1980-10-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker,
I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter as urgent and as pressing as today's figures on the cost of living. Given that eat-in food prices went up 1.9 per cent last month for a year-to-year growth factor of 14.2 per cent, while eat-out and take-out food prices went up .6 per cent for a year-to-year total of 8.6 per cent, and because many senior citizens are so poor that they cannot eat out, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the government give consideration to eliminating the eat-out portion for indexing purposes for old age pensioners, or, secondly, tying pensions to the poverty level.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, having regard to the very real hardships and disadvantages suffered by residents living in northern and isolated parts of our country resulting from excessive living costs, under Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That the government, in the final stages of preparing a budget, give recognition to the most fundamental principle of taxation by which the rate of tax is measured to a taxpayer's ability to pay, and to the principle of equity and fairness, which was announced by the Prime Minister in his last Speech from the Throne, by granting tax relief on all benefits and allowances paid to northerners as compensation for the financial hardships and disadvantages associated with living in the north; and further that serious consideration be given to the example of other countries with similar geographic realities and uncongenial conditions
whereby cost-of-living differentials are compensated for with a lower rate of personal income tax.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUTE LAW (MILITARY AND CIVILIAN WAR PENSIONS, COMPENSATION AND ALLOWANCES) AMENDMENT ACT, 1980 CALL FOR REDUCTION IN PHASING-IN PERIOD FOR VETERANS' WIDOWS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I believe it has now been clarified that it is in order, even in the same session in which a bill has been passed and has become law, for a bill to be introduced amending a provision of the earlier legislation, as was done on Tuesday when a private member brought in a bill to amend the National Anthem Act. Therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young), I move:
That this House regrets that under legislation enacted earlier in this session respecting the widows of disabled veterans there is a six-and-a-half-year phasing-in period, which means that many thousands of widows will still have to wait from one up to six years before they receive the pensions to which by law they are now entitled, and this House therefore calls on the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs to introduce forthwith a bill to amend what was this session's Bill C-40, now Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1980, to reduce substantially or to eliminate completely that six-and-a-half-year phasing-in period, so that veterans' widows will receive the pensions granted to them by this Parliament while they are still alive.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL RESOURCES AND PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the seriousness of
3770

October 17, 1980
Canada's oil supply is acute and remains one of the most critical issues facing Canada today, and whereas last evening the Liberal members of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works displayed appalling lack of concern when they deliberately walked out of a meeting during a crucial presentation to that committee by the Alsands consortium, under the obvious direction of the parliamentary secretary to the minister of energy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That this House direct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to appear before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works prior to the budget presentation so that all members of Parliament can have meaningful input before the budget is brought before this House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that in Ontario, due to cuts in hospital budgets by the minister of health, there has been a marked deterioration in the quality of health care delivery to the extent that some patients requiring intensive care must wait up to 20 days to be admitted to an intensive care unit, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Guelph (Mr. Schroder):
That this House urge the minister of health for Ontario to give human life a higher priority than money and budgets and supply the necessary funds to restore a high quality health care system in Ontario.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Last week in Ottawa there was an important two-day conference on technological development, or the lack of it, in Canada which was well attended by almost 200 of Canada's top research people and companies. Inasmuch as the future job opportunities for young
Canadians and the living standard of all Canadians are totally dependent on our industries becoming competitive with those in other countries, particularly the United States, inasmuch as research spending in Canada has been allowed to degenerate to a level as low as that of countries like Ireland and Iceland, and inasmuch as this aspect of economic development needs the vital, undivided and determined efforts of the minister, who because of his third job, that of court messenger, did not attend the important conference last week to hear the views and concerns of the delegates, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That the Minister of State for Science and Technology be divested of his other part-time jobs of environment and constitutional errand boy so that he can devote his full time and best efforts to the most vitally needed and yet completely neglected ministry of this government which, in this important economic aspect, over the past 12 years has proven to be totally inept.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that many communities in the Northwest Territories rely totally on visiting dentists who come to these communities only two or three times yearly, creating a problem for the dental health of children in particular, and in view of the fact that the Department of National Health and Welfare has been aware of this problem for a long, long time, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare be instructed by this House to take concrete steps to attract dentists to isolated northern communities, and that in the meantime, the number of visits per year to these communities be increased.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PERSON'S AWARD
Mr. Dennis Dawson (Louis-Hebert):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. October 18, 1980, marks the
October 17, 1980

fifty-first anniversary of the Person's case in Canada. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent):
That this House offer congratulations to the five recipients of this year's Person's Award: Ella Manuel, Agnes Semmler, Sophie Steadman, Elizabeth Monk and Germaine Bellemare Goudreault-

-in recognition of their work and devotion to the cause of Canadian women.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas uncertainty caused by the government's indecision on frontier drilling incentives is having a serious socioeconomic effect in remote areas and impeding Canada's goal of energy self-sufficiency, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources be instructed to lay forthwith before Parliament clear plans to promote the healthy development of the frontier oil and gas industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance, who will know that today's CPI figures indicate another increase in the cost of living, and also continue to project double-digit inflation for Canada, even before we know the impact of the
Oral Questions
energy price increase the government intends. Will the minister now give Parliament and the people of Canada the assurance that all Canadians will continue to have the protection of indexing of their personal income taxes?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, this question has been raised in the House on a number of occasions. 1 repeat the answer given on previous occasions, namely, that this is one of the options I have been considering, as the former minister of finance stated he himself had considered prior to his budget. The result of my consideration will be indicated to the House when the budget comes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When is that?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, what the minister is saying is that this government is continuing to threaten waitresses, single-parent families and low-income Canadians across the country with the removal of indexing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


THE BUDGET
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, protected by their parliamentary indemnity they think it is funny to levy this back door secret tax upon the poor. We on this side of the House do not. Even though his colleague, the Minister of Justice, declines to give information to the House of Commons, I wonder whether the Minister of Finance might be prepared now to tell us when Parliament will receive the budget that he has delayed for eight long months?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Madam Speaker. I told the hon. member for St. John's West that I would probably indicate the budget date this week, and I am pleased to do so by saying the budget will be delivered on October 28.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, may 1 congratulate the minister on the first decision he has made this parliamentary session.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I should also like to ask the minister whether the energy policy statement which has been promised by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will be made before the budget, or is the government considering having the energy policy and the budget policy announced simultaneously?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Speaking for myself, Madam Speaker, the budget obviously will contain matters which are related to energy policy, and it seems to me that we will make an effort

October 17, 1980
Oral Questions
to bring these together in a way that the required budget preparation will not be jeopardized.


INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF ENERGY POLICY
Charles Joseph Clark: Just to be clear on this, Madam Speaker, perhaps 1 should direct this question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who promised an energy statement to the House of Commons. Does the minister intend to make that statement before budget day or, if not, does he intend to make it on budget day?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I would like to give the Leader of the Opposition the assurance that this government will not do what the previous government did and come out with a budget without having an energy policy. They will come out simultaneously.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: God help the country!


PENSIONS
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister explain why government members turned down my motion under Standing Order 43 to give consideration to helping older people in this country cope with the incredibly high cost of food when, as it is obvious from figures released today, their $35 old age supplement is already eaten up?
[ Translation]


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I do not know whether 1 should reply to a question which seems to me slightly out of order. The hon. member knows quite well that no government member said no. I am unable to identify who said no to such a motion and I wonder if the hon. member can do so. We are always particularly interested in the fate of the humble and the poor in Canada. We have always worked in that direction and we will continue to do so.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, in that case I shall reintroduce my motion on Monday and hope that hon. members on the government side and members on all sides of the House will agree to giving pensioners a break.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Surely in this instance the minister cannot deny his economic responsibility to the consumer in view of today's disturbing figures, and since the minister has so much clout in the cabinet-he certainly has enough portfolios-will he assure the House that he will protect the welfare of the consumer and through the October 28 budget stop the double digit inflation which is so devastating to those Canadians on fixed incomes?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, it is obvious that I do not shirk my responsibilities toward consumers. On the other hand, the hon. member should not think that macro-economic policies come under the jurisdiction of my department. If he has some questions to raise or representations to make, he should direct them to the Minister of Finance.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question again follows up on the news about the consumer price index today, and 1 would like to direct it to the Minister of Finance. There has been, as we all realize, a substantial increase in the annual inflation rate. We are looking now at a figure of 10.7 per cent. There has been a dramatic increase in the price of food, the rate of which is running at roughly 13 per cent, and a loss in purchasing power for most Canadian families, running at about $1,400 a year. This has continued over a three-year period.
I wonder if the Minister of Finance would mind confirming for this House that when his budget is presented on October 28 we will find a dramatic increase again in the cost of living for all Canadians, including dramatic increases in the price of energy and substantial tax increases? Would the minister be prepared to confirm that we will not find relief from this burden and that in fact inflation will probably be out of control as a result of this new budget?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it is not possible for me to indicate now what measures will be in the budget, but 1
October 17, 1980

should in a sense temper the statements made by the hon. member by saying that the inflation rate for 1980 will probably be in the order of 10 per cent. That is a figure I have used previously and I see no reason to change it today, even though 10 per cent is serious enough.
I also point out that in the December budget of last year the projected rate of inflation for 1980 and 1981 was 11 per cent, and 1 will try to avoid that higher figure in my budget presentation.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the optimism of the minister might be tempered a little since the future looks a little bleaker than it did even last December. One welcome aspect was the promise in the throne speech to protect Canadians who can least afford to suffer under what looks to be a dramatic increase in the inflation rate, and since the last budget 1 think very few people would acknowledge the claims just made by the minister.
Would the minister give us some assurance that he will move in the budget to place directly in the hands of those Canadians who can least afford the costs of inflation some relief mechanism, possibly a cost of living tax credit directly to low income and middle-income Canadians? Could he assure us that in fact the promise made in the throne speech will be in the budget?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I should point out to the hon. member that, in view of the inflationary pressures existing in the country, during the election campaign we promised to increase the guaranteed income supplement. That was one of the first actions we took when we returned to Ottawa and a new Parliament. That is very much in line with the commitment that still stands in the Speech from the Throne to help those in Canada who need help most.


Raymond John Skelly: Those would have been tremendous contributions to Canadian society if we had not seen such manoeuvres on the government's part to cancel their effect with high interest rates and other negative policies. The one thing which concerns most Canadians, I think, is the fact that the price increase in food and other areas will continue unabated. Has the minister undertaken any moves for his government to consult with industry to try to control some of the price increases, and I am thinking particularly of food? Is there ongoing consultation, through the minister's department or another one, to try to handle, or perhaps to hold or contain, prices and possibly to roll them back in some areas?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I should point out to the hon. member that, since earlier in the year when we delivered the Speech from the Throne and promised assistance, interest rates have indeed decreased and that these gains were not nullified, as he has indicated in his question. 1 would also point out to the hon. member that he should look in some detail at the sources of the increases in the cost of living index which come from increasing beef, pork and poultry prices, which have accounted for most of the gain in food prices in Septem-
Oral Questions
her. I believe that once he is aware of that fact he will understand that speaking to the industrialists of the country is no solution to price increases of agricultural products.


ESTIMATE OF OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION ACTIVITY IN 1981
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and it arises from the increasing evidence that, in spite of the propaganda in the minister's advertising campaign, all is not well in terms of Canada's energy future and that there will be a very significant decrease in oil and gas exploration activity in Canada next year. As one measure, the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors estimates, and I quote, that "as much as 25 per cent of exploration activity now being conducted in western Canada may swing next year into the United States".
My question to the minister is: does he accept that estimate of the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors and, if not, what is his estimate of the exploration activity in Canada next year? Will it be higher, lower, and by how much?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have already told the House that exploration activities this year in western Canada are far better than they were last year. These facts are self-explanatory.
As far as future speculations are concerned, I would rather leave that to my hon. colleague and other people who are professional speculators. I think that when our energy policy is released all Canadians, including westerners, will realize that it is very wise, very dynamic, very good for Canada as a whole and for western Canada in particular. As well the industry will see that it will be to its advantage to stay and pursue its work in Canada.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, if the minister had been briefed by his officials and had even rudimentary knowledge of the industry, he would recognize that drilling this year was based on planning last year. We are concerned about drilling next year which is being planned and budgeted for now. If the minister is not concerned about Canada's energy future, who is? To whom should we turn in this government who is concerned? Does the minister recognize that this movement of people, money and equipment to the United States is a oneway trip and we will not get this equipment back? He said on Tuesday that he expects Canada to be self-sufficient by the end of the decade. Is this rupture of people, money and equipment part of his plan to make this country self-sufficient? If it is, could he please explain how this is helping

October 17, 1980

Oral Questions
Canada to be self-sufficient, and helping to protect Canadians from the vagaries of insecure international supplies?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is losing his proverbial self-control simply on the basis of sheer speculations. This government's policy is based on reality and facts. The facts are there to demonstrate that there was much more exploration this year than the previous year, and that before making final decisions the industry will clearly want to know the energy policy of the government which will be made public within two weeks. The industry will come to the decision it considers appropriate at that time. Meanwhile, I think that my hon. colleague would have everything to gain by setting aside his bitterness for another moment. I think that at the present time he is simply speculating.


NATIONAL RESOURCES AND PUBLIC WORKS
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the minister reconsider his absolute refusal to appear before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works prior to announcing or publishing the energy policy of the government and prior to the budget, so that members of the House of Commons can discharge their duties and represent the people to the minister? To paraphrase the minister's own word, I think he will find that we are not unreasonable; we just want to sit down and express some of our concerns to which he is obviously not listening.
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, without hesitation I should like to indicate to my hon. colleague that I have listened most attentively to the views expressed by hon. members. Several debates have already been held in the House over the past few months on the energy issue. One was held as recently as last Tuesday in which I participated and during which I heard the various representations of hon. members. 1 should like also to indicate to my hon. colleague that if any hon. member of the opposition has particular views to express on this matter, 1 would be delighted to meet with them. 1 can say that I have discussed this matter abundantly in the past with the government caucus and that I will have many opportunities to discuss it again with them until the budget comes down. If other hon. members have views they would like to convey to me, I should be happy to receive them too. As to a formal appearance before the committee, I have already agreed to appear, I think, on November 4, that is, as soon as I possibly can after the
government's energy policy is released, to explain this policy and answer any question hon. members may care to ask on a precise and definite program. In the meantime, however, I think the best approach during the coming week is to make myself available to all hon. members who may want to advise me of their views on this matter.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, we are looking for a skating expert to come to Fort McMurray to teach skating lessons, and I think we have just heard from one.


An hon. Member:: Fancy skating.


Jack Wendele Shields: My supplementary question is directed to the minister. The minister indicated that he is prepared to meet with hon. members at this time, and to sit down and hear their views. Will the minister meet with the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works before the budget comes down and before the energy policy comes out? The members of this committee have been doing a great deal of work. We have toured all the tar sands facilities in northeastern Alberta. We have read volumes of material. Last night we listened to a presentation by the Alsands consortium.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am extremely happy the members of the committee have done a number of things I have done over the last several months.


Mr. Nielsen:: The Liberals walked out.


Marc Lalonde: I am glad we will have a very knowledgeable committee on national resources which will be examining our energy policy. I welcome this.


Charles Joseph Clark: Why did the Liberals walk out?


Marc Lalonde: We have had many debates in this House. Members of the House have had plenty of opportunity to make representations as to what the policies of the government should be. If my hon. friend wishes to make additional representations, I am at his disposal at any time.
As far as meeting with the committee as such is concerned, I indicated that I thought it was preferable to do so after the budget and after the release of our energy statement, when I will be in a position to answer all questions of hon. members in a very specific and detailed way. That will begin on November 4.


BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister explain to the House, if he knows, what goes on in the mind of the governor of the Bank of Canada as he sits down to set the
October 17, 1980

prime rate? Given that yesterday he had an opportunity to allow the prime rate to go considerably below the level at which he set it, that that could have had a very beneficial effect on consumers all across the country, and that that would have affected the mortgage interest rates of people who are required to renew their mortgages today, tomorrow and next week, why would he hold it up artificially? Why would he go into the marketplace and buy in order to hold it up for an hour or two in the afternoon to establish a rate higher than necessary?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is aware that the bank rate is established as a result of a weekly auction of treasury bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A manipulative auction.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yesterday the bank rate declined, as it did the preceding Thursday. I have no knowledge of what trading took place with respect to these treasury bills, but 1 assure the hon. member, if he is concerned on that point, that the governor of the Bank of Canada does not have a policy of maintaining interest rates above what is possible as a result of market operations. The hon. member knows as well that in this particular year there has been a rather unprecedented rollercoaster in the interest rate field, particularly in the United States.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, 1 confess the minister is right. There has been an unprecedented roller-coaster, particularly in the United States, and we have followed it.
If the minister does not know what went on yesterday with regard to the purchase and sale of treasury bills, he should be made aware of the facts and he should be concerned that the Bank of Canada moved in and involved itself in the marketplace in a way to hold the rate artificially high. Does the minister not feel it is time for him or someone in the government to assume the political responsibility for the actions of the governor of the Bank of Canada, to take a look at what he is doing and to decide whether he is suitable to carry on in that role in the future?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the government, and particularly myself, certainly are taking a look at what is going on. In the very uncertain circumstances with which we are presently faced it seems to me that the policy of the bank to adjust rates in accordance with market changes is a very sound one.


Ian Deans: But they are manipulating the market.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member is talking about activities of the Bank of Canada in the market. That is a matter of his knowledge, not of mine.
Because I think it is important, 1 would make a comment with respect to the hon. member's suggestion that we have persistently followed American trends. The fact is that at certain particular periods Canadian interest rates, particularly
Oral Questions
short-term ones, have been considerably below those existing in the United States. If he looks at the trend he will find that, while we are obviously subject to influences from the market in the United States, for obvious reasons we are not following and have not followed, and the market does not consistently follow, movements in the United States.


Ian Deans: Definitely not.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has the Canadian Transport Commission approved the decision made by Canadian Pacific to abandon, on October 26, the commuter train service between Farnham, Sainte-Therese, Laval and Montreal, and if so, this decision should mean that the service will be incorporated in a metropolitan transport system operated by the Montreal Urban Community, such as the one the provincial government announced in 1979 for the Lakeshore service between Montreal, Vaudreuil and Rigaud, and such as was stipulated in the press release made by Canadian Pacific Rail?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Last May, the Canadian Transport Commission rendered a decision which made a distinction between regular passenger service and commuter service. In the second case, the CTC simply stated that it did not have jurisdiction, and therefore CP is free to abandon certain lines in urban areas if they are not profitable.
Furthermore, I have entered into negotiations with the Quebec transport minister with a view to assisting in the upgrading of Montreal's rail transport equipment. We have come to an agreement in principle in this area and this agreement should be finalized in the days ahead. However, there is one important thing to remember. Although the agreement will provide for a substantial federal contribution to this upgrading program, it will also state the responsibility of the province and of the municipality as far as operations and future changes are concerned. It will therefore be up to the province and the Montreal Urban Community to decide which urban lines are to be maintained.

October 17, 1980
Oral Questions


MULTICULTURALISM
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Multicul-turalism. In a letter which I received from the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews, the president, Dr. Goldbloom, writes:
In 1980, money from the Government of Canada... made possible the sending of Traditions Canada (a desk calendar) without charge to a certain number of individuals and institutions, but such is no longer the case.
Could the minister inform the House how the government can reconcile the policy of spending vast sums of money on advertising their ideas of Canada in various publications, on the one hand, while on the other it takes away from the council funds for a publication which informs the general public of the rich diversity of Canada in many cultures and communities?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State, Multiculturalism):: Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to look again at the situation the hon. member and former minister brings to my attention. I would remind him that the budget in multiculturalism, which he froze during his tenure, has recommenced and thus a number of important newspapers communicating with various of our communities where people are not easily fluent in English or French-in either of the two official languages- are now being assisted. Frankly, in a time of restraint it was felt there was a religious base to some degree to the very worth-while calendar put out, that it was a very expensive product which was not massively distributed because of its cost, and therefore it had some exclusivity to it. But I will certainly look at the question again to see if that is the best way to spend the money.


ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Steve Eugene Paproski: My supplementary is for the Minister of Supply and Services, Madam Speaker. On September 23 the minister announced the October opening of a number of federal service bureaux to help Canadians gain access to government information and services-shades of Information Canada. On October 1 my office contacted the minister's office for the location of the first service bureau, which is to be located in Edmonton, according to the minister's statement. No one knew of the location at that time and we were assured that as soon as a decision was made my office would be informed. Today is October 17 and I still have no news. Can the minister now tell the House where the first bureau is located, whether it is to be in my constituency, or exactly where in Edmonton it is to be located?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I am not in a position today to advise the hon. gentleman where specifically the office will be located. I thought the hon. gentleman would be pleased at the fact that I chose his city as the first location for a service to the public office.
I would also like to disabuse the hon. member of the opinion he seems to hold that this is "shades of Information Canada". The service to the public offices are going to be reactive offices; they are going to be much more similar to the hon. gentleman's own constituency office than anything that had been dealt with by Information Canada.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Duplication of services!


ENERGY POLICY-ACCEPTANCE BY WESTERN CANADA
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Earlier in the question period we were treated to what most western Canadians believe is the attitude of the present government. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that Canadians would be happy with his energy policy and western Canadians would be happy with his energy policy. It is comments such as that which fuel the separation movement in western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I am wondering if the minister would like to take the opportunity in question period to assure us that he and his government are not acting in every way possible to fuel that separation movement and to push western Canada out of Canada.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I regret if the translation may not have been quite accurate. I recall I answered the question in French, and what 1 said was that when the energy policy comes out I am sure it will be a policy well received by all Canadians, including western Canadians, who I believe are Canadians like everybody else. I do not know if the hon. member agrees with that but it is the view of this side of the House anyway.
As to the fuelling of separatist feeling or division, 1 have heard it talked about a lot in western Canada by a great many people lately but I would say those feelings have not been fuelled by this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, those of us on this side of the House who live in that region face that every day and it is that attitude and the kind of comments made by the Minister
October 17, 1980

of Energy, Mines and Resources here today which fuels that movement. I hope they will stop it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Island):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister, who I know is well aware that the appointments of Canadian High Commissioner to London and Ambassador to France are traditionally for periods of five years. I know he is also aware that this practice of fulfilling the five-year period was respected by the previous government in the cases of the Hon. Gerard Pelletier and the Hon. Paul Martin.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he would confirm, contrary to continuing press speculation, that the present incumbent of the position of Canadian High Commissioner to London, the Hon. Jean Wadds, will be accorded this same treatment and the practice will extend to her in her appointment, which I am sure the Prime Minister knows is being carried out with extreme competence and high devotion to duty.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I would certainly agree that the High Commissioner to London is a very distinguished High Commissioner and I have high regard for her. As for the practice referred to by the hon. lady, I have no knowledge of any such practice or of any set time for any appointments to ambassadorial posts anywhere.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I would like to ask the Prime Minister then, looking at the history of appointments as Ambassador to France and High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, which if he will go back over those have been for five-year periods, whether that also holds with regard to the present incumbent in London.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I can remember some High Commissioners to London who stayed a period considerably shorter than the five years, but it seems to me that is irrelevant. What the hon. lady is saying is that in the last 12 years, during which our government named ambassadors to Paris and high commissioners to London, they were so good we decided to keep them five years, which may be the case in the present situation. But there is no such rule.
Oral Questions


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question concerns the worsening relations between the government and its employees and is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board.
In light of the fact that CUPTE, the translators union, the very people who are translating my words into the other official language at this time, have been forced into a strike position for next Monday, although they have already agreed with the report of the conciliation board, I wonder why it is the policy, and if not the policy certainly the practice of this government, to force its employees into strike action. This contract with the translators expired 18 months ago and the contract with the clerks expired over a year ago. Why is it the policy of the government to stall and delay and force our employees to suffer because it will not move in negotiations?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, the policy of the government is to strike a fair and equitable settlement with its employees. No one is forcing the union in question to go on strike. I was very disappointed to learn yesterday that they did not show up for the mediation procedures. There had been substantial progress made. I hope they will return to mediation and that this problem will be eliminated.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, the problem has been not that they will not show up for meetings but that the government will not move in those meetings. My question relates to that very fact. The Minister of Employment and Immigration went to Copenhagen last July where he signed an agreement providing that we would remove discrimination against women. Yet the Public Service Commission has said that one of the basic reasons for women not moving up in the public service is the fact that they have family responsibilities. The government's nominee on the conciliation board expressed his strongest dissent for the principle of paid maternity leave, one of the very things that is keeping women out of the public service. Why should they meet with the mediators when the government refuse to give them something that is fair and just?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I think it would be helpful if the hon. member would follow the mediation proceedings and negotiations a little more carefully. We extended a very generous family leave package to the clerks and we have made the same offer to the translators. I am surprised that the hon. member would consider a provision where for 17 weeks employees receive 60 per cent of insured earnings, which is roughly $174 per week, is not generous. I think it is an important precedent and one that we should all be proud of. That has been offered to the translators and, as far as I know, it has been rejected. Their demands are much higher than that.
3778

October 17, 1980
Oral Questions
1 want the House to bear in mind that when I say "fairness" we mean fairness to the Canadian taxpayer. This seems to escape the hon. gentleman. It is important that we be fair to both sides in this dispute, as we represent the public as well as our employees.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice who was here a minute ago but has left. Perhaps I could put the question to the Prime Minister. This week, at a meeting in Saskatchewan with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said that the Indians of Canada would be fully consulted on their constitutional proposals and that their rights would be protected in any new constitution.
Would the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister tell the House whether these consultations will take place before December 9, the date when the special committee must report, and whether the protections that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development referred to might be incorporated by amendment into the proposed constitution act of 1980, submitted to the House of Commons on October 6?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, subject to verification it is my understanding that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has his officials meeting with Indian groups this week and that he plans to meet with them in the very near future.
In so far as the undertaking that Indians and native people generally would be involved in amendments to the constitution which concern them, I gave that undertaking personally several months ago at a meeting of native chiefs here in Ottawa. I think in that regard it is clear that we have established that we are anxious to find ways in which they would see their rights better protected.
I have suggested and I repeat that as soon as we have the constitution back in Canada with the basic rights entrenched, we will be happy to go into a next phase where we would put native rights as one of the first items on the agenda and deal with it then. In the meantime, I am very happy to see our ministers and officials attempting to work out with Indians and with Inuit leaders ways in which that could be best stated in the constitution.


PENSIONS REVIEW BOARD
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Veterans
Affairs. In a letter to the late minister last August, the War Amputations of Canada made the minister and his officials aware of the fact that between 1972 and 1980 some 370 of their members died during the time the service bureau of that organization was working on their claims for pensions. In view of this very alarming statistic, can the acting minister tell the House what steps the department is taking to bring the staff of the Pensions Review Board up to strength?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, as everyone knows, I was appointed acting minister only a few days ago and I am quite aware of the importance of the matter raised by the hon. member. I will refer it to department officials to determine how I will be able to give him a better answer in a few days.


A. Daniel McKenzie: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Can the minister also tell the House, in view of the number of cases pending, if the Bureau of Pensions Advocates now has a full staff of advocates?
[ Translation]


Mr. Lamontagne:: Madam Speaker, some positions remain to be filled on that bureau and with the co-operation of my officials I intend to see to it immediately that they are as soon as possible. I am as much aware as my hon. colleague is that if there is any backlog in the bureau's work some veterans will suffer and that is something I always try very hard to avoid.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of the recent speech made by Dr. LeClair, corporate vice-president of CNR, wherein he suggested that the government might consider the possibility of partial privatization of CNR. May I ask the minister if this is being actively considered by the government and, if so, when the details might be made known?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, indeed the vice-president of CN was reflecting the tremendous financial needs CN will have in the coming years, particularly for developments in western Canada, such as double tracking in many instances. CN has a problem and the solution Mr. LeClair recommended is one that the government is looking at presently. An announcement will be made, if needed, after discussion of this issue within the government itself.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question. If such a decision is being considered at the present time, would the
October 17, 1980

minister contemplate bringing forward legislation? How might he propose to incorporate such a plan, or has he given it that much thought?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, there are many ways in which this could be done. My hon. friend, who is very much dedicated to the adjustment of the Crowsnest rate, would look upon that as one of the ways in which the financing of CNR development could take place.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport and I have given him notice of it. As the minister is aware, there is a problem regarding CP Rail's operation of trains in the mountain region. I have been in constant contact with the Minister of Labour and the train crews involved.
I should like to ask the minister if he is in favour of recommending to the Minister of Labour some federal legislation that could help train crews and other workers under federal jurisdiction to be able to eat meals during their tour of duty? The major cause of this problem is that they are 11 hours on duty, and some of them have been dismissed because they went to eat. I want to ask the Minister of Labour if he is prepared to recommend changes to the Canada Labour Code to allow these people to eat meals.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, indeed my hon. friend has made some recommendations and suggestions to my office about what might be done to solve the present labour management problem at Revelstoke. I welcome this but he will recognize that this is essentially a labour-management problem and I will pass the information on to the Minister of Labour who should be involved.
In the meantime, yesterday I sent telegrams to both parties inviting them to get together to solve this problem in the shortest possible period of time, because obviously the economy of the west, and of the country as a whole, is suffering from the labour-management problem which exists in the area.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, this clearly is a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the minister's department allowed the reduction of train crews, especially in the mountain division, where employees-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is very argumentative in his question. I would very much appreciate it if he would ask it simply and briefly.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister of Transport is this. In view of the fact that the minister allowed them to reduce crews and people have had their wages
Oral Questions
reduced by $175 a month by taking jobs as brakemen on west freight, which is causing a slow-down in the operation of trains, will the minister request that CP Rail implement the three-man crew on the east mountain division in order to speed up train traffic?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that a socialist would talk in this fashion. Obviously, the determination as to how many employees should be on trains, or how long they should spend on coffee breaks or meal breaks, is one for determination in the contract between labour and management. Consequently my department has no authority to get itself involved in these matters. This is a contract problem. In this instance, there is discussion, between management and employees which has to be resolved. The only thing I can do, which I have already done, is to press the parties to come to terms rapidly.
As I said yesterday, members of the CTC for the western division have attended, as have the grain co-ordination people from Winnipeg. A number of people have tried to resolve the issue but the parties have not yet been able to come to a conclusion. However, I hope this will happen in coming days.


MULTICULTURALISM
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to that raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton North. It is directed to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. If I understood the answer given to my colleague, the member from Edmonton North, with respect to funding for the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews, the minister indicated that funding was not forthcoming because this was a religiously-based organization. Quite apart from the fact that I take exception to the description of that organization, it is there to promote understanding between religious groups in our country.
Therefore, could the minister indicate whether or not there are guidelines or criteria with respect to funding under multiculturalism auspices, and whether or not people who have religious bases will be excluded from funding by the minister and his department?


An hon. Member:: Discrimination.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, I hear an hon. member opposite shout "discrimination", which 1 take to be just a silly side comment. I think that is unfair to me or to anyone who cares about the concept of multiculturalism, and I think members on all sides of the House do, at least to the best of my information.
1 am trying to do my best to be straightforward about it. There are problems where there are various religions that also relate to some political base as well. Multiculturalism, as I

October 17, 1980
Oral Questions
understand it, is a policy agreed to by all sides of the House to encourage Canadians of whatever heritage to interrelate.
The work done by the organization of Christians and Jews is exemplary. We have a close working relationship with them, and I think that was continued by the previous government as well. I simply said there was a problem. 1 do not think the government should get into the position of starting to judge material sent out to be sure that those materials include every possible religious faith so as to be sure we are absolutely fair. We should give as a priority the encouragement of intercultural activity which is not based on material such as those particular calendars. It is my view at the moment, as 1 said in my previous answer, that they are very expensive, and therefore limited in the numbers that can be distributed.
We have a limited budget; it is now at about $10 million. We have a number of demands for a number of different reasons and there must be priorities. It is simply a matter of priorities which has led to this current decision. I have already said, however, that I will certainly look at the matter again.


FISHERIES
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Has the minister been advised that 18 herring seine boats came within a mile of the coast at Cloridorme in the Gaspe Peninsula where they damaged almost 55 cod nets belonging to inshore fishermen and costing about $300 each?
As it is not the first time such an incident has occurred in that area, will the minister see to it that a complete inquiry is made into the situation, with a view to finding the captains of the boats involved in damaging the equipment of the Gaspe fishermen and getting them to pay damages?


Hon. Romeo LeBIanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, that incident was indeed brought up a few days ago. We have sent one of our representatives to look into the matter on the spot. There were damages, in some cases where the nets were not marked precisely as the rules demand to avoid that type of incident. But I can say to the hon. member that the damages involved will be reimbursed by the seine boat owners association. We feel it is possible to avoid those incidents. What is important is for everyone to be willing to respect the rules: they exist specifically to protect everyone.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: On Thursday last the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) raised a question of privilege, the gist of which is set out in his proposed motion where he asked:
That the matter of the financing of public advertising campaigns at taxpayers expense on behalf of a partisan policy or opinion, before such policy or opinion has been approved by the House of Commons, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
In brief, the issue is whether the allegation that the government is using public funds to publicize its parliamentary position on the constitutional question constitutes a prima facie case of breach of privilege. While this is a very important matter, the Speaker is compelled to examine it in the context of parliamentary privilege, and particularly whether it constitutes, on its face, a breach of parliamentary privilege or contempt of Parliament.
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the rights and immunities necessary for the House and members to do their parliamentary work, and includes the necessary power of the House to enforce these rights and immunities. This excludes any matter for which a solution may be found in the Standing Orders or practices of the House, or the statute law.
In brief, these privileges of members are: freedom of speech in the House, the right to attend their parliamentary work without being subject to subpoenas to be a witness in other arenas, without being called for jury duty, and without being subject to civil arrest. In addition, the House itself has the power to provide for its own constitution, its own procedure, to discipline its members and to punish for contempt.
It seems to me that what is at issue here is the propriety of the government in spending public funds to advertise its position in the current constitutional question. The hon. member for St. John's East, in his eloquent manner, has expressed a concern that the parliamentary rules and privileges are in tune with the times, particularly the privilege of freedom of speech.
He, along with other members, is aware that the old High Court of Parliament met in secret, that publication of its proceedings was forbidden, and that the only privilege accorded members was to ensure their safe arrival to, in effect, do the King's and his Council's bidding. When the House of Commons evolved separately somewhere in the mid-fourteenth century, while this freedom from arrest to attend the sittings was already established, members still had to work on the freedom to speak freely in debate which was asserted for the first time by Speaker Thomas More only in 1523. This privilege was subsequently firmly established by the Bill of Rights in 1688.
The original purpose then of this privilege was, as the hon. member for St. John's East rightly pointed out, to guarantee the conditions necessary for productive debate, and he, as well as others, is concerned that the actions of the government play havoc with this privilege or right. The lively debate which this question of privilege initiated deals to a great extent with the
October 17, 1980

propriety of the government's actions, that is, whether or not it was proper for the government to advertise its position on a subject under debate in Parliament. To a limited extent, debate raised the issue of new techniques of public persuasion and its application to Parliament. The Chair will remain vigilant to new techniques in communication and generally to make certain that parliamentary privilege is upheld. The Chair is also confident that she will be prompted from time to time by members in this respect.
However, it is difficult to find a prima facie case of privilege in the allegations of government spending which do not impede the House or the members in their parliamentary work. The decision of my predecessor on December 10, 1975, referred to in the course of this debate, related to the use of government funds to pay the expenses of government members of the House of Commons while doing work at the government's request, and is thus somewhat removed from the allegations here.
The spending of public money cannot be the issue, but when a person or a government attempts to interfere with our deliberations through spending public money, or otherwise, directly or indirectly, or acts in contempt of the House, such action would constitute a prima facie case. However, the interference must be such that the member or the House is truly hindered or intimidated.
The fact that certain members feel they are disadvantaged by not having the same funds to advertise as does the government, which could possibly be a point of debate, as a matter of impropriety or under any other heading, does not constitute a prima facie case of privilege unless such advertisements themselves constitute a contempt of the House, and to do so there would have to be some evidence that they represent a publication of false, perverted, partial or injurious reports of the proceedings of the House of Commons or misrepresentations of members. There is no evidence before me to suggest that. Rather, the advertising referred to by members seems to deal with the issue of the constitution rather than the proceedings of the House. Therefore, while the hon. member raised a very important question, which was ably debated by all hon. members, it was not a question involving the privileges of the House requiring the intervention of the Chair.
Indeed, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made the point during the debate that the subject ought to be debated. Of course, everyone agrees that the House ought to debate important questions, but other opportunities exist for debate on matters of this sort and the Chair is sure that members of Parliament will take full advantage of these opportunities.
[ Translation]


MR. BROADBENT-PUBLICLY FINANCED POLLS
Madam Speaker:: I would also like to give my ruling on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Oshawa
Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn
(Mr. Broadbent). Notwithstanding the fact that he is not in the House at the moment and that it is usually in the presence of the member concerned that such rulings are given, I believe that I should nevertheless give my ruling today.
On Friday, October 10, the hon. member for Oshawa also raised a question of privilege related to the one I have just referred to. He concentrated on the issue of publishing the results of government polls. He complained of the fact that the results of these polls were not available and asked that priority be given to this matter during the debates now under way and that it be referred to the committee. Once again, hon. members must not forget that the rules concerning parliamentary privileges are designed to allow them to do all that is needed to fulfil their parliamentary duties and for the operation of this House. The question raised by the hon. member is certainly a very important question of principle on which he and others expressed certain opinions. This subject should probably be debated. However, as moved the motion is a substantive motion which therefore requires prior notice. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has stated that the results of 129 polls out of 141 will be published while those of 12 offices will remain confidential for a certain time.
The hon. member for Oshawa expressed his disagreement about this decision of the minister, as he had the right to do. However, for the Chair to give priority to any matter, there must be evidence of some element of infringement upon the privilege of members or of some substantial offence to the House and the member concerned. Even though this question is very important, the Chair cannot find any evidence of such an element.


MR. HNATYSHYN-PUBLIC OPINION POLLS-ADVERTISEMENT SPONSORED BY GOLDFARB CONSULTANTS
Madam Speaker:: Finally, yesterday the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) raised a question of privilege based on an advertisement which appeared in a recent edition of a newspaper in which it is alleged that the information to be made available by a private pollster who had been engaged by the government appears to be similar to the information alleged to have been refused to be provided to members by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). The hon. member also offers to provide the advertisement in question and the material sent by the Minister of Justice to all members.
Hon. members will appreciate that this alleged question of privilege may be described as an extension of our proceedings of October 9 and 10 last on which I just ruled. Again, I do not think it is unfair to suggest that we are not only dealing with a complaint about government activity, but in addition about the activity of the pollster in question.
With respect to the activities of the government, members will appreciate that unless there is an order of the House directing any such activities, the Chair must be guided by the

October 17, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Clark
narrow limits of parliamentary privilege. Certainly if the pollsters' publication contains any misrepresentation of members, or false, perverted or injurious reports of the proceedings of the House, such could amount to contempt. However, there is no evidence before the House of what that publication contains and, constrained as I am by the very narrow limits of parliamentary privilege, I am unable to find a prima facie case. The hon. member, of course, may raise this matter in other, more appropriate ways provided by our rules.


