1980-10-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity under Standing Order 43. Whereas the use of producer cars is the only alternative available to farmers from being locked into the commercial elevator system; whereas a recent interpretation of "producer", as it appears in the act, prohibits two or more producers from combining their grain or rape to fill a producer car, which takes away the right from smaller producers; and whereas the Canada Grain Act has recognized this right of producers for many years, therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That this Flouse request the Minister of Agriculture to bring in forthwith an amendment to the said section of the Canada Grain Act or pass a regulation stipulating that "producer" means more than one farmer, which has been the interpretation throughout the years until recently.


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.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, the callous answer of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) to 12,000 unemployed workers demonstrating at Queen's Park last Saturday was that his ministry would introduce a new national manpower strategy to take full effect in 1990. As this is an urgent and pressing matter, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration start burning the midnight oil, if he can negotiate for its supply, in order that his secret employment
strategy might be included in the government's forthcoming budget on October 28. Perhaps this would demonstrate that the minister appreciates the need for job creation now in 1980, not ten years hence in 1990.


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.


NUCLEAR TESTING
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the cloud of radioactive fall-out from Chinese nuclear testing is now reaching Ontario and is, therefore, threatening to become a matter of national concern, and whereas no matter where it is, such fall-out is to be deplored as a further hazard to the human and non-human environment and as another sign of the world's self-destructive commitment to the nuclear arms race, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant):
That the Canadian government be instructed by this House to protest the Chinese actions and to call on the Chinese government to stop all nuclear testing.


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.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia):: Madam Speaker, I would like to move a motion under Standing Order 43. Given the fact that parliamentarians of any country and of whatever political stripe are welcome as guests in Canada, given the fact that Canada's hospitality in this regard is seldom abused, given the fact that British labour MP, Bruce George, is now telling us that unless certain action is taken by the Canadian Parliament, he and some of his colleagues in England will treat patriation as a sticky wicket, and given the fact that Canadian par-

October 20, 1980
liamentarians are quite capable of managing Canadian affairs-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: -and, unlike Mr. George, we have abandoned the colonial mentality, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson):
That a message be sent to this British MP telling him that we do not wish to "let George do it" and that if he continues in his present vein he be asked to repatriate himself.


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


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: In view of the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) told this House last Friday that nobody on the government side could possibly have said no to my motion, thereby indicating that she supported it and gave me every reason to expect unanimous consent for my motion, therefore, Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I again move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the government give consideration to eliminating the eat-out portion of the cost of food for indexing purposes for old age pensioners, or, secondly, tying pensions to the poverty level.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am not in a position to say whether this is exactly the same motion but I will put it again to the House. The motion, for presentation, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Collenette said no.


THE STEEL COMPANY OF CANADA
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that since June of this year approximately one-third of the common shares of The Steel Company of Canada have been traded and in the last week more than
250,000	shares have been traded in one day, I move, seconded
by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the government instruct that an inquiry be conducted to determine the reasons for the most recent, significant and unusual trading of The Steel Company of Canada shares and that particular attention be paid to the question whether or not this action in the marketplace reflects a possible takeover of The Steel Company of Canada by non-Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR DISPUTES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the strike between the Canadian Aluminum Smelter and Allied Workers Union and Giant Yellowknife Mines Ltd. is now in its fourth month, thereby causing considerable hardships to both sides of the dispute as well as adversely affecting the economy of the Northwest Territories, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the Minister of Labour make real efforts to resolve this unfortunate industrial dispute and, more important, introduce amendments to the Canada Labour Code to enable the territorial legislature to enact its own labour legislation so that disputes not of national scope can be handled at the territorial level rather than being under the jurisdiction of the federal government, which has neither the time nor the inclination to deal with these important yet local issues.


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.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of recent and continuing reports from recognized pension experts that the Canada Pension Plan will be bankrupt in less than 20 years unless steps are now taken to increase contributions and revise the plan, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie):
That the House direct the government to create a special committee to review pension policy in general and the Canada Pension Plan in particular, to ensure that today's contributors will not be tomorrow's short-changed pensioners.
October 20, 1980


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.


HIGHWAYS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the operation of Memorial University of Newfoundland in St. John's has been effectively closed down as of Friday last, after thousands of university students gathered to protest unsafe pedestrian conditions on the university campus; in view of the fact that some nine students have been hit by vehicles since September, several of whom have been seriously injured and one of whom has been killed, and in view of the fact that Memorial University's student union has exhausted every other reasonable measure to have this hazardous condition corrected, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker):
That this Floiise support the 8,000 students at Memorial University of Newfoundland who have gathered in peaceful and responsible protest and are requesting that the university, the city and the provincial government act now to build an overpass or underpass across the four-lane highway which students are presently forced to cross at great risk to their personal health and lives.


Madam Speaker:: 1 have some doubt as to the acceptability of this motion. It seems to be a matter of provincial jurisdiction and therefore I would ask the hon. member to send his motion to the Chair so that we can see whether it is acceptable and put it on another day if we find that it is.


CHARGES OF VIOLATIONS MADE BY NATIVE COUNCIL OF CANADA-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, the Native Council of Canada has started action before an international tribunal in Amsterdam charging the Canadian government with gross violations of international human and civil rights conventions. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House requests the government to respond to the very serious charges of human rights violations filed with the Russell Tribunal in Amsterdam by the Native Council of Canada and that we object strenuously to the methods of constitutional change now before Parliament, particularly those which deal with the entrenchment of a charter of rights, until such time as the three recognized native organizations, including the Native Council of Canada, have been fully consulted with regard to such changes which may directly affect Indian and other native rights.
Oral Questions


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.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On October 10 the Minister of Finance said in this House that the Liberal platform promises on the economy "will be implemented in the budget".
On January 12 of last year the Prime Minister made a speech to the Liberal Campaign College at Toronto. There were five themes to the economic program. The Prime Minister said, and I quote him exactly, "We will hold the line on government expenditure growth to under the rate of GNP".
The Minister of Finance has admitted that spending is up this year 13.7 per cent. We know that for the first six months of this year the GNP is down, and it will be negative this year, so that if the Prime Minister is to carry out his promise, government spending should be less than last year. We know that for the first five months of the year government spending is up 17 per cent.
Would the Prime Minister tell the House how he is going to carry out this already broken promise or whether he is going to direct the Minister of Finance to see that this solemn promise he made in Toronto on January 12 is met this year?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance did indicate that he would explain in his budget how he intends to carry on his economic management. The hon. member should know that this is a year of adjustment, having had to reconsider the estimates voted down by Parliament and which the hon. member himself had drawn up. If he can be patient for a few days he will learn how the Minister of Finance will manage our economy in the next years.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. I know he is aging; he is now 61, but perhaps he will answer.
I remind the Prime Minister that in his speech in Toronto he said this: "Liberals will do what we say we will do". The Prime Minister said in that same speech-and this is one of his

October 20, 1980
Oral Questions
themes-and I quote: "This party will not simply stand by and let the recession come. We will fight it and overcome it".
We have had six months of recession. Real growth was down 2.5 per cent in the first quarter and 4.3 per cent in the second quarter. The Prime Minister has stood by for eight months and let the recession go forward. When is he going to start the fight? His Minister of Finance says he cannot stimulate the economy in his coming budget. Will the Prime Minister instruct the Minister of Finance, if he is to stimulate the economy and carry out the Prime Minister's pledge, the good old fight, not to let any recession start in this country?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, as 1 indicated a moment ago, if the hon. member is patient, he will learn the detailed strategy of the government in the budget to be tabled in a few days.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, we have been patient for eight months. My final supplementary is addressed to the Prime Minister. Perhaps the Prime Minister will amend the constitution and fight the recession that way. Perhaps he will make a constitutional amendment to outlaw or stop recessions in their tracks.
In his same speech the Prime Minister said, and I quote: "We must endorse the right of every Canadian to have a job". On September 20, 757,000 Candians were unemployed, 38,000 more than at the same time last year. The Prime Minister said, "We must guarantee the income security of our older citizens." Now the cost of living is is up 10.7 per cent, up 0.9 per cent in September due to food costs.
Is the Prime Minister going to have our senior citizens stop eating, or is he going to take some action? What action is the Prime Minister going to take with respect to more employment and guaranteeing income security for elderly citizens by battling inflation? Is he going to direct the Minister of Finance that he is not to de-index the income tax, which would harm senior citizens? Will he at least follow up-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Never mind putting the question on to the Minister of State (Finance)-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is unaware of the activities of the House, because one of the first bills which the House had to approve was indeed aimed at helping senior citizens meet our economic difficulties. I would like also to remind him that the Minister of Employment and Immigration has announced plans to help those who experience more difficulties to find employment in our society. I have also been told that recently falling employment rates are
encouraging indications of possible development in the employment sector.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, is for the Minister of State for Social Development, the minister who is a custodian of social development. Given the fact that over the weekend an internationally recognized actuary said, to a group in Vancouver, that by the year 2000, unless the government takes steps now, the Canada Pension Plan will be bankrupt, and given the fact that hundreds of thousands of Canadians look to this plan as their only means of income security in their old age, what assurances is the minister able to give the House, and through the House to the country, and what steps has the government taken, to ensure that the Canada Pension Plan is in fact actuarially sound and can deliver?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, we are not
playing musical chairs this afternoon. Let me say in response to the hon. member for St. John's East that when the Canada Pension Plan was set up, it was recognized that unless changes were made in contribution rates, by 1985 they would have to be renegotiated; otherwise we would have the scenario which has been developed over the weekend by the expert that was mentioned.
It is safe to say that the Department of National Health and Welfare and this government are committed to pension reform and it is one of the top priorities of the minister and her department. Since February of 1977 a special subcommittee has been reporting to the Minister of Finance which involves his deputy ministers and his finance counterparts in the provinces. The subcommittee has been meeting and discussing what kind of changes will take place over the next five years in the pension plan so that we can ensure for the people of this country a fiscally sound pension plan, particularly for our elderly.
In addition, we are convinced that some changes have to take place over the next five years, and we are well on top of this. We will begin with a conference in the spring of 1981 which will be held here in Ottawa to start the necessary reforms to our pension act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, unfortunately I cannot raise a point of order during the question period but I should like to have guidance from Your Honour. It seems to me that recently we passed legislation in the House setting up a Ministry of State for Social Development. Surely my question
October 20, 1980

should have been answered by the minister who has that statutory responsibility.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. A question has been asked. A minister may or may not answer a question. A parliamentary secretary may answer in his place. 1 fail to see a point of order. But if the hon. member has a supplementary question, I will give him the floor.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, 1 stand by your
admonition.


