon the government would

May 22, 1980
Adjournment Debate
be moving to implement regulations relating to uranium miners concerning their health and safety. The minister indicated at that time that he hoped by May 30 there would be new regulations put in place to ensure the safety and health of the uranium mine workers in this country, especially in the province of Ontario so that they would be on an equal basis with those workers under provincial jurisdiction in other mining camps.
During the last several months there has been increasing concern that those uranium mine workers are working under a much less safe arrangement regarding health and safety regulations than those working under provincial jurisdictions. In fact, last August regulations were passed under part IX of the Ontario mining act, which has since become out of date because Ontario has moved on to Bill 70, the occupational health and safety act, which provides more up-to-date arrangements.
A few weeks ago we had a meeting attended by representatives of the United Steelworkers, and the Minister of Labour, the minister of mines and other representatives from the two operating mines in Elliot Lake to urge upon the minister that action be taken on this matter. At that time the minister gave an understanding or a commitment that he would look into a number of items, including a request that the whole question of the health and safety of uranium miners be put under provincial jurisdiction. It is very appropriate that this matter should be raised tonight when we have been talking today about the constitution and new arrangements between the federal and provincial governments, because the United Steelworkers of America believe that conventional occupational health and safety should be under provincial jurisdiction.
Also at that meeting the minister indicated that he would move to see if Bill 70, the provincial regulations bill, could be, by reference, appended to section 4 of the federal labour standards code. At the same time he indicated that he would review the decision of the former minister of labour authorizing the health and safety committees in those two mining operations in Elliot Lake. He has already moved to do that and I am pleased to see that that is under way.
I am concerned about the labour unrest that has resulted and the uncertainty there has been during the past few months, that he moves to reference these occupational health and safety regulations under Ontario's bill 70 and put them in place as federal regulations under the federal labour standards code so that we do not have two classes of miners in Ontario, but instead that we have them all operating with equivalent health and safety provisions. If the minister does this by the end of this month 1 am sure there will be great appreciation for that decision, certainly by myself and by the thousands of uranium mine workers employed in the Elliot Lake mining camp.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) for having brought up this important
question regarding the uranium miners in his riding, one which also affects all the uranium miners in Canada.
If I may, I will give a little of the background to put the subject into perspective before referring, in closing, to a decision which has been forthcoming from my minister.
Labour Canada's involvement in the uranium industry began with a legal opinion by the Department of Justice in October, 1978, that part IV of the Canada Labour Code applied to conventional occupational safety and health in uranium mines. Prior to that time, all aspects of occupational safety and health in the uranium industry were regulated by the Atomic Energy Control Board. This was accomplished by a clause in the AECB licence which required the companies to comply with all local, municipal and provincial laws. By this means, the provincial legislation in relation to mine safety applied to the Ontario uranium mines and was enforced by inspectors of the Ontario Ministry of Labour.
Subsequent to the legal opinion in 1978, the uranium mining situation was given top priority and immediate action was taken by the department to ensure the provision of services in the field of conventional safety and health. The hon. member drew attention to this in his own words.
At a January, 1979, meeting attended by representatives of the mining companies, the labour unions, Atomic Energy Control Board, Labour Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Labour, it was agreed that the existing provincial laws would continue to apply and be enforced by the provincial inspectors. This interim arrangement pertaining to the legislative requirements was formalized when federal regulations, which referenced the Ontario legislation, were proclaimed in August, 1979. At that time, however, it was recognized that new Ontario legislation would be in effect shortly and departmental officials planned to amend the federal legislation to reference these revised Ontario mining regulations. This approach was unacceptable to the union, which requested that the federal regulation be revised in a format that included the safety and health requirements in a detailed, clause-by-clause manner. Although departmental officials recognized that this would be very time consuming, it was agreed to proceed on this basis with a target timing for completion of late spring, 1980.
To resolve the conflicts that have arisen in the tripartite application of safety and health standards in the uranium mining industry of Ontario, it is proposed to place a submission before cabinet in the near future which would offer several alternative courses of action in the federal jurisdiction.
I hope this will be done at an early date so that the hon. member might soon convey to his constituents the decision taken at that time.