MR. CLARK-ADVERTISEMENT SPONSORED BY PUBLICATIONS CANADA
Madam Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) gave me notice yesterday of a question of privilege. I would remind the right hon. member that I have just ruled on three matters which are very closely related to what appears to be his question of privilege, as I understand it from the written notice sent to me. I must ask the right hon. member to concentrate on what he thinks constitutes a privilege and please not enter into the general debate on the three matters on which I have just ruled.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, you are quite right that your ruling now, of which I had no knowledge yesterday, does deal with one of the questions that I wanted to raise, having to do with the propriety of the Government of Canada using advertising which is designed to manipulate opinion of the public of Canada in the way it will affect debate in this House of Commons.
You have, Madam Speaker, as is appropriate, ruled narrowly on the ground of privilege. You have made it clear that it is not your position or your right in these circumstances to rule on the ground of propriety. Certainly in our judgment the question of propriety is very much open and we regard this action as an attempt to manipulate public opinion to be a most improper action.
I was interested in Your Honour's reference to the suggestion that this matter ought to be debated in the House of Commons, particularly in light of the new techniques that are now available and now being used by the government, first of all, to sample public opinions, learn public fears and then design advertising to exploit those public fears, which the Government of Canada is now doing.
I hope in light of that reference, your favourable reference to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the government might choose to make a reference to the appropriate standing committee of the House even in the absence of a finding of privilege, of this very important question which can very materially affect not only the deliberations of this House, but the ability of the people of Canada to have information from their government which they can count upon as being true information and not information designed to manipulate opinion.
There is another matter to which I wanted to turn attention yesterday. It has to do with the privileges of the Chair and the propriety of the Government of Canada acting on a question
that is under consideration by the Chair. This matter, as you indicate, was raised first by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), last Thursday. On the weekend, the Government of Canada began a series of advertisements in a range of newspapers across the country, daily, weekly, and in the ethno-cultural press, designed to cause Canadians to take their opinions about constitutional matters from a document containing clearly false statements about the constitutional matter that is before the House of Commons.
The narrow ground has to do with the appropriateness of the Government of Canada acting in absolute flagrant disregard for the fact that the question is under consideration by the Chair, by initiating a new series of advertisements, as 1 say, after the question had been raised in the House of Commons and before a decision had been rendered. 1 have checked to see what precedents there are in the rules of the House of Commons, and 1 find there are very few because this has been done so rarely that there has not been an opportunity for precedent to accumulate. I simply think this is a matter that affects the respect that must be shown the Chair and your office by hon. members of the House, including those in the government, and I think that is a matter to which it would be well for you and your officers to turn some attention.
You may recall, Madam Speaker, if 1 may come to the question of the narrow ground of privilege on which you found, it was our attempt last year in government to introduce a new grievance procedure in the House of Commons to allow members of Parliament to raise issues that do not fall within the strict and narrow confines of privilege but which, nonetheless, affect the capacity of the House of Commons to deal in an open and effective way with matters which were legitimate grievances.
I think there is no question at all that this deliberate use by the Government of Canada of false advertising to manipulate public opinion on a question that is before the House of Commons constitutes a very major grievance.
We had tried to introduce reforms that would allow this matter to be dealt with under the rules. This present government, having shown not as much interest in parliamentary reform, has not introduced similar reforms, so we are without remedy. We were without remedy before you on that kind of question.
There is one aspect of your ruling which 1 would want to consider at greater length that intrigues me, and it has to do with your finding that a case of privilege might arise if there was, indeed, a false representation of the views of members of the House of Commons.
Members of the government, most of them, are members of the House of Commons. This document "The Canadian Constitution 1980" contains information which is false. It is consequently a false representation of the position being put forward by those members of the House of Commons who are members of the government.
October 17, 1980

As I indicated yesterday, and I will not take a great deal of time, the false information arose in a number of specific ways. The first is on page 1 of this document where it says, and 1 am reading from the English version:
An amending procedure will ensure that all changes to the constitution can be made in Canada.
That is false, Madam Speaker, and it falsely represents the position being put forward by members of the House of Commons who are members of the cabinet, the Government of Canada. What they are proposing is not a proposal that would have all changes made in Canada. They are proposing a procedure which would allow that those changes which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his government personally want relating to a charter of rights will not be made in this Parliament or this country. Those changes will be made in the Parliament of Westminster and in the country of Great Britain. The statement being put out is a false representation of the views of those members of Parliament who are members of the government.
This document goes on to say:
If the proposed resolution is endorsed by Parliament, the Government of Canada will submit the joint address to the Queen-
That again is a false representation of the position held by the ministers who are members of the House of Commons. They do not propose to have an address to the Queen based upon the endorsation of the resolution. They propose, instead, as any careful reading of the motion before the House would indicate, to have the joint address founded upon a procedural vote, a vote to concur in a committee report. It will not be a vote on the substance of the resolution because, indeed, we do not have a formal resolution before us. It will not be a vote which deals with the substance of the resolution. It will be a vote which deals with a procedural question as to how Parliament deals with a committee report. Therefore, Madam Speaker, this information which is the subject of advertisement by the Government of Canada again falsely represents the position of members of Parliament who are members of the Government of Canada.
I would argue that there is also a false representation in the statement in the preface to the other document which says:
-Canada will remain ... a federal system of government-
That, in my judgment, is very much open to question at the moment because section 42 allows the Government of Canada, in effect, to end the federal system by ignoring the provinces as partners in the Canadian federation.
I agree that that may well be a matter for debate in the House, but certainly once you give one level of government the power to ignore the other level of the government absolutely, which is the unfettered power sought by the Government of Canada in section 42, you no longer have a federal system. Therefore that statement, if not false, is at least highly misleading.
I consider it also to be misleading that this document makes no reference to section 42. Indeed, it does its best to hide in the shadows this section which the government interprets in a way
Privilege-Mr. Clark
different from the language of the resolution. Again, that is merely misleading.
The published statements I referred to are false. They falsely reflect the views of the Minister of State for Multicul-turalism (Mr. Fleming), the government House leader, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet), and other ministers of the Crown who are members of the House of Commons, because they do not describe with any accuracy at all the measure they have put before the House of Commons. Consequently they are false statements.
This is a matter which was not brought to your attention by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East, by myself or others who took part in the earlier debate, because at that time we had not seen this document with those false statements. The argument we were making at that time had to do with television and, perhaps, some radio advertisements, and billboards, deliberately general in nature. This is much more specific and, as I point out to you, there are at least two instances where the views of members of the House of Commons are falsely reflected in a way I think constitutes a breach of the privileges of at least those members. If they are not prepared to raise this matter, then I, as Leader of the Opposition and an officer of the House of Commons, am prepared to act in their stead in drawing this to your attention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I understand that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is maintaining his question of privilege on the basis that certain documents contain false representations, and this is a new ground on which to invoke privilege.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is right.


Madam Speaker:: I see that several members are getting up to speak on this subject. I will hear from two members on one side and two members on the other side, and then I will decide in what direction I might be going on this particular matter.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order in respect of what you have just said. I do not know whether it is possible for you to gauge the course of an argument in advance in that you might hear all the points from two members. You may very well, but I say with respect that perhaps you should address your mind to the arguments, and if there are questions which are unanswered they may be answered by hearing more from one side or the other.


Madam Speaker:: That is exactly what I said. I will hear from two on one side and from two on the other side, and I will then decide what course I will follow. I suppose the hon. member assumed that after that I would cut off the debate. That decision has not yet been reached.


Walter David Baker: Thank you.

October 17, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Clark


Madam Speaker:: I am just attempting to introduce a little bit of discipline in respect of these questions of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 have researched the number of questions of privilege which have been raised in this House since I have been the Speaker. I do not know whether this relates to the fact that I have become the Speaker, 1 have not really been able to compare that number with other periods. It seems to me that questions of privilege are being raised in order to air grievances in many cases, or to try to bring in debates which are not those which are before the House and to interrupt the business of the House.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has suggested that something might have to be done about allowing hon. members to air their grievances, and that the Standing Orders do not provide enough occasions on which to air the grievances of hon. members. That is not my business. If the House wishes to change its rules, it may change them, but I am here to apply the rules as I understand and interpret them. I am in the hands of the House, but the House has given me clear instructions through the Standing Orders, and I would not be fulfilling my responsibility if I did not apply those rules as fairly as I possibly can.
1 will hear two hon. members on each side and then decide my course of action.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, with regard to the first point raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), he made the suggestion that the government refer to a committee the subject matter on which Your Honour has ruled today, or at least part of it, and I am willing to look at his suggestion if he would be willing to look at the possibility of his party's agreeing to use some of the ten allotted days which are available to the opposition parties from now until December 10. If he makes an effort to use some of those days to debate subjects he considers important, perhaps he would find those to be good opportunities to raise questions which could be debated. They could even be followed by votes, as he well knows, because he is entitled to a few votes on those allotted days. This would have the consequence of freeing the floor of this House for the discussion of the really urgent issues facing this nation.
I suppose Your Honour was right in outlining the fact that there is an obvious abuse of questions of privilege which prevents Parliament from dealing with the real business with which it has to deal under the circumstances.

With regard to what he maintains is a new question of privilege today, basing his argument essentially on the fact that he claims again that the government is guilty of misleading publicity, I have only this to say, Madam Speaker: he
quoted two examples which are founded on his own personal interpretation of our constitutional measures. That is the interpretation the Leader of the Opposition gave of section 42 of the constitutional act of 1980, which is only part of the group of measures now before the House. The same goes for the other point he brought up.
I am quite willing to respect his opinion. He can see things as he wishes. I remember well his first speech in the House of Commons early last week when he spoke on the motion to refer the matter to committee. He showed his command of parliamentary procedure by objecting to the fact that the motion, which spoke of the quorum in committee, required the presence of 12 members as being sufficient for a quorum. He said he was shocked that the motion did not mention that at least two parties should be represented to have a quorum.
Since then, I am sure he must have sought the advice of his House leader, because never in a million years has a similar motion in parliamentary practice specified that two parties should be represented to constitute a quorum. In our parliamentary practice and my hon. parliamentary colleague who is a specialist in the matter, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), can vouch for that, the committee itself has always decided how it would proceed and stated that the quorum would consist of so many persons and require, in addition, that two parties be represented.
If he understands our constitutional measures as well as our Standing Orders or parliamentary procedure, I think that you are justified, Madam Speaker, in questioning the validity of his allegations about the truthfulness or falseness of the data we publish.
Madam Speaker, I say this with respect, because the hon. member is not always wrong, but in this case he is mistaken. He does not interpret the facts as we do. And it is exactly the matter being discussed in this first stage soon to be completed,
I hope, which the committee will be called upon to discuss and with which the House will deal again when the committee submits its report.
I wonder why the Chair would rule there is a prima facie case of privilege affecting the freedom of speech of members of the House or their duties as elected representatives. Indeed, I wonder why the Chair would so rule, because there is clearly some discrepancy between the facts. As much as I respect the views of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) on some points. I feel that they in turn should respect mine. We do not agree on the facts and we are willing to debate the issue, Madam Speaker. Debatable questions and different views do not constitute a case of privilege. That is not what is provided under our Standing Orders to make it possible for such a highly respectable institution as Parliament to carry out its business in an orderly fashion.
In conclusion, as I do not want to waste the time of the House, I feel that the further argument put forward by the
October 17, 1980

Leader of the Opposition to the effect that the publicity is misleading does not hold water. His allegation is based on his interpretation of what we are now doing in the House. Moreover, we do not agree that this advertising campaign is directly related to the matter before the House. What is certain at least, Madam Speaker, it is not inconsistent with the motion moved by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) and which was unanimously adopted by the House. There is nothing in the advertising campaign which goes against the motion unanimously adopted by Parliament already.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not true!


Yvon Pinard: Before the right hon. member says it is not true, let me repeat what 1 said. What 1 said was that in the publicity I have seen so far-and I may have missed some of it, but 1 have learned nothing new from the Leader of the Opposition-there has been nothing contrary to the substance of the motion, which was approved unanimously by this House, of the hon. member for Edmonton East.


Charles Joseph Clark: Read these, and you will see the differences.


Yvon Pinard: The Leader of the Opposition may disagree with me, but what is obvious is that 1 am in full disagreement with the interpretation of the facts of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. That shows that this is a matter of debate essentially and not a question of privilege.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, 1 want to make a very brief intervention in support of my leader and the position he has so adequately and well articulated with respect to this question of privilege.
The government House leader has simply failed to address himself to the very specific points raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). The Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that the publications put out by the Government of Canada are false, incorrect, and a misrepresentation of the position set forth, not by myself or by the Leader of the Opposition, but by the government represented by the cabinet in the House. I cannot understand why the government does not understand that simple proposition. It is simply wrong. Hon. members opposite should have the courage and forthrightness to stand and admit that these statements in this document are wrong.
Having said that, I think the points Your Honour alluded to in the course of your remarks in addressing yourself to the matters which have been raised thus far are very relevant, because we are now looking at actions which have been taken by the Government of Canada through a planned arrangement with respect to publicity and public advertising under the directorship of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Fleming).
Hon. members opposite stand and say quite frankly that they are going into an extensive and expensive advertising campaign to try to put across the positions of the Government of Canada and to create better understanding. However, in the
Privilege-Mr. Clark
course of that pursuit there is the great possibility of actions being taken by members of the cabinet and by the government represented in this House which do in effect misrepresent, by the manipulation of public opinion, the position of each and every member which thereby affect my rights as a member of Parliament. They affect my privileges. What we are now facing is the prospect and the possibility-and I take it Your Honour will have an opportunity to read this material-of a total and absolute misrepresentation of my position. If the government is left unfettered in its ability to do that with the full resources it has at its command, including the public treasury, we will possibly be entering into an area of government by public advertising agency as opposed to government responsible to the Parliament of Canada.


Walter David Baker: Government by Goldfarb.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I simply want to reiterate that I think the Leader of the Opposition has raised a valid question of privilege, with specific instances which relate to the ruling you made this very day. I think that the representatives of the government could stand up and admit that these statements, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out to them, are false and incorrect. I do not want to reiterate that, but should like to simply say, as a member of Parliament, that my rights will be affected by manipulation of public opinion polls by the government, and I think it is a valid base upon which you can find our privileges to have been adversely affected.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker-


André Ouellet: Tell him he is insulting the Canadian public.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, I will try to be brief but it is important that I touch on a couple of points because the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in particular first said yesterday, and then again today, that I had apparently done something which was in defiance of the Chair or an insult to the Chair. I would not do that because of my respect for that institution, and because of my respect for you as the individual in the chair.
The implication of the charge made by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that somehow the government had defied the Chair because some ads were run in newspapers- and I want to talk about those ads in the proper context rather than in the misleading context such as that put forward by the Leader of the Opposition-was that we were preventing you, Madam Speaker, from having the opportunity of making an objective judgment and then delivering your decision today.
It seems to me that the implication of that is that the government cannot carry on its business, and indeed could not carry on the constitutional debate while you were considering an issue which related to material discussed in the constitutional debate. It would seem to me that that would be an absurdity if indeed the business of the government and its responsibilities to the Canadian public ceased when you were

October 17, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Clark
considering questions and had not decided them before the Elouse of Commons. That would become a new method of keeping this Parliament from operating at all, although I must admit the opposition has been pretty effective in the last few days in keeping it from operating and moving ahead by bringing up these various issues.


Some hon. Members:: Right on.


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I tried to make it very clear that I saw phase one of the constitutional advertising, as discussed during the question of privilege brought up last week, as indeed being something different from what had happened in the past. It was creating an awareness. I admitted that, and 1 tried to give a parameter for the circumstances in which I thought that was appropriate, and that led to considerable debate. But the ads which the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition mentioned yesterday and now discusses, are fundamental, and are part of an ongoing practice under which, I believe, his government operated, in philosophy at least.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not true.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: He says it is not true. He will have his opportunity to speak. I must say, Madam Speaker, 1 found, and anybody who is a regular reader of Hansard will find, given the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition's proximity to the Hansard reporters, there is a constancy in his demeaning comments to members on this side of the House. Heckling is a healthy part of this institution, but if somebody looks through Hansard they will find a regularity in those demeaning comments. I do not think that, with his position and the position he held in the past, he has to carry on in that way. He would gain for himself and for his office more respect if he were to listen and then participate in the debate, as he can.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, in an interview on the CBC Sunday morning program, when speaking about how long he thought the debate should go on before reference and how he felt about the position of the government, said:
' We are speaking four days into the debate, a week after the Prime Minister dropped his surprise on the people of Canada. I think it would be surprising if there were a wide number of Canadians who yet had a chance to read the bill, read the resolution. I hope they will. I think it is very early yet to suggest what is happening in public opinion, in public support.
All those newspaper ads do is say, "Do you want to read about it? Here is the information." Surely that is the responsibility-


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not true.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Again I am being interrupted. If the right hon. member wishes to get up, he can do so if he wants to.


Madam Speaker:: I do not know who has precedence, the Speaker or the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, but I just
want to caution the minister not to comment on the ruling that
I	had made. We are not speaking of that here. We are speaking of a document published by the government. I would be grateful if the minister would concentrate on discussing that matter. Does the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition have a point of order?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, a very brief point of order, Madam Speaker. The minister has taken exception to my interventions. My interventions have been to point out the falsity of his statements. If he will stop making false statements, I will stop intervening.


An hon. Member:: That is not an intervention, it is heckling.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, later I will look at the record because I believe that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, by use of a synonym, has said that I have been lying to the House. Another hon. member has just said that that is right. I believe that is in contravention of the rules, but let me continue.
I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I certainly had no intention of reflecting on your decision. I was attempting to answer the first point made by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition in which he said that a series of ads published in the last few days were in contravention of your consideration of the question on which you ruled, and I am trying to make the point that they are not, they simply bring to the attention of the Canadian public information that is available. They take no role, make no advocacy, and are most straightforward.
The second point I should like to discuss which was brought up by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is the issue of the content itself. In the simplest terms-because I believe the government House leader dealt with that matter very capably-I should like to point out that if we are going to have, as questions of privilege, debates over the content of materials as summed up by governments, then it is a very shallow argument indeed for the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to make because I could read from beginning to end the budget in the brief document which his government put out last December
II	and made exactly the same kind of argument about what was appropriate, what was misleading, what was true, what I thought was correct, and what was not telling the facts to the Canadian public.
What we are really having here, I believe, is a continuing effort to pull a blind over the real constitutional debate, and to delay Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I have heard a series of arguments on both sides. The document in question has been read and the Chair would like to look at the document to see whether the arguments contained in the interventions of the various members do lead to my finding of a prima facie case of privilege. I will take the question of privilege under advisement.
October 17, 1980


MR. PAPROSKI-NOTICE OF POSSIBLE QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, I should like to reserve my right to raise a point of privilege. When the minister stated, in answer to my question this afternoon, that 1 froze the multicultural budget, I think he was deliberately misleading the House. I would like to look at the blues and to reserve my right to bring forward a point of privilege.


MR. BEATTY-NOTICE OF POSSIBLE QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask your permission to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege next week in a matter related to that raised by my leader today, but which is independent.
Over the course of your ruling today you gave the House information on how you viewed the possibility that the government's advertising might constitute a breach of the privileges of members of Parliament. On the basis of that information I should like to have the opportunity to review the government's advertisements relating to the energy program, the multi-million dollar campaign, which gives false information and may misrepresent the position of Parliament.
Second, arising out of your statement that questions of privilege should be argued on the basis of whether or not the government's actions impede the ability of members of Parliament to discharge their responsibilities, I will want to take a look at that advertising campaign to see whether a case can be made, as I believe it can, that that expenditure of tax dollars to seize control of the energy debate, which was the intention of the government when they brought it in, according to a confidential memorandum prepared by one of their officials, constitutes a breach of the privileges of members of Parliament. I would simply like to reserve my right to argue a question of privilege at some point next week, if it seems merited.


MR. McCAIN-NOTICE OF POSSIBLE QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, like the member who has just spoken, I should like to refer to page 3728 of Hansard which indicates that the government House leader is of the opinion that the substance of what we have been discussing, that is, government advertising, in no way interferes with the fulfilling of the obligations of members of Parliament. Very briefly, members of Parliament seem to have been prevented from fulfilling their duties. The government House leader said:
In the present case, there is absolutely no alleged fact which shows that members of Parliament seem to have been prevented from fulfilling their duty.
On the basis of that statement I submit that my opportunity to fulfil the responsibilities I feel as a member of Parliament cannot be properly undertaken under the circumstances of the debate, its presentation by the government, and the suggestion of the government House leader. Like the former speaker, I
Order Paper Questions
reserve my right to raise a question of privilege on that next week.