Mr. Chretien:: Madam Speaker-


James Aloysius McGrath: Go ahead, please.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, we are like the Phillies; we have a very good designated hitter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: They need all the designated hitters they can get. 1 should like to ask the minister responsible for social policy the following question. The report of the task force on retirement income systems in Canada was tabled in the House on April 21 of this year. The government has taken no action on the report. It identifies, for example, the plight of retired homemaking women in this country who represent a disproportionately high number of the poor of this nation, which 1 think is a disgrace. One of the recommendations of that report is that the homemaking spouse, who is generally a woman, should be included under the benefits of the Canada Pension Plan. Is it the intention of this government to honour that election commitment which it made and include women in the Canada Pension Plan?


Royce Herbert Frith: Madam Speaker, it is the intention of this government to implement all of the policy directives which were announced, I believe, in April of 1979 by the Prime Minister with respect to the reforms that are required in this country to give adequate protection to our elderly. I know that to a large extent my minister and her department are totally committed to a reform of the pension system which will address the inequalities which exist now for women in Canada.


INDUSTRY
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I have a question which I would like to direct to the Prime Minister. I will keep my eyes open to see who stands up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: Now we have that out of the way, I wonder if the Prime Minister shares the concerns expressed over the
Oral Questions
weekend by the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the application extraterritorially of American law in Canada as it has affected Canadian industry. Recognizing that, does he realize its detrimental effect on Canada's fishing industry, auto industry, steel industry and in particular recently on the Bombardier company that was required to set up a company in the United States in order to do business there? What does the Prime Minister propose to do in Canada, using the available resources and manpower, in order to build the Canadian economy on behalf of Canadians?


An hon. Member:: Put it in the constitution.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I have not seen the speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. According to the quotes of the hon. member, it seems to me he is stating government policy of wanting to be in control of our own domestic economic environment, and that is the government's line.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: That is the government's line. I have a supplementary question, if I may. Is the Prime Minister aware that in the last year there were 65,000 jobs lost in the province of Ontario; that on every single working day over the course of the last 12 months almost 1,000 people were laid off? Can the Prime Minister indicate what kind of permanent job-creation programs, based on the human and natural resources of Canada, we can expect to see from the government over the course of the next two or three years which might stabilize our economy, free us from the unnecessary influence of the United States and allow us to be masters in our own home economically?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not sure if at this time the hon. member wants me to review all Canadian government policies regarding foreign investments.


Ian Deans: Yes, please do.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If that is the case, I must submit to him that during question period is not the point at which it can be done. But I must remind him, as the member of the official opposition was reminded, that the budget will be brought down on October 30.


An hon. Member:: October 28.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On October 28.


John Carnell Crosbie: Your memory is going.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It would seem to me that this kind of preoccupation is not only one the hon. member would want to discuss in the budget debate, but likely is one the minister will be addressing himself since the problem of unemployment ranks very high in his preoccupations.

October 20, 1980
Oral Questions


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I understand from what the Minister of Finance said that unemployment does not rank very highly in his preoccupations.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Ian Deans: Recognizing that there are so many unemployed in Canada and that there are few new jobs being created, either by the government or by anyone else at this point in time, can the Prime Minister provide for the House information on a program to guarantee that people who in fact will be unemployed are given adequate notice, that plants planning to close down permanently or temporarily must justify those decisions before the public, and that there maybe some economic assistance for the people who are being laid off and abused by many in the private sector-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Ian Deans: They are being laid off one day, recalled the next day and laid off another day. Their futures are being played with and tampered with. What will we hear from the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is seemingly in ignorance of many of the laws and policies applied by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in matters such as these, notices of lay-offs and so on. He is unaware of the actions the government has taken in many, many instances; the one in Sudbury a couple of years ago comes to mind. But if the hon. member is talking about the government's macro-economic policies, it seems to me he cannot possibly understand macro-economics if he says that we are not concerned with unemployment. This sounds like the hon. member for St. John's West, who said earlier-


Ian Deans: You are not concerned.


John Carnell Crosbie: They are not. Read your platform.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They are both saying the same thing, distasteful as that is to both of them. They should know that presently the economy is being stimulated to the tune of a $14 billion deficit. If this is not showing a concern for creating jobs and encouraging growth, then 1 submit we should begin again the whole theory of macro-economics.


NUCLEAR TESTING
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. 1 am sure he knows a great many Canadians have been gravely disturbed to learn that a mass of radioactive debris emanating from a Chinese atmospheric nuclear test is now falling out over western Canada. I would like to ask the
minister what assurance he can give that this debris poses no threat or danger to Canadians; and, further, I ask what steps he has taken to communicate Canadian concerns to Chinese officials, knowing, of course, that China is not a party to the nuclear test ban treaty?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I am not yet able to give the House any assurance with respect to the possible effects of this cloud of radiation. We have not been able to assess what the result will be, and because it occurred after my most recent meeting with the Chinese ambassador I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss it with him. After we get some assessment of the consequences I shall certainly do so.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I trust the minister will understand the seriousness of this situation and not delay in making the proper moves, both to find out the gravity of the situation in western Canada and also to communicate our concerns directly and quickly to Chinese officials. I would like to ask him, so that we do not have a repetition of an event such as this, whether he would consider using the good offices of Arthur Menzies, until recently Canada's ambassador to China and now our ambassador on disarmament, so he can follow up with Chinese officials over this event?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I would certainly be prepared to consider that representation.


INQUIRY WHETHER PUBLIC ALERTED TO DANGERS ARISING FROM FALL-OUT
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: My related question is to the President of the Privy Council. In view of the world's inability to stop nuclear proliferation, thereby increasing the further probability of large scale atmospheric tests such as Pakistan and India have conducted, can the President of the Privy Council inform the House what provisions Emergency Planning Canada has or is contemplating to inform or protect the Canadian public with regard to the dangers which might arise from nuclear fall-out?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, my colleague is aware that we have recently adopted a policy concerning emergency planning measures. In the implementation of this new policy I must naturally ensure a degree of co-ordination between the provinces and the federal government regarding the actions to be taken in cases of emergency in order to help those who would need it. The case mentioned by the hon. member deserves serious consideration, i will enquire to find out the exact situation and try to report to him as soon as possible.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: With reference to the new Emergency Planning Canada program recently announced by the minister,
October 20, 1980

would he be willing to table the report leading up to that decision?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, if the member wishes to obtain a copy of the newly adopted policy, it will be a pleasure for me to provide him with one as it has already been made public.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and arises out of responses he made to the hon. member for Vegreville last week. I could hardly believe my ears; it seems the Liberals have not learned anything from the lesson the Tories received about the wholesale opposition to the privatization of Petro-Canada.
In view of the fact taxpayers have invested billions of dollars in Canadian National over the years, footed the bill year after year for their losses, and since the CNR finally paid a $41 million dividend to the taxpayers of Canada last year, is the minister telling us, in his response to the hon. member for Vegreville, that the government is seriously considering allowing the privatizing of the CNR?
I would also like to ask the minister why the taxpayers should not continue to receive dividends from the profits which are finally being made by Canadian National, instead of going to private investors? Will he categorically reject this nonsense of privatizing Canadian National?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I also read the press clipping on that subject and am still wondering how the author came to that conclusion. The other day I emphasized the fact that CN would be in need of substantial investments in the coming years for all kinds of worth-while purposes and that money will have to be found. I indicated one of the ways in which it could be done was by way of proper compensation for the transportation of grain in western Canada. Obviously there are other methods, such as loans and investments. But these are government decisions and there is no intention on our part to privatize CN.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If the minister would implement Mr. Justice Hall's recommendations regarding the Crow rate, the CNR would have nothing to complain about.


Mr. Lalonde:: And all the others, too.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Most of the others have been implemented. The minister should read it.
I would like to ask the minister if instead of considering this nonsense of privatization of a corporation which the taxpayers have paid for over and over again, would he suggest to his
Oral Questions
colleagues, to this House and to the country, adopting policies, similar attitudes and actions of industrialized nations all over the world and do exactly the opposite? Will the government move into the twentieth century by integrating Canadian National with Canadian Pacific to form a unified, publicly-owned utility, instead of taking it back to the nineteenth century of the railroad barons?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this idea is not a new one, it has been suggested a number of times. It is not government policy at this time.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that many persons with disabilities are presently suffering from discrimination and have voiced their desire to be protected in any new constitution, 1 would like to ask the Prime Minister if non-discrimination rights for persons with disabilities could be incorporated by amendment into the proposed constitution act of 1980?