NATIONAL DEFENCE- WINNERS OF COMPETITION FOR DESIGN OF PATROL FRIGATE
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, my participation in the adjournment debate tonight will possibly not last even the seven minutes allotted for it. I am seeking some information. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that on May
May 22, 1980

1, as reported at page 601 of Hansard, 1 asked a question and a supplementary question. Yesterday 1 telephoned the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mrs. Appolloni) to inform her that my request for an adjournment debate related only to the supplementary question, not to the first question, so that the department could zero in on that aspect without wasting time answering the other portion.
As Hansard reflects, I asked the minister a question. He answered. I made some comment on the shortcoming of his answer, and then I went on as follows:
Last November, as minister of national defence I sent a memo to the chief of the defence staff and the deputy minister ordering a study to be started on a new ship replacement program to follow on after the six frigate program was finished. An interim report was to be given to the chief of the defence staff by March 15 and to the minister by the end of June. Can the minister tell the House what progress, if any, has been made on this study, and if he has been briefed on it by the chief of the defence staff?
The minister replied:
Madam Speaker, following my previous answer, the development of the frigate program follows a normal course and once the problem of the new fighters was settled I asked that the department to do its utmost to suggest all possible solutions about the frigates.
1 am forced to the conclusion that the minister did not understand my question, and in the hurly-burly of the question period this is quite possible. That is why 1 have risen tonight to ask for a more detailed and a more explicit answer, and 1 presume by now they will have had time to apprise the minister of anything he might not have been apprised about before. I mentioned that 1 had sent the memo in November. I would like to correct that. It was October 29 that 1 sent the memo. As a result of that memo of October 29, only some three months later the chief of the defence staff instructed his subordinates to go ahead with the future ship study.
I do not wish to take up any more time of the House. I simply want to know, as I wanted to know on May 1, what progress, if any, had been made on this study and if the minister had been briefed on it by the chief of the defence staff.


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer as best I can the two or three questions asked by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). I want to assure the hon. member again, just as 1 did the other day, that there is nothing delaying the normal progress of the Canadian patrol frigate program and, as I stated in this House only a short while ago, once a decision has been reached on finalists to enter a competitive contract definition, shipyards on both coasts and in Quebec will, no doubt, be negotiating production proposals with the prime contractors representing the industrial group finalists.
However, the decision in regard to the winners of the competition and the factors involved are still under consideration.
In respect of the study to which the hon. member referred in his question, I would like to inform him that I am acquainted with the nature of this study and its progress to date. A
Adjournment Debate
preliminary report of this study was submitted to the chief of the defence staff in mid-March, and I was assured that the completed study would be ready for my consideration by late June, as the ex-minister mentioned in his question on May 1. I would like to point out, however, that this is still the month of May, not the month of June, and I cannot see any reason why we should have a delay on this report.
I would like to point out further that far from delaying the progress of new equipment programs for the Canadian forces, since this government took office only three months ago it has selected a new fighter aircraft and made the decision to replace our fleet of two and a half-ton trucks.
Also, the former Liberal government approved the purchase of the Aurora long-range patrol aircraft, of which the first one will be delivered next week. The Leopard tanks and the armoured vehicles also represent something we have done.
During the seven-month period in which the hon. member was minister of national defence his government was unable to initiate any major equipment programs.
If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to take this opportunity tonight to reassure hon. members of this House that, in view of the critical situation regarding forest fires in the central and western provinces, directives were given to our armed forces to be at the disposal of Canadian citizens in need of help, even if it means cancelling normal operations. When Canadian citizens are in need, it is a priority for the armed forces to help them.
To resume the answer to the hon. member for Victoria, the study he mentioned at the beginning of his question will, I think, be on time at the end of June, and then I think we could discuss the content of this study.


STATUS OF WOMEN-STUDIES ON EMPLOYMENT STRATEGIES FOR WOMEN
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I am raising the question of a women's employment strategy this evening because the situation facing women in terms of high unemployment, cutbacks in support services, and growing poverty, is reaching crisis proportions.
What are the facts? First, unemployment among women remains persistently higher than that for men, close to 9 per cent.
Second, women still earn only 58 per cent of men's wages, and according to Dr. Ratna Ray of the women's bureau of the Department of Labour, the gap is widening steadily.
Third, women's employment counselling and training programs funded under Outreach have dwindled away under Liberal and Conservative governments to the point where there are fewer than 12 left.
Fourth, job ghettoization is worse than ever with 71 per cent of women workers still concentrated in the sales, service, clerical and nursing occupations.