An hon. Member:: Anything to delay debate.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 179, 928, 1,363, 1,440, 1,477 to 1,482 inclusive.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	In (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 (d) 1978 (e) 1979, what was the square footage of office space occupied by the CRTC in Vancouver, British Columbia, and what was the location of each space?
2.	(a) For the same years what was the cost of renting/leasing the space (b) what is the length of the present lease for this space?
3.	How many persons were employed by the CRTC in Vancouver in (a) 1975
(b)	1976 (c) 1977 (d) 1978 (e) 1979 on a permanent basis in the category (i) administration (ii) secretarial (iii) clerical (iv) technical (v) other?
4.	What was the amount budgeted for salaries in each of the above categories in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 (d) 1978 (e) 1979?
5.	How many persons were hired on a (a) part-time (b) contract basis in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976 (iii) 1977 (iv) 1978 (v) 1979 and, in each case, what was the length of time?
6.	What were their duties?
7.	Were any of the contracts or part-time agreements extended and, if so, how many times in each case and for what reason?
8.	What was the cost of the salaries for (a) part-time (b) contract personnel in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976 (iii) 1977 (iv) 1978 (v) 1979?
9.	What was the cost of the original furnishing of this space for (a) office equipment (b) telephones (c) furniture (d) plants (e) art?
10.	What additional costs were accrued for each of the items listed in part 9 in
(a)	1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 (d) 1978 (e) 1979?
11.	What amount of the total budget was spent on taxis in (a) 1975 (b) 1976
(c)	1977 (d) 1978 (e) 1979?
12.	What communications equipment did the CRTC have installed in this office space, i.e. teletypes, word screen equipment, etc?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission and the Department of Public Works as follows:

October 17, 1980
Order Paper Questions
(a) Calendar Year 1975	no space	
(b) Calendar Year 1976	150.6 m2	1050 West Pender DAON Bldg.(c) Calendar Year 1977	150.6 m2	1050 West Pender DAON Bldg.(d) Jan. 1, 1978-Sept. 30, 1978	150.6 m2	1050 West Pender DAON Bldg.Oct. 1, 1978-Dec. 31, 1978	150.6 m2	701 Georgia Street I.B.M. Tower(e) Calendar Year 1979	238.6 m2	701 Georgia Street I B M. Tower(a) 1975/76	<i)	none1976/77	(>*)	none1977/78	(in)	none1978/79	(iv)	1 person-2 months1979/80	(v)	1 person-4 weeks(b) 1975/76	(i)	none1976/77	(ii)	1 person-8 '/2 months1977/78	(iii)	1 person-5 months1978/79	(iv)	none1979/80	(v)	none(a) Secretarial duties	(b) To act as	the regional representative of the commission	
2. (a) By calendar year:
1975: none
1976: $ 1,485,36 (1 month)
1977:	$18,306.07 (12 months)
1978: $13,908.69 (9 months)
$ 6,211.79 (3 months)
1979:	$28,992.20 (12 months)
(b)	Present lease term: January 1, 1979 to December 31, 1983 with 2 one-year options to renew.
3. (a) 1975/76		none
(b) 1976/77	(i)	1
	(H)	1
	(iii)	none
	(iv)	none
	(v)	none
(c) 1977/78	(i)	1
	(ii)	1
	(in)	none
	(iv)	1
	(v)	none
(d) 1978/79	(i)	3
	(ii)	1
	(iii)	none
	(iv)	none
	(v)	none
(e) 1979/80	(i)	3
	(ii)	1
	(iii)	none
	(iv)	none
	(v)	none
4. (a) 1975/76		none	
(b) 1976/77	(i)	4,625.47)	These figures are low as office was(ii)	3,118.11) J	opened during the said fiscal year.(iii)	none	(iv)	none	(v)	none	(c) 1977/78	(i)	20,697.55	(ii)	12,243.84	(iii)	none	(iv)	20,413.00	(v)	none	(d) 1978/79	(i)	45,230.00	(ii)	15,069.00	(iii)	none	(iv)	none	(v)	none	(e) 1979/80	(i)	101,600.00	(ii)	14,965.00	(iii)	none	(iv)	none	(v)	none	
7. No contracts were extended.
8. (a)	1975/76	(i) none
	1976/77	(ii) none
	1977/78	(iii) none
	1978/79	(iv) 2,368.78
	1979/80	(v) 1,073.25
(b)	1975/76	(i) none
	1976/77	(ii) 23,991.00
	1977/78	(iii) 13,140.00
	1978/79	(iv) none
	1979/80	(v) none
9. (a)	5,304.	
(b)	35.	
(c)	3,695.	
(d)	none	
(e)	none	
10. (a)	1975/76	-none(b)	1976/77	-(a) none (b)	175. (c)	none (d)	none (e)	none(c)	1977/78	-(a) none (b)	868. (c)	none (d)	none (e)	none(d)	1978/79	-(a) 965. (b)	884. (c)	479. (d)	none (e)	none(c)	1979/80	-(a) 169. (b)	2,984. (c)	6,758. (d)	none (e)	385.11. (a)	1975/76	-(b)	1976/77 "v -cost was minimal and detailed data was not kept for
!>
these fiscal years.
(c)	1977/78 J -
(d)	1978/79	-69.00(e)	1979/80	-116.10
12. Telex machine xerox telecopier HI.
October 17, 1980

Order Paper Questions


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	What amount of public funds was invested in Petro-Canada and its subsidiaries since its establishment and what are the names and functions of the subsidiaries?
2.	Was all of the investment made at one time and, if not (a) on what dates were they made (b) what was the amount and the purpose in each case?
3.	Since its establishment, did Petro-Canada and its subsidiaries borrow on the open market and, if so (a) in what amounts (b) for what purposes (c) was the government involved in guaranteeing the loans and, if so, to what extent?
4.	Since its establishment, did Petro-Canada or its subsidiaries make any investments and, if so (a) what were they (b) for what amounts and for what particular purposes (e.g. acquisition of other companies or industries, contributions to consortia for exploration, transportation, marketing or other)?
5.	Since its establishment, did Petro-Canada and its subsidiaries make returns to the public treasury and, if so (a) were they in the form of taxes or otherwise (amounts as to form) (b) from what sources (c) in what amounts and on what dates?
6.	What taxes or other returns to the public treasury were made in each of the previous three years by the enterprises acquired by Petro-Canada and its subsidiaries and how were the amounts distributed between the various enterprises?
7.	Since its establishment, how many employees and executives were on strength of Petro-Canada and its subsidiaries at the end of each year?
8.	Since its establishment, what was the annual wage and salary bill for Petro-Canada and its subsidiaries?


Marc Lalonde: Petro-Canada reports as follows: 1. All public funds are invested in the parent, Petro-Canada. Investment by the government in Petro-Canada has been as follows:
Transfer of Interest
Cash Subscription	in Investments in
of Shares	Return for Shares	Total
1976	210.0
1977	154.5
1978	239.5
1979	146.0
1980	80.0
Totals	830.0
Subsidiaries of Petro-Canada
Petro-Canada Consulting Corporation
Petro-Canada Exploration Inc.
Subsidiaries of Petro-Canada Exploration Inc.
(except as noted otherwise)
Big Eagle Oil & Gas Ltd.
Aquilla Holdings Ltd. (subsidiary of Big Eagle Oil & Gas Ltd.)
Asher American, Inc.
Fifth Pacific Stations Ltd.
GMI Co. (Bahamas) Limited Opal Oils Limited
($ Millions)
173.8	383.8
154.5
239.5 146.0
-	80.0
173.8	1,003.8
Functions
Inactive
Development and exploration of natural resources for fuel and energy
Service station holding company Service station holding company
Holds some royalty interests and some exploratory leases in U.S.
Inactive - marketing properties -financing vehicle
Holds investments in shares of U.K. companies
Service station holding company
Commodore Oils Limited (subsidiary of Opal Oils Limited)
Pacific Energy resources Ltd.
Pacific Petrochemicals Ltd.
*Pacific Petroleums Espanola, S.A.
Pacific Petroleums, Inc.
Pacific Pipelines, Inc. (subsidiary of Pacific Petroleums, Inc.)
Pacific Petroleums (Overseas) Limited
Pacific Petroleums (U.K.) Limited Petroleum Transmission Company Rocair Limited
Tri Mountain Petroleums Ltd. Value Service Stations Ltd.
*Venezuelan Canadian Oils, C.A.
^Venezuelan Pacific Petroleums, C.A.
Companies* Shares Held in Trust By Montreal Trust Company
First Pacific Stations Ltd.
Second Pacific Stations Ltd.
Third Pacific Stations Ltd.
Fourth Pacific Stations Ltd.
Inactive Beneficial owner of shares of First, Second, Third and Fourth Pacific Stations companies that are pledged to Montreal Trust under service station financing agreements.
Inactive (name only) Canadian Federal Company
Sales of raw plastics (Canadian Jobber)
Exploration and development in Spain
Exploration and development in U.S.
U.S. portion of Cochin Pipeline
Inactive - U.K. company
Holds permits in U.K. (Pacific Branch operation - exploration)
Owns LPG Pipeline Empress to Winnipeg
Inactive
Service station holding company
Employees for Pacific operated service stations - minimal activity
Holds bonds, etc. on expropriated properties
Holds bonds, etc. on expropriated properties
Financing of service stations Financing of service stations Financing of service stations Financing of service stations
*S.A. and C.A. are abbreviations for Company Limited.
2.	No.
(a)	See reply to Part 1.
(b)	Cash subscription of shares was to supply cash for operations.
3.	Yes.
(a)	$240 million
(b)	To assist in financing the purchase of Atlantic Richfield Canada Limited.
(c)	No.

October 17, 1980
Order Paper Questions
4. Yes.
(a)	Amount	(b)	Purpose	
	($ Millions)			
Panarctic Oils Ltd.	28.5	To finance arctic islands exploration.	Atlantic Richfield Canada Limited	342.0	To purchase all issued and outstanding shares	Pacific Petroleums Ltd.	1,500.0	To purchase all issued and outstanding shares.	Westcoast Transmission Company Limited	25.8	To purchase shares, raising Petro-Canada's interest to 36.7 per cent.	5. Yes.	(a)- (c) See 6. below	6. Income Taxes Paid	1976	1977	1978	1979Petro-Canada	nil	nil	nil	nilPetro-Canada Exploration Inc.	nil	nil	nil	$5,241,518Pacific Petroleums Ltd.	$31,770,167	$32,252,497	$16,469,291	nilBailey Selburn Oil & Gas Ltd.	1,529,436	5,020,047	5,622,738	418,000Western Natural Gas Company Ltd.	7,555,549	9,207,996	10,732,504	1,535,000Opal Oils Limted	137,402	301,792	279,109	250,800Others	43,018	6,617	13,041	10,670$41,035,572	$46,788,949	$33,116,683	$7,455,988
NOTE: The amount shown for Petro-Canada Exploration Inc. (PEX) for 1979 is a result of reassessments of Pacific Petroleums Ltd. and Western Natural Gas Company Ltd. All other amounts for 1979 represent installment payments.
7.	December 31,	1976	442December 31,	1977	673December 31,	1978	2,038December 31,	1979	2,2508.	1976	S 7,116,650.741977	$11,307,607.281978	$20,709,446.961979	$56,736,184.90


Mr. Halliday: For the fiscal year (a) 1977-78 (b) 1978-79, how many businesses in the constituency of Oxford applied for assistance and received monetary assistance under the Enterprise Development Program?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce: in fiscal year 1978/79, one (1) loan guarantee project for $139,500 was approved for a company located in the constituency of Oxford under the Enterprise Development Program. No assistance was provided in fiscal year 1977/78 under the program. The Enterprise Development Program does not utilize formal application forms per se but rather, project submissions are prepared by officials of the department and presented to the decision-making committees. The initial approach to the department is typically a verbal or letter inquiry. In the circumstances, record keeping of the number of
firms who have "applied" for program support is difficult and statistics of this nature are not maintained.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): 1.	Has it come to the attention of the government that Massey-Ferguson, which has announced a lay-off of more than 3,200 workers in Ontario, is undertaking a massive investment program in Trujillo, Peru, allocating U.S. $25 million to build a new foundry?
2.	Has the government, through the Department of External Affairs or the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce assisted Massey-Ferguson in the implementation of this investment program?
3.	Has the government encouraged Massey-Ferguson to export Canadian built machinery to South American nations as an alternative to export jobs?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	Massey-Ferguson Limited has advised that it has not made any investment in Peru since 1973 and has no plans for future investment there.
2.	No.
3.	No.


Mr. Deans: 1.	Did Murata Manufacturing Company Ltd., at the time of approval by the Foreign Investment Review Agency, make a number of short and long-term commitments and were some of the commitments made public and, if so (a) has FIRA conducted a yearly review to determine the fulfilment of all commitments (b) in each year since approval, did the company live up to all public commitments and, if not, which commitments were not lived up to?
2.	(a) What action was taken by FIRA, if any, to insist that the original commitments were fulfilled by the company (b) were new commitments agreed to by FIRA and, if so, what were they and have they been kept?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned:
1.	Murata Manufacturing Company Limited-Acquisition of control of Erie Technological Products Limited
-Yes -Yes;
(a)	The investment was allowed on April 10, 1980, and the annual review of undertakings will commence on or about April 10, 1981.
(b)	N/A.
2.	(a) N/A (b)N/A.


Mr. Deans: 1. Did Avco Canadian Engineering Ltd., at the time of approval by the Foreign Investment Review Agency, make a number of short and long-term commitments and were some of the commitments made public and, if so (a) has FIRA conducted a yearly review to determine the fulfilment of all commitments (b) in each year since approval, did the company live up to all public commitments and, if not, which commitments were not lived up to?

October 17, 1980

2. (a) What action was taken by FIRA, if any, to insist that the original commitments were fulfilled by the company (b) were new commitments agreed to by F1RA and, if so, what were they and have they been kept?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned:
1.	Avco Canadian Engineering Limited-Establishment of a new business
-yes -yes;
(a)	The investment was allowed on March 27, 1980, and the annual review of undertakings will commence on or about March 27, 1981.
(b)	N/A.
2.	(a) N/A (b) N/A.


Mr. Deans: 1.	Did Butler Service Group Inc., at the time of approval by the Foreign Investment Review Agency, make a number of short and long-term commitments and were some of the commitments made public and, if so (a) has FIRA conducted a yearly review to determine the fulfilment of all commitments (b) in each year since approval, did the company live up to all public commitments and, if not, which commitments were not lived up to?
2.	(a) What action was taken by FIRA, if any, to insist that the original commitments were fulfilled by the company (b) were new commitments agreed to by FIRA and, if so, what were they and have they been kept?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned:
1.	Butler Service Group, Inc.-establishment of a new business
-yes -yes;
(a)	The investment was allowed on March 12, 1980, and the annual review of undertakings will commence on or about March 12, 1981.
(b)	N/A.
2.	(a) N/A (b) N/A.


Mr. Deans: 1.	Did Nokia Products Ltd. (March 28, 1980), at the time of approval by the Foreign Investment Review Agency, make a number of short and long-term commitments and were some of the commitments made public and, if so (a) has FIRA conducted a yearly review to determine the fulfilment of all commitments (b) in each year since approval, did the company live up to all public commitments and, if not, which commitments were not lived up to?
2.	(a) What action was taken by FIRA, if any, to insist that the original commitments were fulfilled by the company (b) were new commitments agreed to by FIRA and, if so, what were they and have they been kept?
Order Paper Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned:
1.	Nokia Products Limited-Establishment of a new business
-yes -yes;
(a)	The investment was allowed on March 27, 1980, and the annual review of undertakings will commence on or about March 27, 1981.
(b)	N/A.
2.	(a) N/A (b) N/A.


Mr. Deans: 1.	Did Adams Investment Company, at the time of approval by the Foreign Investment Review Agency, make a number of short and long-term commitments and were some of the commitments made public and, if so (a) has FIRA conducted a yearly review to determine the fulfilment of all commitments (b) in each year since approval, did the company live up to all public commitments and, if not, which commitments were not lived up to?
2.	(a) What action was taken by FIRA, if any, to insist that the original commitments were fulfilled by the company (b) were new commitments agreed to by FIRA and, if so, what were they and have they been kept?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned:
1.	Adams Investment Company-Acquisition of control of Franklin Supply Company Ltd.
-yes -yes;
(a)	The investment was allowed on April 29, 1980, and the annual review of undertakings will commence on or about April 29, 1981.
(b)	N/A.
2.	(a) N/A (b) N/A.


Mr. Deans: 1.	Did BBC Brown, Boveri & Company Limited, at the time of approval by the Foreign Investment Review Agency, make a number of short and long-term commitments and were some of the commitments made public and, if so (a) has FIRA conducted a yearly review to determine the fulfilment of all commitments (b) in each year since approval, did the company live up to all public commitments and, if not, which commitments were not lived up to?
2.	(a) What action was taken by FIRA. if any, to insist that the original commitments were fulfilled by the company (b) were new commitments agreed to by FIRA and, if so, what were they and have they been kept?