An hon. Member:: And women?


An hon. Member:: And natives?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I hear, along with this constructive suggestion from the member for Kitchener, members of the official opposition saying we should also include other factors in this bill of rights, and they have suggested women and natives. I am very happy that at last we have the support of the Tory party for our action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am grateful to the member from Kitchener for having at last brought forth this honest support of our action in protecting the basic rights of Canadians. I am prepared to examine any amendments which can improve the status of the resolution before the House. In some cases I have indicated it would be useful to carry on the discussion so that in the second phase of negotiations, once we have a constitution in Canada, amendable in Canada, we could indeed improve in many ways the bill of rights, including the way suggested by the hon. member from Kitchener.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
[Stage Direction]
Q AND m-inquiry respecting extension to maritime

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and

October 20, 1980
Oral Questions
Resources I regret the Minister of Finance is not here because my question is based on an undertaking given by that minister at a port of Halifax dinner earlier in September that he would personally intervene, either by way of the budget or through other procedures, to ensure that the maritime provinces enjoyed the benefits of an extended natural gas pipeline. My question arises out of the reapplication by the Arctic pilot project for their program in the north to bring gas down to the south. In that application they suggested that only Gros Cacouna could be considered if the pipeline was not extended. Would the minister tell the House whether or not he is aware of any particular action taken by the Minister of Finance to ensure that Q and M is in fact extended to the maritime provinces?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, not only does the government intend to present its budget next Tuesday but also its energy policy program. I would therefore say to my hon. colleague that if he can show some patience for seven more days he will get an answer to this question on Tuesday night of next week.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I address my supplementary question to the same minister. Of course we are all patient and we want the line extended. What I would like from the minister is an assurance that the maritime provinces will not be done out of their potential to develop in this country a third petro-chemical industry based on the export market. Surely this matter is not part of the energy policy; it has more to do with trade policy and the treatment which this government will accord to the Atlantic provinces.
Will the maritime provinces and Newfoundland have an opportunity to develop that third petro-chemical industry in that part of Canada? And can the minister give the assurance that no action which the government is taking will deliberately deflect into Gros Cacouna the development of that very vital industry to the Atlantic region?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I should like to remind the hon. member that, throughout history, successive Liberal governments have always been in the forefront with regard to the economic development of the maritimes. As for the specific question of the hon. member, once again I must give him the same reply as to the preceding question.


HOUSING
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed either to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the minister in charge of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and it involves the CHIP program. The minister will know that this program provides bonuses to people who have houses built prior to 1961 up to the amount of $500 for insulating their homes. In view of the fact that houses built up to 1973, when the problems of OPEC developed, have almost the same insulation as houses built prior to 1961, will the minister extend the program to cover all homes built up to 1973?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I will certainly look into the representation made by the hon. member. Again, he will have to wait for the budget and the announcement of our policy next week for an answer.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, while the minister is looking into that matter, I notice that the advertising of the minister's department in connection with energy is to the effect that we have lots of energy with surpluses in gas, coal and electricity, but that there are shortages of oil. If the minister has a shortage of funds, would he consider an insulation program directed to people who must heat their homes with oil so that they will be given an opportunity and financial assistance to reduce the cost of oil for heating?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, again I will consider this question as a representation, and the hon. member will have an answer to his question in the announcement of government policy next week.


STATUTE LAW (MILITARY AND CIVILIAN WAR PENSIONS, COMPENSATION AND ALLOWANCES) AMENDMENT ACT, 1980 INQUIRY RESPECTING REDUCTION OF PHASING-IN PERIOD FOR VETERANS' WIDOWS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence, in his very important capacity as Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs. It relates to the landmark piece of legislation which was passed in this House of Commons on July 9 having to do with the pensions of veterans' widows and with other pieces of veterans' legislation. It was a good bill, but in view of the fact that as the bill stands, now as Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1980, many thousands of veterans'^widows are having to wait from one up to six and a half years before they will get the pensions to which they are now entitled, will the minister give
October 20, 1980

serious consideration to finding a way either of shortening that phasing-in period or doing away with it altogether?
[ Translation]


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to see that, like my predecessor the Hon. Daniel MacDonald, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is deeply concerned about the veterans welfare especially with regard to veterans' widows who, in fact, may have to wait a while before getting full pension, i should like to say to the hon. member that it is true that Bill C-40 which we passed was a very important bill for the veterans and I am happy to recognize that the party of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre supported us. However, our financial resources were limited at that time and we were unable to give maximum benefits as we would have liked.
I should like to mention to the hon. member that the Department of Veterans Affairs can have a closer look to see if perchance there are critical situations, and look at the cases of those who are in greatest need. At the present time, there is no backlog and we would be willing, if there are urgent cases, to examine them immediately. But 1 understand full well the intervention of the hon. member, Madam Speaker, and 1 am convinced that we shall endeavour, come the next budgetary revisions, to correct the type of weaknesses that still exist in Bill C-40.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the minister. In view of the fact that three weeks from tomorrow the nation will be honouring our veterans and, in particular, we will be honouring a widowed mother over at the Cenotaph, will the minister do his best to make some statement on this matter in the House before November 11?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Madam Speaker, in this regard I can state that within our budgetary and financial requirements, we can be assured, based on my own personal experience and that of several other members, that the required statements have been made in order to encourage the widows of veterans to be patient so that we can satisfy their needs as quickly as possible.


UNITED NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
MacBRIDE commission report-government position at BELGRADE CONFERENCE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the MacBride commission report on information and the media which is to be considered at the UNESCO conference this month in Belgrade and the limitations which this report, if adopted and implemented, could have on the freedom of the press and the free flow of information in the world, can the
Oral Questions
minister say what position Canada will take at this United Nations conference concerning this report on the media and the free flow of information?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, there are many aspects of the MacBride report which appeal to the Canadian government, but there are also other respects in which it goes beyond what we would wish to see become international policy. Our delegation to the UNESCO conference which is currently taking place in Belgrade has been instructed to resist any move to convert the proposed steering roles of government into downright interference with the rights of the press.


METRIC CONVERSION
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of State for Small Businesses, I will put my question to his parliamentary secretary, and if he wishes to pass it to the Prime Minister that would be fine. It deals with a newspaper release in the late summer by the Minister of State for Small Businesses to the effect that he was recommending to cabinet that metric not proceed in the 21 or so test cities in Canada on January 1. I would like to know whether or not this recommendation was made to cabinet as was announced and, if it was, did cabinet concur that metric not proceed in the retail food sector on January 1 ?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to report that we must, of course, give the industry the time to implement the program. Therefore we will not be able to proceed for January 1, 1981, but we foresee the possibility of doing so for January 1982.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question deals with the answer to a question on the order paper. In view of the fact that this government has spent through the Metric Commission over $25 million, as is reported at page 1305 of Hansard on May 22, to implement the metric system, that two successive years, both by the former government and now this present government have been spent on the implementation of metric in the retail food sector and that the budget for next year alone is in excess of $8 million, will the minister assure this House that he will give serious consideration to the temporary suspension of the Metric Commission, which has a budget of $17,444,000 over the next three years?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I will gladly submit these representations to the minister responsible, but I must say that I personally do not share the member's view.

October 20, 1980
Oral Questions


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. At the beginning of this past weekend I understand that two residents of Mission, B.C., Flora Smith and Mary Fredeen, were nearly stabbed to death. The stab wounds were inflicted by a convicted murderer, an escapee from the nearby federal institution. It is alleged that this person "walked away" from the institution. Would the minister tell us how the accused managed to escape from the institution, and how does the Solicitor General intend to prevent escapes in the future from other federal institutions across Canada?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, the details of that incident are being looked into. I will be in a position to answer that question when I have a report.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, it is the policy now of the Solicitor General's parole boards not to revoke parole on the basis of police information only. Can the Solicitor General tell the House whether that policy is still in force or whether the minister intends to change it? Because as I understand it, if the person who allegedly committed this crime was out on parole, his parole would not have been revoked on the basis of the two stabbings.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, as hon. members in this chamber are aware, that is a discretion which the parole board is meant to exercise and does exercise without political interference. I will convey the hon. member's concern about that particular policy to the parole board.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the labour slowdown in the Revelstoke CP section which is affecting CP Rail, I ask the minister whether he has a handle on that problem? If so, what initiatives and what actions is the minister taking to speed up the movement of grain during the harvest season on the prairies?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, as I have reported previously, a great number of people have tried to help. Some problems were raised the other day by an hon. member concerning meal times; others have mentioned that it was a case of too few crewmen on trains, and that sort of thing.
I have inquired of the Department of Labour and I have been assured that these problems have been solved. However,
on the union side there is still an unwillingness to go ahead with the agreement which was apparently reached. I am informed it is a problem for the union. Efforts are being made to try to come to a conclusion, hopefully a positive one, on the union side.
In the meantime a number of steps have been taken. The A-type delivery quotas have been extended by the Canadian Wheat Board and 300 to 500 cars will leave southern Alberta in the coming weeks to carry grains to Thunder Bay in order to relieve the congestion at Vancouver. So the problem is being attended to as well as possible at the present time.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I ask the Minister of Transport why, if in his view the problem has been solved, there are predictions now that only ten cars per day will be unloaded from CP lines at the port of Vancouver? Does the minister consider that a shifting from Vancouver to Thunder Bay will alleviate the grain shipping problems when there are designated trains going to Vancouver? Does he agree that the shipment to Thunder Bay will not resolve the problem in Vancouver?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I think when one reads the answer that I gave, one will see I did not say the problem was solved; I said efforts were being made. There is a nuance there.
As for the west coast delivery question, it was indicated in the press that 3,000 cars per week were available. I understand the figure is 1,500. At the moment, 800 to 900 cars a week are going to Vancouver. There is a slowdown. Consequently there has been a reduction at the level of 3.3 per cent in unloading at Vancouver, if my memory serves me correctly. Over all, meaning the four ports of Thunder Bay, Churchill, Vancouver and Prince Rupert, unloading is up by 8 per cent to 9 per cent at this time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises from a speech the minister made this weekend in which he addressed himself to a list of serious Canadian grievances. If the Secretary of State for External Affairs does not get the kind of U.S. responses he is looking for, what is his next move?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I believe that by addressing ourselves to the sense of fair play on the part of the United States, we have a very good chance of success.
October 20, 1980