May 22, 1980
Adjournment Debate
Fifth, technological change is placing jobs for women in even greater jeopardy and closing the doors to better paying and more interesting job opportunities.
Sixth, private sector corporations are succeeding in keeping women out of skilled trades and in hampering women's efforts to organize into labour unions.
While the situation facing women has deteriorated rapidly in the last decade, particularly in the last three years, both Liberal and Conservative governments have produced nothing more than vague promises, regressive cutbacks, and more rounds of studies. The decision by the current minister responsible for the status of women to carry out yet another study on a women's employment strategy with the assistance of Liberal vice-president Lorna Marsden, is of deep concern to me, for several reasons.
First, women have been promised an employment strategy many times during the last three Parliaments; by the former Liberal minister in March, 1979, by the former Conservative minister in November, 1979, and now by the current minister responsible for the status of women. The urgency of the situation requires the immediate implementation of job-creation and job-training programs for women.
Second, can the women of Canada look forward to action from a government that refuses to implement standards of equality among its own employees? The recent investigation of equal pay in the federal public service, and the growing number of complaints before the Human Rights Commission from women public servants suffering discriminatory wages, demonstrate that this government's commitment to equal pay for work of equal value and to job promotion for women is dubious. New programs and new standards in the public service are not necessarily needed. Rather, what is missing is the will to enforce existing programs and to demand departmental accountability. If enforcement is lacking in the public service, is it possible to expect this government to enforce affirmative action, job training and equal pay in the private sector?
Another concern is that this government and the minister responsible for the status of women have neither talked in terms of, nor made proposals for, a full employment policy such that everyone willing and able to work is able to find useful, rewarding, and decent jobs. In fact the opposite is characteristic of the Liberal government. Instead of publicly advocating that employment opportunities should be available for all women who want to or need to work, this government has helped to perpetuate the myths that women are secondary wage-earners, are the cause of high unemployment, are temporary aberrations in the labour force, and tend to abuse unemployment insurance benefits.
If the Liberal government has not yet adopted a full employment policy and has failed to develop a job-creation strategy, can we really expect a meaningful and serious employment strategy for women?
Finally, I question the need for yet another study on employment for women in view of the tremendous number of studies
and recommendations that have already taken place. They include, one, a study of women returning to the work force by the Advisory Council in April, 1979; two, six major studies costing thousands of dollars prepared by the minister's own department outlining the elements of affirmative action and methods for implementing such a program; three, a report by the National Council of Welfare on Women and Poverty in October, 1979; four, an employment strategy for women by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women presented to cabinet in March, 1978; five, another employment strategy by the National Action Committee presented to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on February 22, 1979; six, specific employment related proposals presented to the former Liberal minister in a letter dated March 23, 1979, from Yvette Rousseau, then head of the Advisory Council; seven, a brief by the Canadian Committee on Learning Opportunities for Women presented to the government on May 14, 1979; eight, "An Employment Service for Women", a paper done on contract for Status of Women Canada in July, 1979; nine, Towards Equality for Women, the Liberal government's own national plan of action presented in March, 1979; ten, a complete strategy for women's employment prepared by officials in the minister's own department, approved by the previous minister in the Conservative government and destined for cabinet consideration in December, 1979.
The last thing the new minister should need is more studies. [Translation]


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

The hon. member over-simplifies the situation of women in the work force when she suggests that implementation of all the government's previous studies should be undertaken immediately.
Implementation of such studies is impossible without some co-ordination and the assistance the department requires from those who act as consultants, co-ordinating past studies with present realities and policies. The employment situation of women is well known.

employment opportunities, the kinds of jobs, salaries, working hours and promotion opportunities.

None of this work can be done overnight, nor can it be done without a co-ordinated and comprehensive strategy, one that is well planned and well thought out. This is the work the government is undertaking at the moment. We are in the process of implementing many of the recommendations of the past studies to which the hon. member has made reference. We are in the process of developing new co-ordinated strategies to improve the employment situation of women.
With regard to the plan of action to which the hon. member referred in her question, I would point out that, pursuant to the provisions of the plan of action, departments will be reporting their progress on the various initiatives to the minister by June 1, and then he will be making his report to cabinet.
Adjournment Debate
This will be the first of a series of annual reports to be made between now and 1985, the period covered by "Towards Equality".
Also I would add that the fact this present government would give the same minister responsibility for the status of women and the job-creation and employment strategy is a sign that we are trying to make a better relationship between the employment strategy and the status of women.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Friday, May 23, 1980