October 17, 1980
The Constitution


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: in so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned:
1.	BBC Brown, Boveri & Company, Limited-to establish a joint-venture company to acquire control of Brown Boveri Howden Inc.
-yes -yes;
(a) The investment was allowed on May 8, 1980, and the annual review of undertakings will commence on or about May 8, 1981.
(b) N/A.
2.	(a) N/A (b) N/A.
[ Translation]


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 16, consideration of the motion of the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien):
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report upon the document entitled "Proposed Resolution for a Joint Address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada" published by the government on October 2, 1980, and to recommend in their report whether or not such an address, with such amendments as the committee considers necessary, should be presented by both Houses of Parliament to Her Majesty the Queen;
That 15 members of the House of Commons to be designated no later than three sitting days after the adoption of this motion be members on the part of this House of the Special Joint Committee;
That the committee have power to appoint from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable and necessary and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
That the committee submit their report not later than December 9, 1980;
That the quorum of the committee be 12 members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented and that the joint chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and
authorize the printing thereof, when six members are present so long as both Houses are represented; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it to be advisable, members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, last night before ten o'clock 1 had the opportunity to start my comments. 1 had five minutes then, and I believe I will have six minutes now. I do not know if there will be other questions of privilege, but I would hate to divide my allotted 40 minutes into five-minute segments. So that my allotted time is not divided into three segments, I wonder if the Chair would allow me to call it one o'clock; then my time would be divided into only two segments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that we call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Paul Wyatt Dick: This will be my third effort to get started on this and 1 hope I will be able to complete my remarks in the 35 minutes I have remaining. Last night 1 made a few opening remarks which I concluded at page 3764 of Hansard, and I will pick up from where I left off last night.
1 said I felt there was a consensus in Canada; in fact, I thought there was unanimity in Canada among all levels of government and all parties, whether provincial or federal, that the constitution be patriated to Canada. I also said that in the "Shorter Oxford Dictionary" definition of "consensus", where it refers to a government, it means a majority view. I think we do have a majority view, or a consensus, in Canada on the amending formula. I felt that the consensus probably revolved around the Vancouver amending formula rather than the Victoria amending formula.
I feel one thing which must be spelt out is that a consensus is most important in dealing with the fundamental law of our country, and the constitution is the fundamental law of our country. As much agreement as possible is necessary for a law to have the maximum respect. If law is not respected, then it will become ridiculed and, if it becomes ridiculed, faith in the law will be diminished and we head toward plain disrespect for the law. This is illustrated today by the example of the law in Ontario where people under the age of 16 are not allowed to use vending machines-that law is disrespected. The law dealing with the smoking of marijuana is a disrespected law in its present form. That, of course, can lead almost to anarchy,
October 17, 1980

as recently illustrated in Iran where the people lost faith in the existing constitution and there was revolution.
Elowever, with unanimity on patriation of our constitution and with consensus on the amending formula, I would like to deal briefly with why I cannot support the Victoria amending formula as proposed. That is because it enshrines in stone, from now until doomsday, that two provinces, the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec, will forever have a veto. Whether or not they end up with only 10 per cent of the population in the country 150 years from now, they still will have a veto. 1 submit that is not fair and is not looking into the future. 1 do not think any particular province or region should have a veto on constitutional change.
With the unanimity on patriation and the consensus evolving around the Vancouver formula, any person with any leadership qualities should now be able to fashion an agreement on patriation and an amending formula, and bring the British North America Act back to Canada. Once it is in Canada we can then institute any other changes by means of our amending formula. Unless a leader is being unreasonable or is holding out for some special amending formula, or for some personal ideology that he wants to have incorporated into the package to be passed in Westminster, there is no doubt in my mind that an agreement for patriation and an amending formula could be fashioned-possibly within 48 hours.
That is not the case, however, and the reason is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government insist on the Victoria formula and insist on adding a great deal more to the resolution that will go to Westminster than just patriation and the amending formula.
I feel that we should be moving ahead on this in the sense that if the governing party in the House of Commons were willing to give a little and not insist that its penmanship is better than that of others, and if it really wanted to bring the country together, it could do so.
How did the parties arrive at the positions they have taken in this House? It strikes me that the government position was stated as more or less a fait accompli in the resolution distributed after the first speaker began his remarks two weeks ago. It was dictated by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the Prime Minister, and they will not vary from what they have dictated.
How has the Progressive Conservative Party arrived at the position it has taken? Frankly, I think it has arrived at it in a negative fashion. I think it has looked at the resolution and said there are too many wrongs in it and that therefore the resolution is defective and a new resolution which is not so defective should be substituted. I say that is a negative way of arriving at a position. Certainly after the press heard the former prime minister, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) speak, they said he was against patriation and against an amending formula. That is not true but that is how they have perceived him and painted him-in a negative manner.
The Constitution
The New Democratic Party has arrived at its position by a more positive route, but with reservations. That party has said it supports patriation and an amending formula, but has certain reservations and will only agree with the government if it includes resource ownership in provincial hands. The hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) then added that he would have to meet with his caucus the next Monday and if they had some other things he would reserve the right to bring those up. That has not been reported but that party reserved its support on resources and whatever other ideas the caucus offered.
When the second speaker for the New Democratic Party spoke on October 7, we found out that the party was not just making a reservation on resource ownership. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) expanded the New Democratic Party's reservations to include section 42, the referendum amending formula; equalization; minority language education, offshore resources and native peoples. That makes six matters on which the party now has reservations.
When the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaik-ie) spoke yesterday, he agreed with those six reservations. I could not help but notice also that the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) issued a press statement last weekend in which he stated his position as being closer to that of the Leader of the Opposition than to that of the leader of his own party.
It seems to me that having arrived at its position from a more positive initial response, the NDP is now four-square with the position of the Conservative party. Their reservations are abundant and many. They are not just agreeing on patriation, and on amending formula, if the Victoria formula were to be accepted, but they have many reservations in other areas.
Where do I stand myself, Mr. Speaker? As I indicated last night, I am in favour of Canadianization of the constitution. Quite frankly, I am also in favour of Canadianization of and Canadian control over our economy. I wish we were not subject to the whim and will of so many foreign powers. I am in favour of patriation and I also want an amending formula. Personally, I have no objection to the charter of rights and freedoms. I have some small quarrels or reservations with it, but in principle I have no objections to it-except that it is dividing the country unnecessarily.
Besides patriation and the amending formula, the government also wants the United Kingdom to add a lot of other amendments-to the British North America Act before it comes back to Canada. Those would be enshrined-and then a new amending formula would be imposed. It would be much more difficult to amend after that, than for the Prime Minister to get his own prerogatives entrenched while the constitution is still in the United Kingdom.
I have no disagreement with the $6 million advertising program-with the Canada geese saying, "Let's fly our constitution back to Canada", or that they want to have an amending formula. I do not complain of that; in fact I agree with it. But the ads do not say what else is in the resolution-the whole realm of other things involved.

October 17, 1980
The Constitution
Section 9 is the same as section 2(a) of the bill of rights except that it does not mention the word "exile".
Section 10(a) is the same as section 2(c)(i) of the Bill of Rights.
Paragraph (b) of section 10 is the same as 2(c)(ii) and (c) is the same as 2(c)(iii) of the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights.
Section 11(a) is the same as 2(c)(i) of the Bill of Rights.
Paragraph (b) is new, stating that a person should be tried within a reasonable time. I have no difficulty with that.
Paragraph (c) is the same as 2(f) of the Bill of Rights.
Paragraph (d) is the same as 2(f) of the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights.
Paragraph (e) is new. You cannot be convicted today of anything which is not an offence today. That is just saying you cannot be convicted of anything if at the time you are alleged to have done it it was not an offence. 1 do not see the necessity for that.
Paragraph (f) of section 11 deals with double jeopardy. That is already covered in the Criminal Code of Canada.
Paragraph (g) deals with the lesser sentences when they changed the Parole Act. That is already covered in an amendment to the Parole Act which we dealt with two or three years ago in this country.
Section 12 is already covered by section 2(d) of the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights.
Section 13 is covered by 2(d) of the Canadian Bill of Rights and is also covered by the Canada Evidence Act and Ontario Evidence Act.
Section 14 of this resolution is covered by section 2(g) of the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights.
Section 15(1) is covered by section 1 of the Canadian Bill of Rights.
There is one aspect which some people are concerned about. That is in section 8, where a person has the right to seizure on certain grounds. Some people feel this is going to change the law. It will not make the law like the American law. In the American law under writs, you must identify the place you are going to search, the people and what you are searching for. That is set out in the constitution of the United States, amendment number four, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and, particularly, describing the place to be searched, the persons or the things to be seized". They do not mention 'things' here in this section 8, so I do not think it would follow the same way as the American law has followed, something which I certainly would not want to have brought into Canada.
I want to point out some problems in the next sections in the few minutes I have remaining.
1 have no problems with sections 16 to 19 which are already entrenched in our Official Languages Act.
1 do have some specific problems with section 23. I believe it is wrong. This has not yet been raised. 1 quote from section 23(2):
Where a citizen of Canada changes residence from one province to another and, prior to the change, any child of that citizen has been receiving his or her primary or secondary school instruction in either English or French-
Then they have the right to continue. However, if a young married couple with pre-schoolers who speak French move to Cornwall, they will not be guaranteed the right to attend French schools. The older child would have had to start in a French school. That whole section will have to be rewritten. The people of Canada should be able to send their children to a school of the official language of their choice, period, rather than have two classes of immigrants as suggested in section 23(1) and also discriminating against pre-schoolers moving versus people whose oldest child has already commenced school, in section 23(2).
The equalization formula is wrong.
If there was good will in this place and a willingness to accept different views, the government would not have incorporated this resolution in such a way that we will never be able to amend it. Right now we are only asked to move a motion to send the "proposed resolution", not the official resolution, to a committee which will make a report. Any amendments that they think should be made in the resolution-again we cannot amend the resolution-should be included in the report. The report will be brought back to this House for a debate on whether we agree with the report, to send the resolution to England as a joint address. There is no place I can see where this provides for amendments. A place for amendments has not been guaranteed by the government.
The government says of section 42 that it is only a deadlockbreaking procedure, but that is patently false. As they indicated yesterday in answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), they would not be willing to propose an amendment.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of making a few remarks on this matter.
[ Translation]


Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to the proposed resolution, all the more so because from time immemorial in this country the debate has resumed every year in an attempt to straighten out the constitution that was bequeathed to us in good faith but which, from an administrative standpoint, should from time to time have been modernized and assured us, 1 feel, of justice and equality.
The national anthem that was passed here last July starts in French with the beautiful words: O Canada, terre de nos ai'eux. But the way we behave, I wonder if we really want to do much for future generations, or if we merely want to sign the death warrant of this great country which has every reason to survive.
October 17, 1980

I am happy to take part in this debate as a representative of a generation that is eager to make of this vast land of ours a country in which freedom and good faith are the very foundation of future discussions and future development.
Mr. Speaker, I have taken the time to ask the opinion of some people in my riding to ascertain whether the proposal put forth by the government reflected a heartfelt desire for change in the population and whether these people accepted the resolution proposed by the government in this fall of 1980. People very freely and sincerely replied that it was high time someone did something in this country and that it was time that leadership asserted itself.
For much too long, passivity has been the common name for this constitutional debate. Of course, whenever people meet, be they provincial premiers or the Prime Minister of Canada, each has legitimate interests to uphold. But there is one important thing to remember and that is that these interests must converge, in other words the whole of the country must benefit as much as possible from the efforts of each of these first ministers. And it is this aspect which has eluded those who have run the country in the past and those who, at present, oppose the decision to proceed with the patriation of the constitution.
I can say quite openly and sincerely, Mr. Speaker, that I am under no pressure from above or below to support this proposed resolution. 1 do so with conviction, with decisiveness, because 1 am certain that among all imperfect means it is still the best to achieve a breakthrough towards a new start for this country. We are at the crossroads and 1 sincerely believe that we cannot backtrack.
I can understand that the opposition parties and even some other well-meaning individuals are against the conditions attached to patriation, I can understand the sensitivities of other people, but 1 am convinced that if each and every one of us examined their motives we would all agree that the time has come to set aside partisan interests in order to find the best formula to put an end not only to 53 years of hesitation, 53 years of impatience, but to 113 years of efforts to rejuvenate this constitution and bring it home and make it Canadian.
In what frame of mind has this measure been undertaken? Are people asking themselves this question, what motivated those who have initiated this measure? This action has been undertaken in the wake of successive efforts at reaching an agreement among first ministers. It started in 1927 to be precise. Efforts were made again in 1931, 1935, 1936, 1950, 1961, 1964, 1971, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1979 and 1980. And always with the same result, just like a yo-yo that goes up and down but never stops. There has never been an agreement for the good of all. That is precisely where the mistake lies now, on the part of the official opposition and those who are against this measure, for they want to keep searching indefinitely for an ideal means while it has been amply demonstrated that this is not feasible. It is so true that in the democratic system of
The Constitution
government the law of the majority prevails when total and absolute majority cannot be achieved. In a type of negotiation where two levels of government are involved, it is a lot to expect all these premiers to agree, all of them at the same time on the same items. This is why, following the attempts of an openly separatist and equally hypocritical party, the Canadian government has had to set in motion a process to patriate the constitution. This is a moral commitment, which was very firm, and for those who followed the various stages of the referendum campaign in Quebec, I should simply like to quote briefly from a statement made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in Quebec City on May 14, 1980. When people are speaking of moral commitment, when people are wondering about our being justified in acting this way today, reference should be made to that statement which is crystal clear, and which Quebeckers know very well. Mr. Trudeau said, and I quote: "If the answer to the referendum question is No, we have all said that this no would be interpreted as a mandate to change the constitution in order to renew our federalism." That I did not say. Neither did Mr. Clark, nor Mr. Broadbent, nor even the nine premiers of the other provinces. The 75 hon. members who were elected in that province to go and represent them in Ottawa said No and this means we want some change.
Further, Mr. Trudeau said in conclusion, and I quote: "I know because I talked to those hon. members this morning, I know that I can commit myself most firmly that if the answer is "no"-"-and note this-
-we will immediately set in motion the mechanism to renew the constitution, and we will not stop until it is done.
It is precisely this moral commitment which has triggered the admittedly rapid procedure designed to patriate the constitution. But before we got to the present stage, throughout the summer, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) travelled from one provincial capital to another in order to prepare yet another constitutional conference where we might reach an agreement. For three months, week after week, justice ministers of various provinces met nonstop with the Minister of Justice of Canada in an attempt to find a common ground.
Moreover, in September, another constitutional conference was held to determine the exact position of various heads of government regarding constitutional renewal. Instead of presenting the Canadian government with a counter offer, the provincial premiers chose once again to devise a formula leading to a deadlock. That is to say they chose to deal with purely provincial concerns instead of taking a comprehensive view of the situation which directly concerns all Canadians.
And this government has a broader role to play in the House of Commons, the undivided role of representing all Canadians. True, this order of government has a role equal to the one played by the provinces, but a different one, even though it is

October 17, 1980
The Constitution
of equal importance. And it is to represent in all fairness and equity all Canadians from coast to coast. At the constitutional conference held last September, one of the major points to remember is that the Prime Minister of Canada did not have the mandate to hand over to each provincial premier a part of our Canadian heritage. Nobody has the mandate to hand over to any region of Canada whatever belongs de facto and de jure to every Canadian citizen.
When I asked a little while ago in what spirit that reform, that unlocking action had been initiated, I did say that it had been devised out of a moral commitment. And when the Progressive Conservative Party was in power, they also had voiced such a moral commitment to get to effect those changes. At his press conference two weeks ago, the Leader of the Opposition indicated that he agreed in principle with the government's proposal, but that he could not agree with the means being used. But should we fight over the means, the structures? Should we not instead seek a formula which would meet the needs of Canadians? Who will actually benefit from this constitutional breakthrough? Everybody seems eager to defend his own structure, to speak on behalf of the group he represents, but there is something all hon. members should try to understand, and it is that we represent each and every member of these organizations. The same people who are part of these organizations have also elected us. This is a basic truth which is often overlooked.
Furthermore, the government's proposal is designed for future generations, while this debate more often than not is used to promote short-term political interests. The generation to which I belong is really getting impatient and is not interested in sacrificing its youth discussing constitutional matters for the next 53 years. This is of paramount importance.
For too long we have been sacrificed in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada in the interests of a false nationalism, always inspiring but restrictive. This plan requires from all Canadians what the philosopher Bergson called a supplement of soul. That is what we need in the House. We have the impression, not to say personal conviction, that some people are interested in discussing rather than making headway.
The people of Manicouagan are proud workers who elected me to defend the economy, to find work for their children and not to quibble for 50 years about issues which are mostly out of date. I think that if Canada is to progress we need that change of direction which will enable us to plan much further. The debate which has been going on for years is a stumbling block hindering Canada's evolution.
Still in 1980 we are taking up weeks to discuss a matter which members of Parliament should have solved in the fifties. This was for the country a truly rotten gift which is corroding the social fabric to the extent that we now have the impression that a withdrawal would be the best formula. The members of the government team have taken up the challenge to expand
Canadian views and allow Canadians to be everywhere at home.
Of course, this is a tremendous challenge and there are people who are convinced, I think, that it might be an impossible undertaking.
Yet, it has been demonstrated that Canadians want to meet that challenge, particularly in Quebec. In spite of what some people might think of his character, the Prime Minister of Canada has been elected five times in Quebec and each time with an increased majority. So, as concerns Quebec, there is no need to say that he has the absolute confidence of the people and if you want to talk about a traitor you should find another person than this Prime Minister.
If you want to learn about our Prime Minister's vision concerning the constitution, you just need to refer to the book he wrote in 1976 entitled "Federalism and French Canadians", on page 52. About a possible constitutional reform, he said and I quote:
There is nothing easier than proposing constitutional reforms, and I could very easily outline several points that would some day have to be taken into account by a new constitution. For example:
(a)	A bill of rights could be incorporated into the constitution, to limit the powers that legal authorities have over human rights in Canada. In addition to protecting traditional political and social rights, such a bill would specifically put the French and English languages on an equal basis before the law.
Virtually the exact wording or at least the spirit of that text is to be found in the proposed resolution.
(b)	The protection of basic rights having thus been ensured, there would be no danger in reducing the central government's predominance in certain areas (for example, by abolishing the right of reservation and disallowance); at the same time, this would have the advantage of getting rid of some of the constitution's imperial phraseology.
And so on and so forth-
When faced with references to sell-out or about-face, to a man who does not know where he is going, it is very easy to prove that this is not so by going through the writings of that man in order to show how true it is. If one politician stood up these recent years, it is the current leader of the Liberal party. And I feel this is what the people want, somebody with a direction, somebody with a vision of this country's future. And it is important to emphasize this because in Quebec we hear regularly the terms traitor and treason. These terms bounced around all through the referendum campaign. And, needless to repeat, both French-speaking Quebeckers and the total Quebec population voted no, they voted to remain in Canada. This is fundamental.
And the patriation and amendment provisions, as with all the aspects included in the document, confirm the supremacy of citizens over the structure of state. 1 cannot see why the provinces can object to what is inside, because this exercise is simply to give more rights to citizens, but without, of course, going through the provincial structures, and all premiers would prefer that this go through provincial structures. If we could
October 17, 1980

not go through provincial structures, it is because they did not have enough vision and generosity to let the citizens have a charter of basic rights and freedoms, language rights and other aspects included in the document.
The most upset may be provincial governments. They will have to react, because their citizens will have received more rights and, faced with these new rights granted citizens, they will have to change their structures in order to allow for more freedom in the land. And references to encroachment on the federal spirit are misleading, because in this House we represent the same people.
Those people who have elected us have also elected their provincial spokesmen or premiers. We represent the same people but we have different duties, that is to ensure that rights and freedoms are protected throughout the country. If provincial premiers had endorsed the philosophy contained in this draft resolution, if they had agreed to widen their vision of a free and equitable Canada, we could have reached this kind of unanimity very easily and therefore passed this resolution in a more happy way. But we have not been able to do this because some narrow minds have forced us to act through the central government and this is unfortunate. The time had come for a man to show some leadership and assert once and for all that it was necessary to take all legitimate actions to put the proposal before the federal Parliament and bring back home something which belongs to us.
People of my generation want things to change. They really want to look toward the future and the challenge of the year 2000 is a priority to us. We no longer want to sit on the past and begin criticizing what could have been done and what should have been done. We are determined to look to the future with some people of good will and good faith and forget the fights which hopefully have separated us for some time and look at the future in a very generous way. Indeed the role of Parliament and of the state is to fulfil three essential duties: to protect the citizens' freedom, to provide them with the highest security and give them prosperity. Those are the three very basic elements of a state, whether a central, a provincial or a municipal government. What we want is to forget the present time and project ourselves into this future, to become really one of the most generous countries as far as freedoms are concerned, a country likely to grow in harmony.
There is danger, in the present debate, if hon. members do not assume their responsibilities, of our country being divided even more because of an endless and mostly useless debate in which all parties are hurling abuse at one another. The proposal has been put before Parliament. We still have to discuss its principles for some time. Let us hope that next week we will be able to refer it to the committee. Everyone will have a chance to express his point of view and then we will be able to see to what extent it is still possible to improve this document.
The Constitution
Again I repeat that it is not a perfect document. If anybody here has a perfect document in his pocket, let him table it. It is about time.
We must work with what is humanly possible and above all we must base our willingness for a change on good faith and on future generations instead of always aiming for a short term and taking what is now a fact as something that cannot be changed.
This proposal even contains an amending formula which is very flexible, in my opinion. It was adopted in Victoria, and for the next two years we will be absolutely unable to change anything without full endorsement from all first ministers. Quebeckers have to send a new government team to discuss renewed federalism on their behalf. The whole division of powers has yet to be studied. The premiers who really wish in all good faith to work at establishing new means to provide their provinces and Canada with strong instruments, powerful economic instruments, will have the possibility to do so during these next two years.
If the proposed resolution itself includes items with which some of the premiers disagree, they can still discuss them further among themselves and develop an amendment proposal which would retain some of the elements of the constitutional proposal, and everything will be possible. But one thing is clear, and that is that the document will be Canadian and will have belonged to us while we now have to go and beg elsewhere for things which are the pride of the country. I would remind members opposite that history might judge very severely the stand they have taken recently. We have only to recall the debate on the flag and the emotional hours we spent in this House in the longest debate ever held in our history, when members opposite were literally against the proposal for all sorts of reasons, traditions representations, honour, and if we now talk about this matter with the youngest and the oldest among us, we realize that it was a mistake to take such a stand concerning the approval of the flag. This flag is now a symbol of unity throughout the country. No one believes that any other flag could represent us.
I remind members opposite of the critical need to understand the dangers of this debate. I recognize that one might disagree with some of the means proposed, but I do not accept that the means must come second to the whole Canadian ideal we are defending. I could have spoken expressly about the language. I could have spoken about each of the rights provided in the charter. But 1 believe that in the last two weeks, several of my colleagues on both sides of the House have already done so and that it would serve no purpose to add anything to the comments which have been made.
However, there is perhaps one element I would like to mention, that two major points stand out when we examine the history of the old constitutional conflict. The problem of this country is not a problem of dictatorship, it is not a problem of wealth, it is not a problem of poverty, but rather a problem of