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Could the minister tell the House whether the Privy Council has passed an order revoking the appointment of a special assistant to the Prime Minister for defence matters in Canada, and if so, why?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, as a former minister of national defence should know, an order in council to this effect was passed previously as a matter of administration. When it was revoked, it was simply revoked because the regulations were changed and that is now not necessary. As a former minister of national defence, the hon. member should know that. Similar cases to this one occurred when the hon. member was in the cabinet and there is nothing unusual about it. It is just an administrative consequence.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, 1 think there is considerable worry in the country about what the present Minister of National Defence knows about this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Real concern.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: If his appointment was necessary on June 12, as indicated in the Privy Council order of that date, why is it no longer necessary? If the individual is no longer being paid by the general fund, what fund is his salary coming from? Specifically, is the pay and emolument of this appointee being found from the budget of the Department of National Defence?


Maurice Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, as I just said, it was changed because the regulation has been changed and we can do it otherwise now. That is the simple answer to that question.
As for knowing everything about national defence, I would just like to say to the former minister of national defence 1 do not think that he had much time to learn everything about national defence. Therefore I do not know why in the same time I should know everything about national defence.

[ Translation]


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board since it deals with the translators' strike, as opposed to interpreters. Could the minister now supply us with a progress report on that strike?
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I indicated on Friday last, during question period, that the mediation process failed, unfortunately, and Friday we made another offer that was rather generous in my view. We are now waiting to see what will happen, and 1 hope we will go back to the table for further negotiations.


Donald W. Munro: I wonder if the President of the Treasury Board could indicate, in the case where that strike is not resolved today, for instance, whether Hansard will be published tomorrow, because this would be detrimental to our privileges here.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I hope we have a sufficient number of non-striking translators, those who are excluded from the right to strike, to supply the services needed.


UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. The Minister is aware that in 1979 a complaint was filed by a number of Canadians with the United Nations human rights committee concerning a violation by Canada of the international covenant on civil and political rights. The government has until now strenuously resisted this complaint, arguing that it was not admissible.
However, in August of this year the minister knows that the United Nations human rights committee found that in fact this complaint was admissible. The complaint alleged that the 1977 Parole Act amendments should have been made retroactive, affecting some 800 prisoners.
My question to the Solicitor General is this. What action does the government, allegedly committed to a charter of rights in our international obligations, intend to take to ensure that Canada is not in fact found guilty of a violation of the international covenant on civil and political rights in this respect.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the matter is now before the United Nations and they will make their determination about it. As far as the administration is concerned, we were simply following a very clear position taken on a vote by this Parliament that the rights to which the hon. member referred should not be made retroactive. The matter was voted on in this House. A majority decided not to make that legislation retroactive. My own consideration was that it would be an abuse of executive authority to use the various authorities which the government has to do something that goes expressly against a decision made by this chamber.

October 20, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Fleming


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. I point out to the minister that at the time an amendment to make the amendments retroactive was moved by this side of the House, supported by both parties on this side, but it was his party which rejected it. In light of this, is the minister prepared to pass the necessary orders in council affecting the sentences of some 800 prisoners; or, at the very least, in view of the fact that we are talking about the liberty of hundreds of Canadians, is the minister prepared to give a reference to the justice committee, as was supported by my colleagues on this side of the House, so that we might study this question in light of the new evidence and make a recommendation to the minister for possible action?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the government will give very serious consideration to the determination of this matter by the United Nations. Nevertheless, this Parliament is sovereign and a determination made by the United Nations on that subject would not be binding on this Parliament. As I indicated, I would certainly be prepared to consider, and the government would consider, a resolution passed by this House dealing with those inmates, all of whom are parole violators who have been returned to prison and are not, because of the decision of Parliament, being given account of their street time. It is a complicated matter. It has been raised in the form of a reference by the hon. member, but he failed to get unanimous consent for it.

[ Translation]


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: I have received notice of a question of privilege in the name of the hon. Minister of State (Multicul-turalism) (Mr. Fleming). I would simply point out to him that his question of privilege deals with two members. One is in this House today, namely the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski). The second part of that question of privilege concerns the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), who informed me he could not be here today. The minister may raise that part of his question of privilege dealing with the hon. member for Edmonton North, or he may wait for some other time when these two members are present in the House, especially if this concerns two contributions that followed each other. However, I will let the minister decide on the moment to raise his question of privilege.


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State, Multiculturalism):: think that while I have the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) trapped here in the House, if he does not mind and if it is agreeable to you, Madam Speaker, I will proceed with this particular issue. Both are common in my view, in the sense that this deals with what I believe is unparliamentary language. Other than that, I think they can be separated. I will
be very brief. At page 3787 of Hansard for October 17, last Friday, a few minutes after the conclusion of question period, the hon. member for Edmonton North caught your eye and rose to say:
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 I 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.
I in turn checked the blues. As Hansard shows, I said in response to the hon. member during question period, and I quote:
-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-
I thought I had made it clear by saying with regard to the over-all spending of multiculturalism, that budget which he froze, which is the only portion of his over-all spending which I know that he froze, the one to deal with ethnic press, had been unfrozen. I am certainly willing, in a sense of co-operation in this House, to make it clear that I meant the advertising budget and not the total multiculturalism budget. I thought my wording had made that clear.
In any case, Madam Speaker, I believe that whatever happened in my wording, it is unparliamentary, and I cite Beau-chesne's fifth edition, pages 108 and 109, which list many, many cases where to say another member has deliberately misled the House is inappropriate. On those grounds I submit that, as a representative of a group of Canadians who elected me, it is my right to ask the hon. member to withdraw that unparliamentary language.


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, it was my understanding, when the minister rose to answer my question, he did say that I froze the whole multicultural budget during my tenure in office. That was my understanding. If in any way in the heat of argument I did say that the hon. member deliberately misled the House, after his explanation here this afternoon I withdraw that statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: That disposes of this point of order. I thank the two hon. members for the spirit in which they have helped the House to resolve this problem.


POINT OF ORDER
Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With the greatest respect for your authority in the chair, Madam Speaker, referring to my motion under Standing Order 43, I was wondering whether you have had time to consider the appropriateness of my motion under Standing Order 43 today.
October 20, 1980

Perhaps I can be informed, but I was not aware there was any matter, whether it be provincial, municipal or federal-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member could send me his motion under Standing Order 43. The Chair is quite willing to give that service to any member. If members wish to be assisted with regard to the manner in which a motion can be worded, or if they want to check as to whether it is acceptable, the Chair is quite willing to give that type of service. This is what I invited the hon. member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) to do, because 1 had serious doubts about the acceptability of his motion. If he will do that, possibly we can deal with his motion tomorrow, if we all agree that it is in order.



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. 749 and 1,442.


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


André Ouellet: Canada Post does not have administrative consultants as such, but instead has management consultants.
(a)	Thirty one management (consultants) contracts -Total cost $507,475.17
(b)	Three policy (consultants) contracts -Total cost $ 32,995.00
See lists below.
Management Contracts
Name
August 1, 1978 to June 3, 1980
Number of
Contracts	Cost
Mr. Thomas Hustad Kenneth Taddeo Stevenson & Kellogg
1 $ 200.00 3	8,720.17
2	77,402.00
Order Paper Questions
Jackson, Smith & Assoc. Ltd.	1	10,000.00Dr. S.B. Park	I	1,500.00Industrial Health Ass. Ltd.	2	44,915.00Mr. C. Mitchell	1	1,000.00Paul R. Crocker & Ass. Ltd.	2	32,600.00Hovey & Associates	1	150,860.00Leaside Medical Assoc.	1	18,300.00Dr. G.W. Nicholls	I	18,000.00Mr. R. Willing	1	950.00Hickling & Johnston	3	37,213.00Victor G. Baker	1	500.00Wm. V. Baker	1	2,500.00Tower, Perrin & Forster & Crosby	1	10,000.00Frank Flatters	1	1,925.00Maurice Richardson	1	1,890.00L.H. Patterson	1	2,000.00ARA Consultants	1	8,500.00LISAB Enterprises	1	54,400.00J.G. Fultz	1	13,050.00Gordon F. Harrison	1	10,000.00Reseau de develop, d'org. Inc.	1	1,050.00Total:	$507,Policy Contracts	August 1, 1978 toJune 3, 1980Number of	Name	Contracts	CostJackson, Smith Assoc. Ltd.	1	$12,695.00Mr. John McLaughlin	1	1,400.00Mr. Norm Lafrance	1	18,900.00Total:	$32,


Mr. Rose: As of July 10, 1980, do the figures of industrial benefits flowing from the F-18A fighter contract of 47 per cent for Quebec, 41 per cent for Ontario and 12 per cent for the rest of Canada still apply and (a) if not, what are the revised figures of benefit sharing as they relate to the provinces (b) if so, what is British Columbia's share of the package?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: the percentage distribution of industrial benefits expected to be enjoyed by each province is only an estimate. Such benefits are to be realized over a period of more than 15 years. The exact measure of such benefits will also include the value to be ascribed to technology transfer, export market development and tourism promoted by the arrangements. We will need to be much further into the new fighter program before a more complete estimate of provincial distribution can be determined.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 210 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.