October 17, 1980
The Constitution
structure and of sharing. The great advantage that Canadians have always had has been to be heirs to a country which might be too vast for certain minds. The problem of this country is that some people find it hard to understand the concepts of time and space. When we look at what is going on around us, at all the wars, the famines and the dictatorships, and when we compare this with the country we call Canada, it is very easy to see that we are like spoilt children who find it hard to be generous and to share even though their stomachs are full.
And what intensifies even more so this conflict are our personality clashes. This is what is eroding the national fiber of this country. We are incapable of appreciating this great heritage of ours and through the structures of society reach the people to whom we are answerable. This whole set up of school, municipal, provincial and federal structures is here to be of assistance to the private citizens and not the opposite.
This is what we must understand and this is what people outside these walls must understand. There is no intention of taking things and rights away from anybody. The idea is to give people more of the same. The member for Manicouagan, the Prime Minister of Canada or the Premier of Quebec or of any other province or any member of Parliament for that matter are only transitory figures but the country as a whole will remain and generations will succeed one another. What we must always have present in our mind is what we are going to leave behind for future generations and in which spirit we are going to transmit that heritage. The proposed resolution is drafted in that kind of spirit, namely the granting of cultural guarantees. I am referring to language rights but also to mobility rights and the mobility rights contained in this proposed resolution are a thing I am experiencing in my own riding.
Elere is an example to illustrate how this happens. Over the past few years the economic centre of our country has been shifting westward. Contractors in my region, the type of people whom we might call the builders of our country, go to Edmonton to do business there. Quite often these people do not speak English very well. Nevertheless they are ready to take up the challenge and to follow the trends of the economy. The very principle of the resolution recognizes freedom of movement for citizens and capital from one part of the country to the other. And this is a fact. Ask any Canada employment centre how many people knock on the door to inquire about mobility plans to go west and how many westerners seek to go east. By this resolution, we enshrine this reality. Is anyone in this House opposed to such proposal? Is any province against such proposal? And yet we have heard premiers say: Listen, this is going to confuse our mobility plans. Mobility programs for citizens of our country are not designed to meet the needs of manpower plans, but to enable people to work where they want to.
Manpower plans can be adapted to the population. That is what we must confirm in this resolution. French-speaking families moving westward would then be able to get certain French-speaking institutions, if numbers warrant, and that matter would not be left for the federal or provincial governments but for the courts to decide. They would be able to rule in these matters on the basis of jurisprudence and after examining the facts.
I think there are very few cases of such generous projects in the history of Canada and what is most astonishing is the fact that those who oppose it do so simply on the basis of the methods and means used to implement it. Such an approach is risky for those who are unable to overcome their own opposition and deal strictly with the principle. That is I think the saddest aspect I see in the negative criticism made about supporting this resolution.
In closing my remarks, I would simply say that the great principle of liberalism, which I think everybody in this House would defend, puts the priority on the individual and not on the structures or on the state and I would challenge anybody in the House to find a formula within the proposed resolution that is contrary to what I have just said. Everything in that proposed resolution is addressed directly to the citizens and not the institutions, and that is what confirms the supremacy of the rights of the citizens over those of the state. That is what is important. In a world that is overmechanized, overbureaucratized, it was high time such principles were stated; it may also be high time to switch to action in order to achieve concrete objectives: that is why we are elected.
Go out in the street and ask the people what they think of this protracted debate. They will tell you, over and over again: You were elected to do that work; you are paid to solve those problems. Quit calling on us as witness and act. But act according to our freedoms and in terms of the generation to come. That is what we ask of you. Stop going over the same things time and time again and assume your responsibilities. That is the stand we must take, that is what we must act upon, instead of going around in circles and hiding behind false principles and sophistry to justify our inertia. There is only one thing to do: we must break out of the deadlock, go further and assert that we are a free country, capable of bringing back home what belongs to us, and mature enough to include in our constitution commitments that require surpassing ourselves. I ask them to be understanding. I ask them to consider from the north to the south and from the east to the west this large continent which we have inherited and to think that the discussions which are going on are perhaps the mere last effort which will enable us finally to obtain our basic rights as Canadian citizens, that the forthcoming years are merely a gleam of the future and that we will be able to gain control and to carry on the harmonious development of this country. I am convinced that if our fathers had been timid rather than confident, today our standard of living would not be so high
October 17, 1980

and our freedoms would not be so well asserted. A nation grows old when it resists expansion. Our country perhaps has arrived at the age of puberty but I am now convinced that we are not far from adulthood and that we will be able to take up the great challenge passed onto us by former generations and anticipated by future generations of Canadians.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the resolution to establish a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to consider the total package the government wishes to send to Her Majesty the Queen.
Yesterday was international credit union day. I thank my colleagues in all parties for giving unanimous consent to my motion under Standing Order 43 earlier today which paid tribute to the credit union and caisse populaire movements in Canada and around the world. It is in that spirit and in accordance with the principles and philosophies of the co-operative movement, the major foundation of the political party to which I am happy to belong, I want to make my remarks on the resolution containing a joint address to Her Majesty the Queen regarding the Constitution of Canada.
Usually I am a hard-nosed partisan democratic socialist. Usually on social and economic issues I will argue, berate and condemn-and sometimes support-any of the actions, policies or ideas of my fellow Canadians who are Liberals or Conservatives whether in this chamber or anywhere else in the country. But this is not the time or the subject on which to do that. My comments apply to myself as well as to everyone in this place. Fingerpointing, personal attacks or extreme partisanship have no place in this particular debate. There must be an openness and willingness to consider positively the points of view, ideas and amendments submitted by any hon. member of this chamber or the committee, or when the committee reports back to the House.
There is a better way to conduct ourselves in this debate. We do not need a stubborn, arbitrary, unilateral manner. We do not need a mindless, thoughtless, incoherent babble from people who oppose someone or who oppose part or all of what is being submitted by the government. We certainly do not need personal attacks nor do we need the imputing of motives. In fact, we should be listening to one another and accepting the views of others in good faith. There is not a member of this House who agrees with this resolution 100 per cent; I suspect even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) could point out two or three things that are in it which he does not like. And that applies to every member in this chamber.
We do not need a gang of five going to court, nor do we need an attitude and state of mind from the government which precludes openness and favourable consideration of suggestions and amendments put forward by opposition parties or individual members from any party when the committee meets. I and others do not like the fact that the government is acting unilaterally on this matter, even though I fully under-
The Constitution
stand and appreciate why they feel compelled to do so. Someone said, and I forget who it was: We were elected to make laws, not legislatures. We were elected to support or oppose governments, not establish them. We were elected to work under the rules, not make them by ourselves.
The five principles that are in the legislation have been policies of my party at various periods of time. For example, patriation has been part of our party policy since the 1930s, when the CCF spoke up for patriation of our constitution. We support the amending formula. Language rights has been party policy for many years. I am hopeful the government will, in committee, do something about what appears to me to be a double standard. But we support in principle the entrenching of language rights. We have supported for many years entrenching a charter of rights even though that in itself will not be sufficient to guarantee those rights. We have always supported the principle of equalization and here again we hope the government will accept amendments which would make that provision in the resolution even better. We hope it will specify and spell out equalization payments.
Most of all, my party insists that this resolution embody a sixth principle, namely, the matter of ownership, control and the right to manage the resources by the provinces.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) rises on a point of order and wishes to ask a question with the hon. member's permission.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to get this finished so I can get to the airport. I will try to keep my remarks under 40 minutes and if he would be good enough to question me then I would be happy to try to answer him.
Yesterday was the tenth anniversary of the imposition of the War Measures Act during peacetime. Ten years ago yesterday my former leader and political mentor-I hope he still is my political mentor-Tommy Douglas, told this House the NDP party did not accept the government's heavy-handed tactics which could cause a person to be held for 90 days or more without an opportunity to prove he or she did not belong to a subversive organization. He said:
This government now has the power by order in council to do anything it wants-to intern any citizen, to deport any citizen, to arrest any person or to declare any organization subversive or illegal.
I am not convinced the present wording of the government's proposed constitution act would prevent a repeat of this denial of rights. Section one of the proposed charter of rights says:
The Canadian charter of rights and freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits as are generally accepted in a free and democratic society with a parliamentary system of government.
The words "as generally accepted" are a loose definition which could be interpreted in many ways. I hope the government will be willing to review this section when it is before the committee. I wonder why this qualification should apply to the right under section 12:
-not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
3802

October 17, 1980
The Constitution
Would that qualification to which I referred permit a repeat of the disgraceful treatment accorded to Japanese Canadians 40 years ago? Talk about the entrenching of rights in a constitution does not necessarily guarantee one will receive those rights. The counter-example is that in the American constitution, with those rights entrenched, the treatment of the American-Japanese was as bad as, or worse than, that accorded the Japanese in Canada. It took the Americans as long to redress the harm done as it did Canada. I agree the Americans did redress that harm in a better way then we did, in a larger way. But it took them as long, even though those rights were entrenched. So entrenchment by itself does not guarantee one will always receive those rights.
Why should there be a qualification on the right to be told with what offence you are being charged? 1 hope the government as well as all other members of the committee will want to look at that and improve upon it. There are many ideas in the constitutional proposal 1 agree with; I have illustrated the five principles that are there and the sixth that we feel must be there. While we will support the passing of the motion to establish the committee we will take full part in the proceedings of that committee and we will have amendments and proposals to make. We want to hear from and listen favourably to the suggestions and amendments made by members of the Conservative party and the Liberal party. We want to deal with other concerns.
1 cannot vote against the principle of patriating our constitution. I cannot vote against the entrenchment of language rights. I cannot vote against a charter of rights being in our constitution. I cannot vote against equalization. But surely that does not prevent me, or any hon. member in this House, or any citizen of Canada, from expressing concerns about other provisions in the resolution and asking for, and achieving some success with regard to acceptance of amendments moved by the opposition parties or by the government which make improvements or corrections affecting concerns other than the principles I enunciated and which we feel we must support.
For example, there is a need to provide for equalization payments instead of the possibility, maybe the probability, of patronage pay-offs. The constitution must always be in touch with the people of our country; it must be a reflection and not a manipulation of the people who live here.
The Indian and native people in my part of the country have special concerns. Of equal priority to constitutional reform is the need to correct the greatest land fraud in history-the unpaid debt of land entitlements. In my province the federal government generously gave the Hudson's Bay Company 3.3 million acres of land and it swiftly gave the CPR ten million acres. It negotiated with the Indian people and they were entitled to 1.5 million acres through agreements which have yet to be lived up to. My colleague, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) will speak further on this matter. Do these original peoples, whose roots in our country go back thousands of years, deserve that kind of treatment?
I want to deal with resources for a few moments. In order to understand why resources are important to me, to my party, to my province and, indeed, to all western provinces and, in effect, to all of the provinces and territories, one needs to go back in history before the discovery of oil or gas or potash. The national policy for this country, developed by Sir John A. Macdonald, goes back to the days when tariffs were used to encourage the growth of domestic industry in central Canada. An indivisible part of national policy has been the provision of transportation services to the maritimes and the west by the federal power.
Thus, this country grew by two principles: tariff protection for central Canada and efficient transportation for the west and the Atlantic. In recent years, however, the transportation system has not been adequate. As Mr. Justice Hall said in his eminent report, "Feelings exist that western Canadians are the source of someone else's affluence and to a degree they blame the transportation system for their frustration."
For one reason or another, the federal government has never understood this feeling. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) seems to be unable to speak about western concerns without tipping over a bale stack in the process. During the constitutional negotiations this summer, the Prime Minister asked the west to trade resource dollars for federal investment in the transportation system. In all sincerity and kindness I should like to ask the Prime Minister why the west should pay twice-once through tariffs and once again through resource dollars.
The west has been vulnerable to boom and bust cycles in the economy. I remember the "dirty thirties"-I am a child of the depression. I saw farmers who lost their homes and their farms when four-fifths of the crops went to pay off interest on debt. In the past five years the west has been moving ahead and now that we are moving, our citizens feel others are holding us back just when we have the chance to diversify our economy with resources in order to avoid the boom and bust cycle.
The issue of resources is as important to us, Mr. Speaker, as language and culture is, not only to the people of Quebec, but to the rest of Canada. To us in the west at least, resources are just as important and through bitter experience, that concern has become equal to other concerns. Two decisions of the Supreme Court are part of our bitter experience. In 1973, the government of Saskatchewan levied a tax to capture windfall profits from oil companies. There was no objection to them receiving their cost of production and a reasonable return on their investment. In the CIGOL case, the Supreme Court supported a challenge to the Saskatchewan government's right to levy that tax. It was bad enough that we had to fight the oil industry and the oil corporations but in that instance the minister of justice of the day went to the Supreme Court on behalf of the federal government in support of the oil companies' case. And some people wonder why there is bitterness!
In the Central Canada Potash case, the Supreme Court struck down Saskatchewan's pro-rationing regulations which were originally introduced by a provincial Liberal government. Saskatchewan won both court cases in the lower courts but lost
October 17, 1980

in the Supreme Court. Neither case upheld a federal law. Both struck down a provincial law concerning resources, leaving the companies unregulated and untaxed by either government.
No constitution is acceptable to the NDP unless it clarifies the situation and provides that natural resources and the right to indirect taxation belong to the provinces. It should provide, specifically, for the provinces to levy indirect taxes; for provincial concurrence with federal paramountcy for interprovincial trade and for provincial concurrence with federal paramountcy for international trade.
If the federal government accepts the principle of provincial ownership of resources and accepts this amendment to the proposed constitution, we will have the beginnings of a workable package. This is not just meaningful to Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker. I know the premier of Alberta has pooh-poohed this to some extent and said it did not mean much to that province. I wish he had checked with his minister of mineral resources. In the case of Alberta alone, 20 per cent of oil and gas production is freehold, that is, it is on land where someone other than the government owns the mineral rights. Most of those lands in Alberta-and here we go again, Mr. Speaker- are owned by Canadian Pacific and Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas. Production from those freehold lands amounts to 90.5 million barrels of oil annually and 489 billion cubic feet of gas annually. If Alberta is permitted to levy indirect taxation equivalent to a 30 per cent royalty under our constitution on production from freehold lands, it would collect a net in excess of $600 million per year. How rich would you have to be before you would not seriously consider wanting the right to that $600 million per year? By the way, that would exceed Saskatchewan's total income from hydrocarbon production, so it is important. And not only to Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker.
Sometimes the problem is not so much what the government wants to do as the way in which it wants to do certain things. I have read the resolution for a joint address and it raises many questions. First of all, is it wise to write the constitution in a language that few people can understand? Being an innocent prairie boy, I had a great deal of difficulty understanding some of the wording. One need only look at what I see as being the "guts" of the resolution, section 51 of the Constitution Act. What does that mean to the average citizen? Imagine putting that on a ballot for a referendum.
More important, in my view-and certainly this is not the view of my party as far as I am aware; the party has not officially expressed a view-there is an illusion that this resolution, once it is accepted here and in the United Kingdom, will somehow patriate our constitution. This resolution asks the United Kingdom parliament to pass a law called the Canada act which, in turn, automatically becomes the constitution act. No matter how one reads it, the Canada act will remain on the statute books of the United Kingdom unless and until it is repealed by the United Kingdom parliament. The United Kingdom parliament is totally sovereign over its own laws and it could repeal the Canada act or amend it. I am not saying that the United Kingdom parliament would do that, but it could.
The Constitution
In Canada we do not have provision for a chapter in our statutes. We would have the constitution act printed as an appendix to our statutes, as is the BNA Act. Hon. members know what can be done with an appendix; it can be taken out by a doctor, or in its other sense removed by Parliament. Merely passing this resolution is not sufficient to totally patriate our constitution, neither will unilateral action solve ) this problem threatening to divide us.
Our country was not created because it was convenient geographically. In the nineteenth century there were serious divisions between us then as there are today. There were some factors then, as there are now, which provide a basis for co-operation. Co-operation 113 years ago was essential because British trade and fiscal policy removing imperial preference left us vulnerable to continental integration. Agricultural and other trade was potentially continental; we had to head off competition with the Americans. Co-operation was required from all people in Canada in those days. It still is. The Canadian Wheat Board is a good example. The first American canals and railways pressured us into building railroads. These were expensive ventures which required a strong federal government. However, it has always been the case that we also need strong provincial governments. After all, it was the provinces-New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Upper and Lower Canada-which originally passed resolutions to create the BNA Act. There was no national Parliament as we know it now. The constitutional debate which create our country had input not just from heads of government but from the general consensus of the people.
I regret very much that following the September 8 to September 12 conference the government did not follow a policy resolution of the New Democratic Party. I want to read it into the record. We said, prior to the conference that if by the end of the first ministers' conference there is deadlock and no prospect of success through the first ministers' negotiating process alone, in the place of unilateral action, which could be divisive, we recommend a new round of deliberations be started almost immediately and that the conference participants include multiparty delegations selected by Parliament and each of the provincial legislatures. These delegations should be made up of equal numbers of delegates from each province and the number of delegates from Parliament would be equal to the total number of delegates from the provinces. We further said, Mr. Speaker, that in addition, the original peoples be given the right to direct representation and vote in the deliberations; that the multiparty delegations from the Territories be given the right to direct representation and vote in the deliberations; that a delegation of women's organizations be given the right to direct representation and vote in the deliberations, and that after a series of regional meetings in the intervening period, this process of deliberation end one year from now. We stated, also, that a two-thirds majority of those individual delegates present and voting on proposals in each session should determine the recommendations by the conference and that the package of proposals produced by the