October 20, 1980
The Constitution


Mr. Elerbert: How many departments have conducted within the last year, are presently conducting or are contemplating doing so during 1980, a survey of client satisfaction?
Return tabled.


David Michael Collenette: Perhaps the other questions could be allowed to stand, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and opportunity today to say to you that we have a distinguished guest in the gallery, the former hon. member for Hamilton West who is now the Chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Board of Ontario. 1 think it is only fair that we should recognize him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, October 17, 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 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.
Madam Speaker:: Last Friday, I was prepared to rule on the admissibility of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). Out of courtesy for hon. members and the House I had offered to entertain some arguments on both sides concerning the admissibility of that amendment. I am still prepared to rule today but as hon. members had preferred Friday to voice some arguments I am going to hear them now. In a spirit of co-operation I shall ask them to be as brief as possible and to discuss only the reason why they consider that amendment to be admissible or not.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I am just looking at the words of the parliamentary secretary last Friday as reported at page 3805 of Hansard, and I quote as follows:
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.
I gathered that my friend had some objection that he wanted to raise with respect to the amendment. I think it might be appropriate if the House heard what those objections were, and then perhaps there might be some response.
I have not had any guidance from the Chair on what the Chair's objections are so that I could answer them. But he obviously did. I wonder if he might give his argument in opposition and then I might deal with that. I suppose the assumption is always in favour of admitting admendments if at all possible.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, since you were in the chair on Friday at ten minutes to four o'clock, you will remember that there was a little misunderstanding. Perhaps I could explain it once again to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker).
You entered the chamber and I thought you were going to give your decision on the admissibility of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. We on this side were quite prepared to waive the time of the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Irwin) for his speech so that we could hear your decision and, perhaps, even waive private
October 20, 1980

members' hour. The comments made by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton were based on something you said which 1 did not catch, to the effect that, notwithstanding the fact that you were prepared to rule, you would also be prepared to entertain further argument.
I thought in my wisdom, since the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) was not here-and he is intimately concerned with this amendment-that perhaps we could hold it until Monday. That is the reason we are bringing it up again today, but if it is the decision of the Chair to rule right away, we have no objection.


Madam Speaker:: It is not the decision of the Chair to rule right now but I am prepared to rule this afternoon. I extended the courtesy to the House to allow any hon. member wanting to give further argument on the acceptability of this amendment and I am prepared to hear that; if not, I am prepared to rule. After hearing arguments, I will see whether they substantially modify what 1 intend to rule this afternoon. I thought that some hon. members might have argument. I understand this is a normal courtesy that is usually extended to the House, and it is for this purpose that I am doing it.


Walter David Baker: I appreciate your thoughtfulness, Madam Speaker. The reason I rose just a few moments ago is that we are now faced with a judgment that has not been argued and we are facing an argument not knowing, in the general area, what the objections of the Chair might be. I assume it is the duty of the government House leader and, or, his colleague, to indicate if the government has some objections and if they can help the Chair, then they should deal with those objections. Surely the onus does not lie with the proponent, in the absence of any indication of what the illegality might be, to advance argument to sustain it.
I thought that the interpretation of the rules should be that these motions ought to be sustainable, and ought to be sustained unless there is a reason that they should not be. That is the reason I look to my friends to advance some arguments as to why they ought not to be.


Madam Speaker:: May 1 explain what is going on in my mind. I hope we both understand the same thing.
It seems to me that it often happens when an amendment is proposed that members make points of order on the amendment. When the amendment was proposed, one of my deputies was in the chair and he took it immediately under advisement. I understand no points of order were raised as to the acceptability of the amendment. This sometimes occurs and, of course, sometimes it does not.
If there are no members who want to rise for this particular reason, that is fine, and I shall proceed. I shall give a chance to hon. members if they want to rise, however.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the government now decides it is going to sit silent. If I may say so, I think that is a lack of courtesy, as the
The Constitution
President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) has just indicated, for what ought to be the appropriate procedure.
If I am put in the position that I must offend in the face of a possibility of a ruling by Your Honour without Your Honour indicating, in a general way, what the objections are, or being prepared to rule in the event that no one speaks up, then 1 think the process is an unusual one, if I may say so. It is the reverse of what I think ought to be the appropriate procedure, that the House hear objections from the other side, if there are any. Otherwise, I think it would not be abnormal for me to ask the Chair what the objections are in a general way-not a judgment, but if there are some objections to it, tell me the area in which I have to argue. That is all I am asking, Madam Speaker. Normally that is the responsibility of the government House leader or his assistant, if he does not feel capable of arguing the question himself. It would normally be his job, I think, to help the Chair. However, it would be helpful if I had some general idea of the area in which I should argue.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, on Friday I was trying to be helpful to the Chair and all hon. members of the House because I said that we on this side would stand down and allow you to present your decision, but it was the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) who said he was not going to hold up the debate. He said, and I quote:
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.
It was to accommodate the hon. member that I then suggested we wait until today so that he could formulate arguments in favour of his own motion, since that seemed to be what he was proposing on Friday. That is at page 3805 of Hansard.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I do not want to prolong this, but what I think we have is a grinning Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) who is suggesting that I have not propounded reasons for my motion, and if he will re-read the speech which preceded the granting of the motion, he will see exactly the reasons that the motion is there. If that motion is invalid, and the parliamentary secretary thinks so, then I believe it is a duty of the parliamentary secretary, or the President of the Privy Council or of someone to stand up and state the reasons generally so that I can meet those objections, if that is possible.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, last Friday, around four o'clock, you very simply stated that you were ready to give a ruling on the amendment put by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). In your preamble, you suggested that you had some reservations about the amendment and we on this side were quite prepared to hear your decision. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, seeing the weakness of his case and

October 20, 1980
The Constitution
seeing his chances of success progressively diminishing, sought leave to delay the debate in order to put forth more arguments.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Those explanations have already been given, I think. That is quite clear. We have Hansard here. I think we are all quite aware of what went on last Friday. As I said, I did that out of courtesy for the House. I think that is quite natural, normal and customary. If nobody wants the floor, it is then clearly my duty to hand down a decision, and for the benefit of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker)-

Of course I cannot review the general areas in which I intend to rule in favour or against this amendment. 1 was just extending a normal courtesy, but if there are no speakers, of course 1 shall be able to rule.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, it is quite obvious to us that the argument is unfounded and we would not want to be considered as accomplices of those who are trying to delay the constitutional debate.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, now we understand the erudite and learned argument of the government House leader against the motion that is put. I know he worked all weekend preparing such a learned argument, and he is to be congratulated because he has advanced the cause of the House of Commons to a great degree.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I hope the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) will join in it, but I just want the Chair to know-and I say this with respect-that it is very helpful to members who advance motions in good faith to find out from the Chair, but also perhaps from the other side, why there might be some objection. It is very helpful in understanding.
However, if Your Honour wants a citation with respect to why I believe there is room within the rules for this kind of amendment, let me start off by telling Your Honour what this amendment says, and what the amendment that was advanced said. What the amendment was for was to provide an opportunity to the House of Commons to deal, appropriately and in accordance with established principles, with an address to Her Majesty the Queen, if that is to be the end of the debate.
If Your Honour reads carefully what the government has proposed in the literature which is now in general circulation in Canada, you will see what the government's proposal is going to be. If the committee recommends adoption of resolutions in the form of the proposed resolution, with or without changes, and both the House of Commons and the Senate concur in that recommendation, those concurrences will constitute a request or a joint address.
The point of the argument 1 made in my speech is that by no stretch of the imagination, even the imagination of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), can what is not a joint address constitute a joint address. As I also made clear in my speech at that time, that affects you in your responsibilities in terms of the Chair. It may very well affect His Excellency the Governor General in terms of his responsibility.
It is an important point, and what that amendment is trying to do is to give the House of Commons, not extended powers, because I am sure that would be the argument against it, and at committee not to give the committee extended powers, but to complete the powers that are necessary for the committee legally and lawfully to carry out what the government eventually wants done, i.e., an amendment and an address to Her Majesty the Queen. At this point in time that is impossible.
Why is it in order? I will quote from the chapter in Beauchesne on privileges of the House, citation 21 at page 13, as follows:
It follows, therefore,-
I will read the whole section.
The most fundamental privilege of the House as a whole is to establish rules of procedure for itself and to enforce them. A few rules are laid down in the British North America Act, but the vast majority are resolutions of the House which may be added to, amended, or repealed at the discretion of the House. It follows, therefore, that the House may dispense with the application of any of these rules by unanimous consent on any occasion, or, by motion may suspend their operation for a specified length of time.
It is within the ambit of that citation that this amendment is brought. My respectful submission is that it not only is important, in carrying out what is the responsibility of the House, Madam Speaker, to complete what is a joint address which is what the government wants; it is within the realm of citation 21, and certainly if the argument against it is that we are seeking greater powers than are contained in the motion standing in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), I ask you, Madam Speaker, to take a look at the proposals laid out by the government in its publication.
The government is seeking greater powers and the consent of this House to have greater powers than those to which it is entitled by law, and I think it falls within the ambit of this House, in the words of that citation, "by motion may suspend their operation," to suspend the operations of its own rules for a specified period of time, and that is precisely the purpose of this matter, to carry out the intent and purpose of citation 21.
Aside from the practical side of it, it is a very important matter for this House of Commons to consider. I laid out, I thought, for the assistance not only of the members of the House but of a particular member of the House, namely you, Madam Speaker, the pitfalls in the practice that is being adopted by the government in this matter. That is something we are going to have to consider, and it is for that reason that I think the House owes a duty to itself to agree to this amendment. If it does not, that is fine; the House then has neglected its duty to itself. Regardless of that, the question is as to its propriety and, in my judgment and in my respectful submission, it falls within the ambit of our rules of practice.
October 20, 1980