October 1 7, 1980
The Constitution
negotiations would require ratification by seven legislatures representing all of the regions of Canada, one of which must be the province of Quebec, and by the Parliament of Canada. Having obtained such ratification, these proposals would then constitute law and would then constitute Canada's constitution.
1 guess it is too late for the government to do that now. We just wish they had listened and taken that into account and considered doing it.
1 want to close my remarks with some final thoughts on the whole matter. However, allow me first to complete my remarks in terms of whether or not we are following the best method. I do not disagree with what the government wants to do; I do disagree with some of the ways in which the government proposes to do it. We are being asked to have the parliament of the United Kingdom pass an act which has the force of law in Canada. It seems to me that one thing you do not do is allow one legislative body and government to set the rules for the structure of executive powers which are to reside somewhere else.
As a result of the Quebec referendum, the government-and 1 understand this-has chosen to move quickly, albeit unilaterally, in order to try to satisfy the people in Quebec, as well as all the rest of Canada, who want to have their constitution brought home. Yet the action being taken by the government has been rejected by the people in Quebec, certainly by Mr. Levesque and by Mr. Ryan. This should give the government pause and cause it to be even more favourably disposed to receive and accept amendments from members on this side of the House as well as amendments from its own side.
When any one of us from any party presents a case, a point, a suggestion or an amendment, it should be received and considered in good faith as being sincerely and honestly meant, in the most open, positive and most favourable way possible by all other members of this House and of the committee.
1 close by saying that the government having made the decision it has made-and it has the right to make the decision in terms of how the government wishes to proceed-this Parliament has the opportunity to bring about an accomplishment which could be heralded, remembered and spoken about for the next 200 years. We have that opportunity, provided we all deal with this together in a spirit of co-operation. If we do not deal with this in that manner so that it will be something spoken of and remembered and recognized for the next 200 years, we will not have done our job very well. We will have let down our country and our people.
We do well to remember and think about our original peoples and all they have done over these thousands of years; we might all think about and remember les habitants and all they have done since they came to this country and pioneered in the Atlantic and Quebec regions and then in the west. Think about all those who came since then-the English-speaking peoples, the peoples of many other races and cultures, who settled this country. I invite my compatriots here to consider, too, what some others have done. Specifically, I want to tell my hon. friends in this chamber about one of the most moving
experiences of my life. It occurred when I visited a cemetery in Adagem, which is in northern Belgium. There were 980 Canadians aged 19 to 30 buried there. They were from the Regina Rifles Regiment, the South Saskatchewan Regiment and the Royal 22nd Regiment, the Van Doos. There were the names of French and English Canadians alongside Polish, Ukrainian and German names. When all of us are carrying on this debate, deciding on how to conduct and address ourselves to succeeding generations, let us remember all of those and make sure that what they have done has not been for naught.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Mr. Speaker, that was a very moving finish to a very eloquent speech. It is indeed an honour to be here today to address what is a very important resolution not only to this House but to the country, a resolution which will ultimately patriate our constitution for the last time, which will entrench a charter of rights and give us an amending procedure.
It is my hope that this matter will soon go to the committee of the House and the Senate so that it can be expeditiously dealt with at the committee level and a joint address sent to England and the Queen before Christmas. It is unfortunate that a group of premiers have decided to take us to court, but not unexpected. The premiers of this country have been looked after by a successive number of federal parliaments. It is about time we started to look after the country. I am going to quote a lot of Conservatives. In 1865, Sir John A. Macdonald made a very profound observation. He said:
We have strengthened the general government. We have given the general legislature all the great subjects of legislation. We have conferred on them, not only specifically and in detail, all the powers which are incident to sovereignty, but we have expressly declared that all subjects of general interest not distinctly and exclusively conferred upon the local governments and local legislatures shall be conferred upon the general government and legislature. We have thus avoided that great source of weakness which has been the cause of the disruption of the United States.
In the ensuing 115 years, through judicial interpretation and legislative negotiation, we have gone in the complete opposite direction. It is a myth today to say that the federal government is stronger than or even as strong as the collective powers of the provinces. Let me set out immediately the distribution of direct expenditures on goods and services between the two levels of government over the past 113 years.
In 1870 the federal government spent 52 per cent and the provincial governments, including the municipalities, 48 per cent. By 1926 we were down to 26 per cent and the provincial and municipal governments up to 74 per cent. In 1950 we moved up to 48 per cent with a provincial-municipal level of 52 per cent. In 1975 we were down to 24 per cent and the provinces with the municipalities were spending three times as much as us.
We have been too generous to the provinces and in our generosity have seriously impaired the imbalance of federal-provincial relations. No matter what party you belong to, you
October 17, 1980

are still a member of this Parliament and want to maintain a balance. Either that or you do not understand what confederation is all about.
1 might say that one of the most generous periods has been under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the last 12 years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ron Irwin: You laugh, but the facts say so. Check them. Instead of talking rhetoric, go to the figures, they are there.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am prepared to rule now on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I am in the hands of hon. members. I could delay the ruling if the hon. member wants to continue his speech. However, since the amendment is an important one, 1 am prepared to listen to some argument from both sides. I do have some reservations about the amendment; however, I am prepared to rule now. I am in the hands of hon. members as to whether they would like me to rule now or have the hon. member continue.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, after quick consultation with my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Irwin), may I say he will be quite willing to yield the floor to you to give this judgment at this time. It is crucial that we have a ruling on the substance of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. We are quite in agreement with that.


Walter David Baker: If you make your ruling now, Madam Speaker, you will not be permitting us to argue in advance of having prepared the ruling. I wonder if the hon. gentleman would like to continue his speech. I do not want to hold up the debate. What is being suggested could be done the first thing after question period. It appears there is some doubt on the part of the Chair. I would like to be able to consider an argument with respect to it because I put the motion forward quite seriously. I hope that will be agreeable to my hon. friend.


Madam Speaker:: That is acceptable to me, if that is the desire of the House. If we hear the hon. gentleman, we will have to think about what we do at four o'clock. We would again have to decide whether to continue with this matter or take it up on Monday.


David Michael Collenette: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I misunderstood. I thought you were going to render a decision on the admissibility of the amendment proposed last evening. If you are saying you want to entertain argument, before you make your definitive decision, I suggest that we hold this over until Monday.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreeable to the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: We will hold it over until Monday.
The Constitution


Ron Irwin: 1 will continue. Sir John A. Macdonald strengthened the union. He knew the union and knew what he wanted to do. We have gone through a traumatic experience in Quebec-and we have short memories if we do not think it was. Having overcome a cultural challenge, we are now looking at an economic challenge. It makes little difference to me if this country is destroyed culturally or economically. In the end, it is the same result.
Last weekend I was in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie. Whenever possible, I discussed the constitution with various friends. Quite frankly, in Sault Ste. Marie at this time of the year it is not the main topic of discussion. We do not stand on street corners and talk for 40 minutes about the constitutional debate. However, I did try. I found, as probably most members opposite found, that the people want patriation. They want an end to 50 years of endless and often needless debate. There is a time when you have to get off the ski lift and attack the hill. I suggest that members opposite are too frightened to get off the ski lift and do something.
Some people have asked, what is the disagreement. Actually, they ask what we are doing here. I have a certain difficulty explaining to them that on most of the items we have agreement. We all want patriation, we all want some charter, we all agree on entrenchment of fundamental rights such as conscience, religion, expression and a free press. There have been no serious disagreements about democratic rights such as voting and the duration of legislatures and parliaments. There have been some questions about mobility rights, but in our hearts, as indicated by the speeches, it is obvious to all present that we want Canadians to be able to move anywhere in Canada and work at what they want without having to be born in a specific province or having to live in a specific province for a certain number of months.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills, private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Notice of motion No. 8, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Stand by unanimous consent. Item No. 11, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.

October 17, 1980
Official Secrets Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Stand by unanimous consent. Item no. 12, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By unanimous consent.
Item No. 14, the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By unanimous consent.


OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River) moved:: That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be empowered to study the contents of the Official Secrets Act and to recommend any changes that the committee deems necessary, in order that the act would be limited in its application to enemy espionage and offences to national security.
He said: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As indicated in the notice of motion, it should be obvious to some that the purpose of this motion is to revive a motion of a similar nature made in this House by my predecessor, the Hon. Gerald W. Baldwin, one of this nation's greatest champions of human rights. Mr. Baldwin, as I understand it, is now happily retired. I am sure he is watching us all very closely to make sure we do not let this motion get talked out, but will let it proceed uninhibited.
You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that unlike my predecessor's motion, my motion does not attempt to restrict the government's claim of Crown privilege in committee. Thus, I fail to see any reason why the government should not support this motion. All it asks is merely that the Official Secrets Act be studied with great care by the committee. There can be no harm in that, only a great deal of good.
I am confident all members on both sides of the House will support this motion in the same way as they supported the motion by Mr. Baldwin. I was not in the House the last time around, but now I and other newly elected members have the opportunity of showing our support for this badly needed public scrutiny of the Official Secrets Act.
I sincerely hope the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will once again show his support for this cause for which Mr. Baldwin struggled so long. It would indeed be fitting if today the House passed this motion, almost exactly one year since Mr. Baldwin moved his motion under Standing Order 43. It would, I feel, be a great gesture of respect and admiration for the many years Mr. Baldwin devoted to this place. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am asking hon. members to unanimously support this motion since doing so will result in a great step toward alleviating this nation of a 69-year old pain in the democratic neck.
I have recently been informed that the Department of Justice is presently reviewing this antiquated act. We in this House are all happy to hear it, but that should in no way constitute a reason for this House not passing my motion. We must act now, and since the Department of Justice is studying the matter I hope its officers will provide their full co-operation to the committee.
I hope the Prime Minister will again see the light as he did one year ago. I hope the government will not deny the people of this country the opportunity to take this legislation out of the justice department's dark and mysterious secret closets.
At this point I suppose I should begin to speak at length on the precise reasons for which this act is such an inherent evil contained within our statutes, but I feel we all know and have witnessed the detrimental results which occur when citizens have been prosecuted under it.
We all watched with disbelief as one of this nation's respected daily newspapers, The Toronto Sun, was prosecuted for merely carrying out its duty to the public. We stood aghast while good Canadian citizens such as Peter Treu were being stripped of their rights, and while people were being told they did not even have the right to a public trial. Today we sit and wonder why it has taken a decade, ten long, frustrating years, for the people whose rights were violated, for the truth about the October crisis, to begin to trickle out from the cracks of bureaucratic secrecy in the name of national security. Some 650 people were arrested during that nightmare in 1970-650 reasons why the Official Secrets Act must be reviewed.
I should mention that this is the first time I have risen in this House to speak. It is indeed a great honour for me and I look forward to the years ahead during which I hope I will do this place honour by upholding its many fine traditions. I should very much like to speak at length about the constituency of Peace River, explaining to you, Mr. Speaker, what makes the land of the mighty Peace such a glorious place to grow up in and such a beautiful place to grow old in. However, 1 am afraid I do not feel it appropriate that I go into that now. I feel it is more important to tell this House through you, Mr. Speaker, of the deeply felt concern and anxiety the people of the Peace River constituency are conveying to me at the present time. The people of Peace River, of Grande Prairie, of Valleyview, the people of all the towns, villages and hamlets, the native peoples, the people who work the land in order that the rest of the nation may put bread on its tables, the people who work 12 and 16-hour shifts seven days a week on the drilling rigs in order that the rest of the nation may be able to keep its houses warm in the winter, its food hot and its cars running; all the people of Peace River from all walks of life are worried. Their worries are increasing daily.
Does the Prime Minister know why they are worried? Does the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien) know why they are worried? Does the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) know why they are worried? I do not think they know; it is their job to know but they do not, and I suggest they do not because they do not want to know.
October 17, 1980

The people of Peace River are not frightened about the economy of the entire world sliding down hill, for they are strong and they know that with good government the country will continue to grow and develop. The people of Peace River are not afraid of global war because they know that is in the hands of God and not something they should worry about. They shall always voice their dismay at any war and they will always be ready to stand and defend their country, their Canada, from enemies which may threaten our borders.
What the people of Peace River fear is none of these things. They fear more than anything Canada's present federal government. This is a well-informed electorate and the people realize all too well the inherent dangers the entire nation faces today, particularly now when they hear members of the Trudeau administration talking about federal unilateral action on the constitution with referenda rigged in order that the federal government may bypass the people's chosen representatives in provincial legislatures.
The people of Peace River listen with astonishment as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tells people across the country that Albertans are villains, greedy culprits wanting to ruin the nation. They listen closely when the Prime Minister talks of how much he wishes to uphold the rights of Canadians and of how he wants to enshrine a bill of rights in the constitution, yet they are astounded when they hear this same Prime Minister saying it will be possible for these enshrined rights to be taken away through the federally-initiated mechanism of a referendum.
Members of the government say they will not take away the rights they will so graciously grant us. They tell us it is the people alone who will be able to take our rights away through this referendum mechanism. Looking back to 1970 it is possible to see what a fallacy this is. If the country had been put to a referendum at that time on whether the War Measures Act should be invoked I think the government would have found the support it needed. I will return to this subject in a moment.
First I should like to examine the real reason the federal government so badly wants the referenda clause inserted in the constitution. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is nothing but a means for this government to turn this country into a wholly unitary state. The people of my constituency are alarmed at this prospect for they know this country cannot function as a unitary state. They are not the only ones who realize this fact. If I may, I should like to refer the House to a quotation from a statement by one of the elder statesmen of this place. He said:
-a unitary state simply will not work in Canada. Theoretically ... a unitary state enables a country to deal with problems more quickly, more simply as they arise. But if it means breaking up the country, what kind of efficiency is that?
I wonder if the Right Hon. Prime Minister remembers saying those words. If not, Hansard of April 25, 1969, will serve to refresh his memory. Now the Prime Minister proposes to patriate the constitution unilaterally and he proposes to insert a clause enabling him to bypass the provincial govern-
Official Secrets Act
ments. By doing so, he sets a very dangerous precedent; we all know that once power is taken, it is seldom if ever given back.
I wonder whether the Prime Minister has changed his mind since he pointed out the dangers of a unitary state over ten years ago. Does he now believe that a unitary state is not as dangerous as it was a decade ago? If he does believe this, then I and the people of Peace River must protest. By adopting this "deadlock-breaking mechanism", as the Prime Minister likes to refer to his section 42 of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau act, he is in fact bypassing the people's chosen regional representatives, and therefore he is setting up the initial step towards turning this country into a truly unitary state.
Once again I would refer the House to a statement the Prime Minister made about four years ago. On April 9, 1976, he told the nation, and again I quote:
I have raised the possibility that Parliament might seek to have patriation accomplished without provincial consent if that consent seems impossible to achieve. Clearly it would be a last resort and clearly it should not be on the basis that could affect the distribution of powers or the position of the provinces. I must not provide any means by which Parliament could act unilaterally in future in any area where it cannot do so today since that would erode the essence of our federal system.
Yet is that not what he is doing right now? Is not section 42 of the constitutional resolution a means by which Parliament could act unilaterally in an area where it cannot do so today? And therefore would that not erode, as the Prime Minister himself indicated, the essence of our federal system? And, again according to the Prime Minister, would that not break up the country?
In looking to the future I can envisage a situation that would be considered a crisis, just as the events of October, 1970, were considered a crisis. I can envisage the federal government wanting to take advantage of the situation for political purposes, as it did in 1970.
The government would make a mountain out of a molehill, even though it would be a rather large molehill, just as it did in 1970 when the Hon. Jean Marchand stood up in the House and told the entire nation that there were over 3,000 terrorists in and around Montreal about to blow up the city and planning the overthrow of the national government. The truth of the matter, as has been shown in the recently-leaked Quebec government study, is that Marchand's statements were nothing more than a fabrication. I can see the government attempting some time in the future to whip the country into a frenzied panic in order that it may do what it wants, and in the way that it wants. The country will be goaded into believing that only the government can save it, just as happened in 1970. And the Official Secrets Act will be used to prevent any honest bureaucrat from coming forward with the truth for fear of being prosecuted.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Peace country are worried. They do not wish to see the country destroyed. They do not wish to see the Government of Canada, in the name of a crisis, move unilaterally into areas which are not its to move in.
They do not wish the government to have police state powers as listed in the War Measures Act or in the Official Secrets

October 17, 1980
Official Secrets Act
Act. They do not wish any of these things that could be brought about through a referendum.
But it seems the federal government will not listen. Its members are content with their formula. They care not that it will bring about a tyranny of the majority, because they know that it will open the door for them to turn Canada into a unitary state. But they are naive in thinking that they will be successful. The government will destroy the nation if it persists in its attempts, and this is what the people of my constituency fear more than anything.
The Prime Minister had the country sucked in in 1970, and he thinks he can suck the country in again in 1980. Well, he does not have me fooled, he does not have the people of the Peace River riding fooled and I am confident he does not have the people of Canada fooled.
The people of Canada want honest government. They do not want the Official Secrets Act as it now stands. They do not want one man or one party acting alone to change the constitution. They do not want any more propaganda on their television screens.
I think the time has come for this government to own up to the people. It is still not too late. It can still change its course; it can start right now by giving immediate approval to this motion. Let hon. members opposite reach into their consciences so that perhaps they may see the light, although it appears that too many years in power have forever dimmed the light of truth for the governing party of this country.
I would like to close by once again paying tribute to one of the greatest parliamentarians who has ever stood in this chamber. I think that Jed Baldwin is very happy that he is not here any more, that he does not have to put up with this government and its evil ways. But if he were here today, I know what it is he would tell this government. He would look hon. members opposite straight in the eye, and deliver his favourite quote from Scripture: "The truth shall set you free". In honour of this great man, I shall humbly repeat him: "The truth shall set you free".


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, the need to review the Official Secrets Act must be obvious to everyone. It is certainly obvious to the members of the New Democratic Party, and we urge the government to give its full support to the motion as do we in the New Democratic Party.


Ron Irwin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) for his remarks in his maiden speech. It is my privilege today to address a few remarks to his motion, and I would like to repeat the motion because it is important.
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be empowered to study the contents of the Official Secrets Act and to recommend any changes that the committee deems necessary, in order that the act would be limited in its application to enemy espionage and offences to national security.
A great deal of discussion has evolved around the Official Secrets Act, and just about everyone agrees there should be
major amendments and a major redefinition. As most hon. members are aware, there is a great similarity between our act and the English act, as they were both fostered in the same country. In 1972 the Franks report, which is an English report dealing with the English act, said the following in the opening statement:
The Official Secrets Acts have been in existence in this country for only eighty years.
The Franks report sets out a fundamental evolution that we tend to forget. It states that, and I quote:
-economic manoeuvres (of a country) have come to be considered no less vital to the basis of the life of the community than the movement of its troops.
We are talking economic war nowadays as well as atomic war and war by machines.
The Franks report also points out a second very important evolution with regard to the massive information we have now accumulated. There is a feeling that the government should safeguard the confidences of its citizens almost as strictly as it guards information of use to an enemy. It is staggering to the bureaucracies just how much information we do have about individuals, and there is an onus on us to use that information tactfully and for the purposes intended and not to make headlines for The Toronto Sun.
The Franks report sets out one of the more definitive sections which I have read on general issues. It states:
We have so far indicated these wider issues in the most general terms. But they can be more simply expressed. Even a democratic government requires a measure of secrecy for some of its functions, as a means whereby it can better carry out its duties on behalf of the people. Among the primary tasks of government are the defence of the nation from external threats, the maintenance of relations with the rest of the world and the preservation of law and order. Defence against external attack would be severely prejudiced if potential enemies had access, directly or indirectly, to the details of our plans and weapons. It would be impossible to negotiate with other countries if all discussion, however delicate, was conducted completely in the open. Some measures for the prevention or detection of crime would be ineffective if they were known to criminals. Some of the internal processes of government should be conducted in confidence if they are to result in effective policies.
Against this need for security, the report then goes on, at page 12, to give the other side of the coin, the need of citizens for openness by governments, when it states:
A government which pursues secret aims, or which operates in greater secrecy than the effective conduct of its proper functions requires, or which turns information services into propaganda agencies, will lose the trust of the people.
That is so true.
It will be countered by ill-formed and destructive criticism.
That is also true.
Its critics will try to break down all barriers erected to preserve secrecy, and they will disclose all that they can-
We have seen that happen.
-by whatever means, discover.
We have seen that happen.
As a result, matters will be revealed when they ought to remain secret in the interests of the nation.
October 17, 1980