[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the remarks of my hon. colleague. He referred directly to the text of the motion under consideration and 1 submit that the amendment he proposed is inadmissible for several reasons. The most obvious is that if one reads carefully the amendment of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), one realizes that it is an absolute negation of the main motion. The main motion proposes that a special joint committee of the House and the Senate consider the proposed resolution. The hon. member, in his amendment, proposes the opposite, that is that the committee not consider the proposed resolution but rather that it be directed to study a resolution, something which has nothing to do with reality. Moreover, he wants the committee to report that the House would not be able to consider the report but would have to consider the resolution itself. Therefore, 1 think that right from the start, the amendment is contrary to all parliamentary practices and that it is an absolute negation of the main motion. He is asking a committee to do something it is not empowered to do. All a committee of the House can do, whether it be permanent or special, is to bring in a report.
In our motion, we ask the committee to report on whether or not the text of the resolution should be accepted. The request of the hon. member for Nepean-Carelton is a denial of that. In addition, he presupposes the decision of the committee because, theoretically, in principle, in its report the committee could very well recommend to the House that it reject the text of the proposed resolution submitted to it.
If that were the case then, theoretically, the amendment he proposes would prevent the committee from reaching that conclusion because we are duty-bound to study the resolution itself. If the committee comes to the conclusion that it does not want us to accept its report recommending that the proposed resolution be accepted, if we want the committee to be free to reach that conclusion, then we cannot endorse the amendment of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton which, in advance, even now, before the committee looks into the matter, before it brings in its report, requires of it that it advise us that the House of Commons is not studying its report but a resolution. Again, that is another argument against the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. It is out of order, contrary to parliamentary practice and common sense.
Madam Speaker, since the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton has finally, and with great difficulty, attempted to justify his amendment, it becomes obvious that on the other hand we, members of the government party, cannot, under our standing orders, find his amendment in order. However may I point out to you what, in reality, the motion as it now reads will lead to-and here I am not speaking of the amendment but of the main motion. It will achieve the same result as that sought by an amendment that is illegal, contrary to our rules and there-
The Constitution
fore out of order? Because the committee will be able to study, clause by clause, the proposed resolution referred to it. If we look closely at the amendment of the hon. Progressive Conservative member, it says, and I quote:

That the committee shall be deemed to have the resolution directly before it for the purpose of discussion and amendment,-

Madam Speaker, there is absolutely nothing in our motion which prevents the committee from considering the joint resolution "for the purpose of discussion and amendment". On the contrary, it is the mandate of the committee to discuss the project and amend it if necessary by December 9. Therefore, the first part of the amendment of the hon. member from the Progressive Conservative Party is already covered by the main motion. His proposal is useless because it is already written.
As to the second part he mentions:

-and that the committee shall report the resolution as amended in a form which will permit both Houses to directly consider and amend the said resolution.

But as far as the form is concerned, I shall not repeat what I said; it is unacceptable for the reasons I mentioned. But in the facts, Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton who is so knowledgeable about the Standing Orders of the House-


Mr. Andre:: That is trickery-there is no agreement on the second part.


Yvon Pinard: -in spite of his cries, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) knows very well that once the report of the committee is completed, what the House will be studying is the committee report as to whether the proposed resolution should be adopted or rejected. If one is to assume that the committee report will recommend the adoption of the proposed resolution for a joint address, what the House can do then is to ask, and there are no restrictions to that, as long as it wishes, that the report be referred to the committee for amendment in such and such a way. So in a quite indirect manner, the House will be able to debate amendments to the resolution even if it is a committee report that is being considered. I would therefore like it to be quite clear and I challenge my learned colleague to prove me wrong with valid references in support of his opinion. Once a motion for passing it is before the House a committee report can be returned to a

October 20, 1980
The Constitution
committee so that it can amend it in a given manner. I therefore think that I am not just demonstrating tricks of parliamentary procedure. It is rather obvious and I am quite sure the hon. member was aware of that.
So what he is looking for in the second part of his amendment which in itself is out of order, is still something he can obtain by the means he was aware of and that I have just brought to his attention. In this approach, therefore, there is absolutely no trickery, Madam Speaker. In fact the House is dealing with a motion calling for a resolution to be referred to a committee. Then the committee would be entitled to discuss and amend it. Finally the House would hold a debate after December 9 to look into the committee report. It is too early at this stage to anticipate what the committee's findings will be, but if they were to the effect that the text of the proposed resolution should be accepted, then the opposition could ask as often as it pleased for the report to be sent back to the committee to be amended in such and such a way, and we would end up with exactly the same result as the one sought through the proposed amendment.
For the reasons I have just indicated, Madam Speaker, I finally suggest that the amendment is out of order as to its form. Substantially, it brings nothing new and provides hon. members of the opposition with no entitlement other than those which already exist under the main motion.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) proposed an amendment to the motion on Thursday evening which the Chair took under advisement. For the benefit of hon. members I shall read the amendment to the House.
"That the motion be amended by adding thereto after the fifth paragraph the following:
"That the committee shall be deemed to have the resolution directly before it for the purpose of discussion and amendment, and that the committee shall report the resolution as amended in a form which will permit both Houses to directly consider and amend the said resolution." "
The motion of the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development stated inter alia that a committee be appointed to consider and report upon a certain document and "to recommend in their report whether or not such an address
with such amendments as the committee considers necessary" should be presented to Her Majesty.
Those powers are in no way different from the powers sought in the amendment by the words "that the committee should be deemed to have the resolution directly before it for the purpose of discussion and amendment" and if that assumption is correct then the Chair's view would be that that part of the proposed amendment was redundant and not needed. The proposed amendment then goes on to say "that the committee shall report the resolution as amended in a form which will permit both Houses to directly consider and amend the said resolution."
The Chair has some misgiving about this part of the amendment. First, it appears to be a general instruction to the committee to amend the proposed resolution contained in the document to be referred to it, and second, and most important, it appears to be a substantive proposal to change in this instance our normal rules and practices relating to the procedures of referral of matters to committee and consideration of reports therefrom. As such, it is a substantive proposal beyond the scope of the motion and cannot be received by the Chair.
| English]


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, naturally 1 accept the ruling, but it may be appropriate to ask a question now or at some other point in time by way of a point of order or perhaps even on House business, if I can ask a question on Monday with respect to House business. The ruling was clearly that this is a substantive proposal beyond the scope of the motion which is precisely the point I made. It offers the final stage of what is the normal practice respecting joint addresses to Her Majesty the Queen, with the right of members of Parliament to move amendments and debate the resolution itself in full Parliament.
In view of the statement of the government House leader that we would arrive at the same result, as if the amendment in fact was adopted, I wonder if the government would be prepared to put a motion, hopefully to be accepted on unanimous consent, that the substance of the motion become part of the order of procedure of this House with respect to the committee and the work of the House after the committee has reported. If they would do that, I would so move it when it is appropriate, in the hope that we could settle this very important question as to how we are to address Her Majesty the Queen, because we must do so with respect to the amendments the government seeks to the Constitution of Canada.
October 20, 1980