These two statements, so simply put in the classical English method, reek with the sound of truth and common sense. A balance must be struck by the government and guidelines must be drafted that are utilitarian and understandable.
There is a need for security in certain matters, but there is a greater need for our civil servants to deal effectively with the public, knowing the limits of their authority and without fear of repercussion, such as losing their jobs. We do not need civil servants who say nothing because they have been burnt too many times, nor civil servants who say too much because they do not know any better or out of a sense of pure vindictiveness.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has set certain guidelines. Quite frankly, 1 understand four of them and I have difficulty with the fifth. In the first four he wants public servants to communicate with the public, members of Parliament and the news media. The guidelines encourage frankness. There is an admonition not to discuss advice or recommendations tendered to ministers or to speculate about policy deliberations or future policy decisions. These are contained in the first four sections. It is the fifth section which ties in with what the hon. member was saying, because the guideline states:
These guidelines cannot and do not authorize the disclosure of information which is specifically prohibited by law.
The problem is that we do not know what is specifically prohibited by law.
As Sir Lionel Heald, former attorney general of England said, in the extreme case, the official act would:
-make it a crime, without any possibility of defence, to report the number of cups of tea consumed per week in a government department.
Sir Lionel was probably overstating the case, but he was not overstating the problem. Most of the disclosures are handled either as disciplinary matters or merely as a learning experience where a subordinate is talked to by his superior. This is a normal administrative procedure designed to deal with unintentional disclosure, or disclosure resulting from lack of experience. This policy will continue.
The problem with which we are dealing today is not the same. The problem today is: when does disclosure become a criminal offence.
The Official Secrets Act can be divided into two sections, the espionage section and the unintentional leakage section. The recent Peter Treu and Toronto Sun cases are examples of leakage. The espionage cases are self-evident and I will return to them in a minute.
There is a great deal of thought being given to dividing these two types of offences and putting them in different statutes; to put the espionage section in the Criminal Code and the leakage section in what could be termed a legal statute, and then repealing the act. This is probably what we should do, although I cannot speak for the government.
There is a line of thought-and if you have done Crown attorney work or been a Crown attorney, it is quite cogent- which says keep them together. We should consider this, because in many cases when there is a moral certainty that a person is guilty of espionage, he cannot be convicted, for one
Official Secrets Act
reason or another. In many cases, the witnesses refuse to testify and then, even though the process may start at that level, it winds up as a conviction for leakage. Notwithstanding this, I think that on the whole the weight of opinion leans toward dividing up the offences, which is what I think is the intention of the hon. member in his motion.
I think the problem is much broader than this, and that is why I would not recommend endorsing the motion. The Official Secrets Act was passed in 1939, and prior to that time we were governed by the 1911 English legislation applying to our country. Several minor changes were made in 1950, 1967, 1970 and 1973. Half of the Canadian prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act arose as a result of the defection of Igor Gouzenko in 1946 when he was trying to set up a spy network in Canada. Since that time there have been only four prosecutions: Against Biernacki in 1961, Featherston in 1967, Treu in 1978, and recently The Toronto Sun, its publisher and editor. Biernacki was a landed immigrant from Poland who was doing some advance work in preparation for setting up a spy ring in Canada. He was discharged at the preliminary hearing because, in the words of the then Judge Shorteno, the information was "insignificant, worthless public information".
To some, this decision might indicate that our civil liberties are well protected. To others, it might leave the impression that we need more internal security, more manpower or more teeth in our legislation.
The Featherston case was clearcut. Featherston was convicted for attempting to pass secret marine charts to the Soviets showing positions of shipwrecks off the east coast. I gather-I am no expert on submarines and my lack of knowledge of maritime law is so significant that it is worthy of respect-that submarines can use these shipwrecks to remain undetected by radar. Featherston was convicted and he received a sentence of two and a half years.
Treu, as you know, Mr. Speaker, was ultimately acquitted and The Toronto Sun, which published a "top secret" document outlining suspected Russian activity in Canada, was also acquitted when Judge Carl Waisberg said that "the document was no longer, if ever, secret".
Let me say as an aside that the Treu case was conducted in camera. In that case the lawyer made no objection so I do not know whether he preferred it or whether he just felt he could do nothing about it. But that should be something we should consider: should there be the absolute right, except in certain specific circumstances where the onus lies on the Crown, for the accused to have an open trial?
Under a section of the act-I do not know the exact number of the section but I think it is section 50-the Crown may proceed either by indictment or summarily. The option is the Crown's, the penalties are so diverse and the act gives such great powers to the Crown that we should look seriously at those two sections and, as has been recommended by several leading authorities, we should get rid of one, perhaps the summary section, to go with the indictment and to grade our penalties. The Dollard commission, I think, suggested life in one circumstance and six years in another.
3810

October 17, 1980
Official Secrets Act
There is no right to a jury, and this is probably the only really serious offence where there is no right to a jury. I certainly feel this right should be given. This is something that should be considered. It could be solved easily by following the McDonald commission and making the jury subject to a quasi-official secrets act, and if they speak of the evidence at any time thereafter, they could be convicted of a crime. In that way, the accused would have the right to a jury and the secrets could be protected.
A very good book has been written by M. L. Friedland of the faculty of law of the university of Toronto and was commissioned for the McDonald commission. It is called "National Security: The Legal Dimensions." In that book, Mr. Friedland dealt with many presumptions. Naturally I have not read every statute, but I have never seen so many presumptions against an accused in such a short document as the Official Secrets Act. I have always disliked evidentiary presumptions. I say that because of my experience as a former police commissioner, a one-time prosecutor and a bureaucrat who had to regulate for a short period of time. Presumptions are short cuts that lead to laziness and a mistrust of the judicial system, but I have never seen them make the system better. As a matter of fact, the more the presumptions the better chance the accused, even if acquitted, will walk away from the courtroom with the sense that justice was not done. Mr. Friedland dealt fairly with the presumptions. Fie showed how presumptions are used to foster further presumptions. If "A" occurs there is a presumption that "B" occurs; because "B" is presumed then "C" is presumed. It goes beyond what one would normally expect to find in presumption sections. This should be looked at by the committee. I doubt some of these sections would even stand up if the constitutional act passed. [DOT]
Page 54 of Mr. Friedland's book deals with the penalties for the offence of leakage, a maximum of 14 years being much too high. Even though the courts would never impose it, they assume when Parliament assigns so many years to an offence that it is an indication of our disposition toward the crime. 1 do not think anyone here intends that 14 years should be the maximum penalty for leakage. I found page 57 of this book interesting. I was a regulator for the CRTC for three years, and I was a part-time commissioner. I have a fair knowledge of the way the media works. There is no such thing as a free media because many things govern what it does, such as the publishers, the size of the media or the advertisers. But there is a growing concern in the country that the media feels it has the right to publish anything it gets its hands on by whatever means. This is not the attitude of Mr. Friedland, nor is it the attitude of the McDonald commission. Recommendation 14 reads as follows:
The communication of government information relating to security and intelligence or the administration of criminal justice by a person who receives such information, even though such information is unsolicited, he an offence.
I think that view should be supported and it is something at which the committee should be looking. Also Mr. Friedland dealt with designation by the minister: should the minister have the right to designate something top secret or should the court decide? It is important that the courts decide because almost everything accessible to bureaucrats is marked "confidential" or words to that effect. It is a system that is too loose to be incorporated in what we traditionally regard as the criminal law.
The final report of the McDonald commission dated October 9, 1979, was very refreshing. It pulled no punches, it was clear and concise, readable and understandable. One does not have to be a lawyer to understand it perfectly, whether one agrees with all of it, some of it or none of it. I agree with the intent of the motion of the hon. member, but there is a weakness in it. It is the strict limitation of the motion which is evident even upon a cursory review of the first report of the McDonald commission. I will run through a few of the sections. Recommendation 1 suggests a single enactment of offences relating to espionage. Recommendation 2 suggests that espionage offences apply only to communications directed to a foreign power. Recommendation 5 sets out the definition of espionage. It is a good definition, but in itself it should be the subject of great debate because the report of the McDonald commission recommends that an offence occurs:
-if such persons know that the foreign power will or might use some information for a purpose prejudicial to the security of Canada or acts with reckless disregard of the consequences of their actions to the security of Canada.
Is that standard too narrow? Should it be broader than that or should we just say, "If it is a reckless disregard you will be convicted; if it is not, even though it might be negligence, you will not be convicted."? Recommendation 6 would repeal the provisions of the act relating to a prohibited place, which has not been an issue here but has been an issue on nuclear rearmament in England. Recommendation 7 deals with harbouring and suggests that a person accused of harbouring should only be convicted if he or she has knowledge of the commission or the anticipated commission of an espionage offence. It is a narrower definition than the old one and fairer to the person who might be caught in the situation of meeting up with someone who has been involved in espionage. Recommendation 8 is a suggestion for a new offence, the possession of espionage instruments. It is similar to the possession of burglar tools.
There are several recommendations dealing with leakage which merit careful scrutiny by the standing committee. Recommendation 19 suggests the removal of the summary conviction provisions. Recommendations 20 and 21 deal with juries. Recommendation 22 suggests that the espionage section be increased to life imprisonment in one case and to six years in the other, whereas in recommendation 23, the McDonald commission recommended that the penalty be reduced from 14 years to six years.
October 17, 1980

38! 1


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary but his allotted time has expired.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to speak for a few moments on this motion. I congratulate the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) for continuing the excellent work of his predecessor, the Hon. Jed Baldwin, who started the fight many years ago for the freedom of information. Mr. Baldwin is a very honourable gentleman who is well respected by members on all sides of the House.
I should like to deal further with the position of the Conservative party in supporting this motion and our position regarding freedom of information. We have a policy paper respecting freedom of information. We made it perfectly clear that the Conservative party approved the freedom of information principle in the 1972, 1974 and 1979 elections. Mr. Baldwin conducted a cross-Canada newspaper campaign to elicit public support for freedom of information legislation and received about 4,000 letters of support from individual Canadians; this support is probably much larger today. A couple of years ago an all-party committee on freedom of information in its report urged:
-all members of Parliament, on a non-partisan basis, to join the committee and press for strong freedom of information legislation in the present session of Parliament.
Also the committee made the following recommendations:
That freedom of information legislation be enacted in the present session of Parliament.
That the act provide for judicial review by a panel of federal court judges.
That the exemptions for releasing documents be specifically and narrowly drafted.
That the freedom of information bills presented by the government be subject to a free vote.
Our policy paper under the section entitled: "Official Secrets Act" reads as follows:
A Progressive Conservative government will review the procedures used in the classification of government documents to ensure that non-sensitive material is not classified and its release and discussion thereby prevented.
In the last Conservative government the Conservative House leader, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), released a statement on freedom of information legislation. He stated:
Instead of everything in the government's possession being secret unless decided otherwise, everything will now be public unless declared secret under precise terms defined by Parliament.
It is unfortunate that we cannot get the present government to take that position. One wonders what it is trying to hide all the time. I think this comes from having been in office too long. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) also stated that it was the intention to enable taxpayers to find out just what their government is up to and just how their money is being spent. I think Canadian taxpayers certainly have a right to know this. In a statement made on October 24, 1979, he said legal opinions generated within the government should be released. We had an example today, when we were discussing the constitution, of the government refusing to give us any information they have on legal opinions whether it is legal or not to bring the constitution back in the way they are
Official Secrets Act
proposing. We thought we were making some headway when the present Secretary of State (Mr. Fox), in July of this year, introduced a bill to lift the curtain of secrecy. That hope was short-lived, because a secret document leaked in August-it seems the majority of our documents are leaked to us, which is a ridiculous way for the official opposition and the other opposition parties to be able to ask proper questions-stated the information bill had a very low priority with the present government. The parliamentary secretary tells us how they support a bill and what a wonderful bill it is, congratulating the hon. member on his Fine efforts. Then they talk it out right until five o'clock. I think that is ridiculous. This would be an excellent bill to refer to a committee for discussion; the committee could carry on with its work while the House carries on here with its work. Maybe we will find a parliamentary secretary today on the Liberal side with some intestinal fortitude who will refuse to read out the civil-servant-prepared document he was given to enable him to talk this out until five o'clock. Let us have a little surprise from the other side of the House on this Friday afternoon.


Mr. Louis R. Desmarais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) this afternoon. I followed his remarks on his motion very closely. The motion reads as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be empowered to study the contents of the Official Secrets Acts and to recommend any changes that the committee deems necessary, in order that the Act would be limited in its application to enemy espionage and offences to national security.
I was about to tell the hon. member he was continuing the tradition espoused by his predecessor from Peace River and would be a vigorous spokesman for open government. However, he did not say very much about his motion. He used most of his time to enter the constitutional debate. I might say to the hon. member that his predecessor would not have done that.
There are two broad themes I wish to develop in my remarks. I think the last speaker will be pleased to hear that like the hon. member on his motion I believe there is good reason to reform the Official Secrets Act. However, 1 cannot accept his motion at this time. The wording of the motion is quite wrong. It prejudges the work of the standing committee. I also believe this is not a suitable time to refer the Official Secrets Act to a standing committee of the House.
Before elaborating on my areas of agreement and disagreement with the hon. member I will refer briefly to some of the background to the current situation. Canada's Official Secrets Act is the outgrowth of a United Kingdom statute and in many important respects it continues to parallel the legislation on the statute books at Westminster. The first U.K. law was passed in 1889 due to continuing leaks of government information. It was aimed at preventing unauthorized disclosure of government information, whether for espionage or for other reasons. The first Canadian Official Secrets Act was passed in 1890 and its provisions were transferred to the Criminal Code

October 17, 1980
Official Secrets Act
when it was enacted in 1892. The official secrets provisions in the Criminal Code were amended in 1911 in conjunction with U.K. amendments introduced the same year. The official secrets provisions remained in the Code until 1939, when Parliament passed a separate statute, which was largely carryforward of the Criminal Code provisions.
The Official Secrets Act deals with two broad areas of concern. The first is a series of offences related to espionage. These offences are found in section three of the act, with a few exceptions. The second area is authorized disclosure, loosely described as leakage, and a number of related offences which are found in section four. Since 1939 there have been 21 prosecutions for breaches of our Official Secrets Act, or conspiracy to breach the act. Nine of them resulted in convictions. Three prosecutions were based on section four-leakage-alone, and section four was used as an additional count in another. All the other prosecutions were based on section three-espionage. The great majority of prosecutions arose as a result of the 1946 defection of Igor Gouzenko, a Soviet embassy employee in Ottawa. Gouzenko told a tale of intrigue about Soviet spy operations in Canada. Since the Gouzenko incident there have been only four prosecutions, two for espionage and two for leakage. Only one of these prosecutions, for espionage, resulted in a conviction.
1 do not intend to discuss in detail today the espionage provisions of the Official Secrets Act. My reasons for not doing so are related to my reasons for opposing this motion. For over three years a commission of inquiry-the McDonald commission-has been examining the policies and practices which now apply to the protection of the security of Canada. Matters of security, of course, involve dangers from abroad, including espionage, as well as internal threats to our democratic institutions. But we have yet to receive a comprehensive report from the commission of inquiry on matters of security policy. Until we have that report it would be unwise for Parliament to prejudge the most appropriate way for us to deal with official secrets legislation. Therefore I suggest we wait until we have the main report in our hands. Then we can decide how best to tackle the crucial issues it will raise.
Before discussing the leakage issue, however, let me touch briefly on one particular aspect of the espionage provisions- their ambiguity. This aspect can be discussed without having the full McDonald commission report on security matters. The troubling issue here is that it is not clear whether the type of information which is covered by espionage provisions must be "secret official" information or whether it need not be "secret" and "official". On this point, Canadian jurisprudence favours a restrictive approach, that is, secret official information must be communicated for there to be an offence.
The jurisprudence can be traced to a decision in 1949 in a case before the Quebec Court of Appeal. All decisions since then have reflected the restrictive approach. The U.K. jurisprudence supports the unrestrictive approach; that is, all information is covered by the espionage offence and not just secret
official information. While research conducted for the McDonald commission tends to support the U.K. jurisprudence, the main point that emerges is that there is confusion relating to the scope of our current espionage law. Whatever else we do, therefore, we shall have to clarify the scope of the legislation that deals with espionage.
Leakage is the second matter dealt with in the Official Secrets Act. In my view, there is little doubt that there are shortcomings in the current statutory provisions. This has been shown quite conclusively in the report of the McKenzie Royal Commission on Security, the report of the 1972 Franks committee in the U.K., and the first report of the McDonald Commission, made available late last year.
Let me state some of the main concerns regarding the leakage provisions. First, it is probably not appropriate that the offence of unauthorized disclosure should be dealt with in the same statute as the far more serious offence of espionage. People tend to think of the Official Secrets Act as the statute under which spies are prosecuted. Therefore, any person charged under the Official Secrets Act may, to some extent, be tainted by the perception that he has, however indirectly, been associated with activities that involve disloyalty to Canada.
Second, the leakage provisions are ambiguous in a variety of respects. There is controversy about whether they cover all government information or only secret official information; that is, the same uncertainty that exists in relation to the scope of the espionage provisions applies also in respect of leakage.
There is also ambiguity concerning the procedures for authorizing disclosure. It is apparent that much government information is disclosed without the express approval of cabinet, and that these disclosures are not viewed as offences. The reason they are not considered offences can be traced to the doctrine of "implied authorization"-a doctrine which rests heavily on the view that public servants are free, indeed required, to communicate information where such communication can be reasonably seen as part of their responsibilities. While there is much common sense in this view, the doctrine is not expressly acknowledged in the current statute. Consequently, we cannot be certain that the Canadian courts would accept it as an unwritten part of the law.
A further area of ambiguity in the current leakage provisions relates to uncertainty about whether mens rea-that is, knowledge of guilt-must be present for there to be an offence. This too helps to create doubts regarding the scope of offences found in section 4.
Third, there are grounds to believe that the act may be too far-reaching. Under its provisions, a person can be convicted for unauthorized disclosure, and thus imprisoned, without any requirement that the Crown prove damage to important Canadian interests. I hope that the offence can be redefined and made to focus on acts that involve real injury.
There is one further serious shortcoming in the current provisions of the Official Secrets Act. For reasons that are partly related to the current ambiguities in the act, it is
October 17, 1980

difficult for the government to prosecute those who are thought to be guilty of an offence under its provisions, and it is even more difficult to secure a conviction. Thus, there is the paradox of a statute which appears to some to be too far-reaching in its scope, but which is nonetheless of limited value in protecting the security of Canada.
Accordingly, at the appropriate time, it will be important for Parliament to consider measures to reform the Official Secrets Act. At that time, it will be important to find the right balance between the need to promote open government, and related values like effective Parliamentary opposition and freedom of speech and of the press, on the one hand, and the obvious necessity of protecting specific categories of government information against unauthorized disclosure, on the other.
The necessity to protect certain categories of information brings me to my second objection to the motion before us today. That motion prejudges the conclusions and recommendations of the studies that the standing committee is asked to undertake. The motion presumes that reform of the Official Secrets Act would afford no protection to government information except in the context of espionage and security. However, there are other cogent reasons to safeguard information; and while it may be that some of that protection need not be afforded through the Official Secrets Act, I would be very surprised if the only categories of information that require protection were those set out in the motion. In this respect, I would draw attention to the fact that governments the world over, including those of other western democracies, recognize the necessity of affording such protection.
What categories of information do governments have to protect against disclosure? Government information is generally protected where: first, the disclosure may be expected to injure the national interest; second, the information relates to the private affairs of individuals or businesses, and third, the disclosure would contribute to a weakening in the effective operation of government. These reasons, of course, lie behind the exemption provisions in the Access to Information portion of Bill C-43, and similar exemptions in the freedom of information legislation in other jurisdictions.
The first two reasons are straightforward. For example, it is generally accepted that governments should not be required to disclose information that would be injurious to the defence of
Official Secrets Act
Canada or that would jeopardize the investigation or prevention of subversive activities. It is similarly agreed that information received in confidence from an individual or business should generally be protected. Although the practical application of these reasons can raise difficulties in particular cases, there is likely a consensus that the reasons themselves provide a legitimate basis for refusing to disclose information.
The third reason-the effective operation of government-is sometimes ignored. Let me say a few words about this. At the centre of our decision-making processes is, of course, the cabinet. Under the Canadian constitutional system, the cabinet is collectively responsible to Parliament for government policy. While individual ministers may argue against particular cabinet decisions, and indeed accept them with misgivings, those ministers are nonetheless a part of the team that is responsible for what has been decided; they must acquiesce in the decisions or, if they cannot do so, they must resign.
If the deliberations of cabinet were public, this would derogate from the doctrine of cabinet responsibility. It would then be unclear if the cabinet as a whole, or just the ministers who concurred in a decision, were responsible for it. Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that if the deliberations of cabinet were made public, including recommendations and advice that are a part of those deliberations, this would alter constitutional relationships between the principal institutions of our political system in an absolutely fundamental way.
Of course, it may be that certain categories of information can be protected without resort to the Official Secrets Act- that we should reserve the criminal sanction for only the most serious breaches. This will require careful consideration. But where a leak of information can cause injury to the defence or security of Canada, or jeopardize lives, or impede criminal investigations, or otherwise cause damage on a large scale, the government surely has an obligation to its citizens to protect such information by all reasonable means. It would be remiss if it failed to safeguard such information.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, October 20, 1980