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I want it to be very clear that a committee report recommending the adoption of the resolution submitted to it and having the effect of endorsing such report has exactly the same effect as a direct resolution which would be debated on the floor of the House. This being said, I suggest it is premature, before the committee report is known, to negotiate on the shape the debate could take at the third stage, that is once the stage of the study in committee will be over.
So as regards the substance of the hon. member's question, even though 1 do not agree with him as to the preamble, once again, I want this to be very clear. I want to say that we consider the debate on the committee report to be essentially the same thing as the debate on the resolution itself, and that, likewise, it is the substance that should be debated. Having said this, and I reckon we differ in opinion on this point, if my colleague would prefer the debate to be on a resolution rather than on a committee report, we have to wait to know the substance of the committee report before we are able to negotiate in an intelligent way.
I would therefore suggest to him that he wait for the committee's report. Once the report is drawn up and available, we will be open to discussion to determine both the form-and 1 emphasize this-and the duration of the debate at the third stage.
In the meantime his request is premature, but 1 do not close the door entirely. 1 appreciate his intelligent discussion of the matter. I was expecting his question and I believe he also expected my answer. Right now we are at a very preliminary stage; this is merely a motion of procedure to refer this to a committee. There is no reason why this should be delayed any longer.
Once the committee has amended, if it so decides, or discussed in depth the proposal, until December 9, and depending upon the nature of its report, I will be pleased to discuss with my hon. colleague both the form of what we will be called upon to discuss at the third stage and the duration of that debate. At that time we may come to agreement. For the time being this is premature.
May 1 take this opportunity, since my colleague raises a point of order on the business of the House, to offer right now and ask for unanimous consent to recover the time lost on countless occasions since the beginning of this debate for reasons of form, by sitting this evening from six to eight without interruption, and from ten to twelve this evening, in order not to conclude the debate this evening but to hear a greater number of members if such is the wish of Conservative members.
The Constitution
We would give consent to the House sitting without interruption on the motion from now until twelve.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the offer. To date I have found the debate to be a most interesting one. If one checks the record, as I am sure Madam Speaker has, one will find the Liberal party has found it much more interesting than we have, in that it has put up more speakers during the course of this debate than we have, by actual count. I appreciate their interventions in the debate because indeed it is a fundamental one. It is such a fundamental one that, in my judgment, there is no need to change the rules of the House of Commons. But if at some point a motion is brought-and the hon. member knows the sections of the rules about which I am talking-and that motion is carried, naturally the House would go ahead.
I appreciate the words of the hon. the member, that this matter is still open, because it is very important. But I say to him that what we are talking about is the terms of reference of the parliamentary committee which will be considering the proposals of the government. So, in that sense it is not premature at all. In fact I think it is necessary. I say with respect it is absolutely necessary the committee know the extent of its responsibilities and will not be involved in a process that can possibly deny to Parliament, at the whim of the government, the benefit and right to have before it an address to Her Majesty the Queen in the normal manner, with the power of any member on any side of the House of Commons, because it is everyone's country, to move appropriate amendments. That is the purpose of wanting to do it now. My friend has said the door is open. I think it is a very important door which he has left ajar, and I thank him.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, obviously the door will be open after the committee report. My hon. colleague seems to be asking that we open the door before it goes to committee. The motion is there, the ruling has been made; that is clear. Essentially I told him-and I will not repeat it because it is on the record-that the door was open for negotiations as to the form of the debate at third stage as well as to the length of the debate at third stage. I said that in French; perhaps he misunderstood me.


Walter David Baker: I heard it. My French is improving.


Yvon Pinard: Since I do not have the consent of the Tory party to debate from six to eight and from ten to twelve o'clock tonight, I will be more generous and promise not to put up any Liberal speakers between six and eight o'clock and between ten and twelve o'clock, so that more Tory speakers may use the time.
3834

October 20, 1980
The Constitution


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased we are finally getting back to what I think is very important-the constitution-not points of privilege, points of debate, but points of substance.
When I finished speaking on Friday 1 think I had fairly shown that although Sir John A. Macdonald had wanted a strong federal government and had framed the British North America Act in such terms, over the years, through legislation and federal-provincial negotiations, we had weakened that concept. I think I had shown fairly, with the use of figures, that today the federal government spends approximately 24 per cent of the revenue collected in this country while the combined spending of the provinces and the municipalities is now 76 per cent. I was in the process of explaining-and 1 thought we agreed on more things than we disagreed-everyone says they want patriation.
We all stand for some form of entrenchment of certain fundamental rights. We all want democratic rights, with few exceptions, specifically in Newfoundland. We think that mobility is good for this country, that a person should be able to move from one province to another, find a job and take up employment as a Canadian, not just because he happened to be born in that particular province or lived there for a certain number of months.
We all agree on the life, liberty, and security of persons section, and on the unlawful search, detention and imprisonment, arrest, charge and trial procedures. Indeed, there have been suggestions we don't go far enough. Now there have been some suggestions about tuning up the non-discrimination sections in the proposed constitution. But, generally, everyone in this House supports the entrenchment of a clause defending non-discrimination by reason of race, national or ethnic origin, religion, age or sex.
Not only in this debate but during the referendum, and 1 sat here and listened to it, most speakers in this House supported the entrenchment of minority language rights throughout Canada. Now there has been some suggestion that perhaps the will is no longer here. I hope not, and I think not.
I am asked by the curious, back in my riding-as 1 explained on Friday we don't stand around Sault Ste. Marie in the cold fall and discuss the constitution for 40 minutes-what is the problem? I try to state it as fairly as possible. 1 say we agree on most things, that if there is disagreement with the New Democratic Party it is because they want the power over natural resources to be given to the provinces. I say the official opposition does not like the idea of a national referendum if the provinces and federal government cannot agree on constitutional amendment in future, especially the right of the federal government to call a referendum of its own volition.
I have come to know and respect many of the members opposite since this Parliament has been in session. I say with
sincerity I hope history does not ultimately label your parties as obstructionists. But I think that will be the verdict. John Diefenbaker came so close, and failed. He said:
If only we had pressed on instead of delaying to permit the further consideration of one or two minor matters.
That will not happen again. I saw it happen here today, Friday, and Thursday, because of the opposition, who prefer to debate points of privilege and points of order when we are here debating the constitution of this country, which will be in effect for the next hundred years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ron Irwin: We have failed too many times in the past. On balance, between unanimity and the good of the country, there is really no choice as far as we are concerned. Every member of this party, from the Ottawa Valley to the Manitoba border, which happens to be all Liberal, will be supporting this constitution when it comes back, not apologetically but with pride, because we know it is necessary. In the north we are not saying "Now is the time", but we are saying "It is about time".
Let us look at the times we came very close, and let us start with John Diefenbaker. 1 have a great deal of respect for John Diefenbaker. As a matter of fact when I cast my first vote it was for John Diefenbaker, when I was living in Toronto.
For two things he was never criticized, his courage and his passion for this country. He wore that passion on his sleeve. John Diefenbaker fought for a Bill of Rights and, when it passed, how many Canadians thought at that time that that beautiful piece of legislation would be interpreted by the courts into insignificance? That is exactly what happened.
How did he feel about entrenchment? This is what he said:
A bill of rights for Canada is the only way in which to stop the march on the part of the government toward arbitrary power, and to curb the arrogance of men "clad in a little brief authority".
He went on to say:
-some say that it is unnecessary and our unwritten constitutional rights protect us (a familiar refrain).
They have not in the past.
They cannot unless you and I have a right to the protection of law in the courts of the land.
How wise he was. We often forget that as well as being a legislator he was noted as a civil liberties lawyer. His years before the bar and his years as a legislator brought him to the conclusion that we needed a binding bill of rights.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Why don't we have John Diefenbaker?


Ron Irwin: It was more refreshing when we did have John Diefenbaker.
What about the provinces and the provincial governments? He said with regard to the provincial governments:
My experience with the provincial governments indicated that they were too jealous of their jurisdiction over property and civil rights to support any amendment applicable to themselves. I have little hope that their attitude will be altered in the years ahead.
October 20, 1980

He was right, their attitude has not changed.
What did he say about the different types of citizenship, which they are basically espousing in the provinces? He knew there could only be one type of citizenship. He knew that without that basic tenet there could be no Canada. He said:
There are others who claim that the Parliament of Canada cannot pass laws to preserve the constitutional freedom of Canadians.
If that be true, then Canadian citizenship is a provincial variable.
There will be nine kinds of Canadians in Canada whose freedoms will be based on the home address of each of us.
If that contention be true, Canadian unity is a meaningless term-
John Diefenbaker came so close. Do you remember in 1961 when he and the Hon. E. D. Fulton had reached a consensus with the provincial attorneys general, after about 15 months of work? It was at that time that we almost had what we are trying to get today. But the government tarried, they waited and did not act-the chance was gone. He failed. Let us learn from that experience. Let us stop nitpicking and get on with the job, unless you really do not want it to happen, unless you want the failure of 20 years ago. Diefenbaker's experience was invaluable and we should learn from it.
Let us look at our side. The Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent tried, and he failed. How did he feel about our responsibilities? He said:
National unity demands that all those who form part of the Canadian Parliament feel that their responsibility is to the Canadian people as a whole, and that they are not the representatives of any provincial government or any municipality or other local authority.
Over the last few days I have heard many charges hurled at the opposition. It is alleged that they are front men of the provinces, that they are spokesmen for the provinces, and conduits for the provinces. My instinct tells me this is not true. But I will be quite frank with you-you are more preoccupied with provincial rights than you are with the country as a whole. Perhaps it may be because of the uneven balance which occurred in the last election and the way we have broken up the country politically. 1 don't know the reason, but quite frankly, what my ears tell me in this debate is that the oppositions are sounding very parochial and very provincial. I do not think this is healthy for the country.
St. Laurent had problems with the provinces when he abolished appeals to the Privy Council, which was done without provincial consent for the simple reason he could not get it from Duplessis. If Mr. St. Laurent had waited for provincial consent, our government of last resort would still be in London. It would be something, for the premiers of the provinces could say in that case, "I am not going to the Supreme Court of Canada, 1 am going to the Privy Council or 1 am going to London to have the case adjudicated". This is exactly what would have happened if the government had waited for unanimity.
Thirty-one years ago, in 1949, Mr. St. Laurent told an audience of young people:
Wc will be in full possession both theoretically and in practice of our autonomy. We will be masters in our own home-
The Constitution
He was referring to the time when we would abolish appeals to the Privy Council and gain the right to amend the Canadian constitution at home. Those young people in that audience are now in their late forties and early fifties, and they are sick of waiting. How many more decades must they wait? The time is now. I do not know about the opposition, but the government of this country and the people of Canada want and deserve to be masters of their own home.
I would like to deal now specifically with the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) to the House on October 6. I listened to that speech, because it was an important speech. The Leader of the Opposition represents a great segment of Canada. In certain ways, he made an amazing speech. There seemed to be an obsession with section 42 which deals with the referendum. The Leader of the Opposition seemed to have little or no faith in the ability of the people of this country to make an intelligent decision in a referendum. He would prefer to leave these basic rights and their amendments to the politicians.
I would remind the Leader of the Opposition, and it is unfortunate that he is not here, that if it had not been for the people's referendum in Quebec, if we had left the matter to the great legislator Levesque, we would not even be debating this constitution today; we would be discussing sovereignty association. It was not the politicians of Quebec who were in power who saved us from separation, it was the people of Quebec. I believe that the Opposition Leader underestimates the intelligence of the ever average Canadian and overestimates the intelligence of the average politician.
Politicians get stampeded as easily as the public, probably more so. For instance, in Australia where there is a referendum process, over the last 64 years out of 24 amendments proposed, only four passed. Presumably they were proposed by the political institutions and rejected by the people. Yet, the Leader of the Opposition feels that section 42 is "the greatest menace to rights". It is odd that he should feel that the public is the greatest menace to rights.
The Leader of the Opposition touches or, rather, meanders through section 44; and also section 51, which deals with colonial status, without saying too much of substance and at page 3295 of Hansard he is reported as saying:
This is our position: To bring back the constitution with an agreed formula and nothing else.
What the Leader of the Opposition is really proposing is really nothing more than an empty gesture. As a basis for meaningful discussion, I find this quite discouraging. This nation needs better direction than that.
1 use the word "direction" because this constitution is more a direction than it is a destination. For the Acadians, that direction is a better way of preserving their culture and way of life through minority education rights. For the people of Saskatchewan, it is a direction that was started decades ago when they were the first province to bring in a bill of rights and to propound a series of schemes with one basic foundation which was, essentially, common sharing for the common good.

October 20, 1980
The Constitution
For the Quebecker, the direction is a Canada in which he will strive to protect English minorities inside Quebec, and the rest of the country will strive to protect French-speaking minorities outside Quebec, and that is the way it should be. For Alberta, the direction will serve as a reminder that we in Ontario have paid out millions in equalization grants to other provinces and have not once, even though it is owing to us under the formula, asked for such a grant ourselves. It is also a reminder to Alberta from the people of northern Ontario that for years we paid 25 per cent over the world price for petroleum because it was a good idea to develop the petroleum industry in Alberta. We did not begrudge paying this price because we thought that it was a good idea and for the common good of all Canadians. When someone drew an imaginary line at Ottawa and said, "Everything west of that line belongs to Alberta", we said, "Fine, that's the way it should be".
For the Franco-Ontarians, that direction is away from the divisive debate which we recently saw in Penetanguishene, and in the future, when numbers warrant, there will be the right to minority language education. It will not be left to the whim of the local board of education. I am sure that the direction is right and the correct one to take. It is a direction toward the people. There should always be a direction toward the people.
Too often we feel that the power is here, and we forget that we are just the holders of power for the time being. This is something which Premier Peckford should remember. He feels that the provinces created the federal government and the federal system. I suggest to him that it is more accurate to say that the people created the federal system and these same people should be asked to amend the constitution in a referendum from time to time when it becomes necessary.
I sat in the House through most of the debate. 1 came to this sitting full of enthusiasm and hope. At the beginning 1 really thought that all of us together would create a historical moment, that we as one would mould a constitution and set aside political differences to give to the people not only something that they vitally need but something that they vitally deserve. 1 felt that there would be some differences and some suggestions, but in the end that we would come together as one, as ten fingers come together to strengthen two hands, as one voice speaking to England.
I felt that we had learned through the mistakes of the past. I was wrong; we have learned nothing. But this time there will be the political will to go the distance. This time there will be no retreat, and Canada will get a constitution. Henry David Thoreau once said:
If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer.
It would appear that the sound which we are hearing is not the same sound which members opposite are hearing.


Mr. Dinsdale:: That's right.


Ron Irwin: That is certainly right. It appears that that sound periodically says that there are certain rights which should be enshrined in the constitution and members opposite are not
hearing it. It is the sound which says, "If we are a country, then we must protect minority rights". It is a sound that says, "How long must we suffer the indignation of going, cap in hand, to England to do something which we should be doing in our own country?". It is a sound which says-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Ron Irwin: 1 listened to you, and now you are going to listen to me.
It is a sound which says, "Any Canadian, no matter where he is born, has the right to work anywhere in Canada." It is a sound that says, "This country should no longer tolerate padlock laws, like in Quebec, and laws which discriminate against regions." It is a sound which says, and this point was raised earlier, "This country does not tolerate union busting under the name of security." It is a sound which says that this time there will be a codified law against discrimination because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, region, age or sex.
This time the aspirations of a nation will not be thwarted by those who use fear as a means of confusion, or those who use points of privilege as points of debate instead of points of substance. If members opposite cannot hear that drummer's beat, then they ought to move aside because this time this legislation will not end up in a bucket of dust, and this time, when the numbers are counted, we will be there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, many members have referred to this debate as historic. For my province, Prince Edward Island, the debate is indeed historic, because we are considering a proposal that would end P.E.l.'s provincial status as far as having any future say in constitutional matters is concerned. Isn't it ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the very province which served as the birthplace of confederation, in September, 1864, will, 116 years later, receive the hardest blow from the most far-reaching changes in Canada's constitution since confederation?
In my own remarks, I intend to focus, almost exclusively, on the injustices which the government's constitutional package would inflict on my province. I do so unashamedly because, if members in this House do not stand up for the smaller provinces, no one will; certainly the government will not. At the same time, by focusing on injustices inflicted by the resolution on my province and region, I hope to draw attention to the violation which is being done to confederation itself. Just as the civility of any society can be judged by how it treats its minorities, the vitality of our federal system can be measured by how it responds to the concerns of its smallest partners. By that standard, the government's package of constitutional change fails miserably.
Let us look at the proposed resolution for a joint address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada, in particular, the amending provisions. The Parliament of
October 20, 1980

Canada will be asked to approve a proposal to ask the British parliament to terminate its authority in all matters relating to the amendment of the Canadian Constitution. I have no quarrel with that. My party has long favoured the patriation of the British North America Act. Why should we Canadians have to go cap in hand to another country, even our mother country, for changes in our constitution? We should not.
But, following patriation, the amending formula that would likely apply under the government's resolution would be that outlined in sections 41 and 42. In reality, there are two amending formulae. The first would require the approval of Parliament and some of the provincial legislatures. The second would require the approval of Parliament and of the people of some of the provinces through a Canada-wide referendum. In either case the same approach is taken in the calculation of provincial consent, whether expressed indirectly through the provincial legislatures or directly through a plebiscite. It is at this point where, in effect, three classes of provinces in Canada would be established.
In the first class of provinces would be Ontario and Quebec, for each is treated as a region unto itself and given an absolute veto over any future constitutional change. All other provinces would be reduced to the status of second class, except for Prince Edward Island, which would have the dubious distinction of being in a class by itself, that of third class.
In the west, for example, the approval of any two provinces comprising 50 per cent of the population of that regon is required. Although not enjoying a veto, as Quebec and Ontario would, any province in the west would have at least a chance to join with another province in that region to make up the required 50 per cent. In effect, given the current populations of the western provinces, British Columbia would have a near veto because no other two provinces together now make up 50 per cent of the total population of the west. British Columbia, then, would have to be one of the two. In future, however, if population shifts occur, such may not always be the case, and all western provinces might be on an equal footing as far as sections 41 and 42 are concerned.
By contrast, in the Atlantic region, Prince Edward Island would not now, and will likely never be able to join with any other single province in the region to meet the 50 per cent regional population requirement for constitutional change under sections 41 or 42. Thus, Prince Edward Island's approval or disapproval of a proposed constitutional change would be rendered irrelevant. The island would be denied any role whatever in constitutional decision-making. 1 am not arguing for Prince Edward Island to have a veto over constitutional change. Nor am 1 arguing that the rule of federal-provincial unanimity should apply before constitutional change can occur. Clearly, that would place Canadians in a constitutional strait-jacket.
But, just as the approval of all provinces should not be required for constitutional change, so also no province should be cut out of constitutional decision-making altogether. Yet the resolution proposes to do exactly that to Prince Edward Island.
The Constitution
On Wednesday, October 15, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) described the amending formula in the resolution as the Victoria charter. Mr. Speaker, it is not. At best, it is a substantially modified Victoria charter. Under the Victoria charter, 50 per cent of the provinces in the Atlantic region, any two provinces, would have had to agree to a change in the constitution. Although the Victoria charter required the approval of at least two provinces in the west comprising 50 per cent of the population of that region, the same charter only required the approval of two of the provinces in Atlantic Canada, regardless of population. Accordingly, under the Victoria charter, Prince Edward Island could join with any province in the region to approve or oppose constitutional change. Under the modified Victoria charter, no such possibility exists.
Mr. Speaker, my party strongly opposes section 41 and section 42 because, among other reasons, these sections create three classes of provinces in a country where such a political caste system should be anathema. To my mind, section 42 is particularly repugnant. By providing for the imposition of constitutional change through referenda, section 42 undermines the elected representatives of the people at the provincial level. In doing so, the section debases the provinces as vital partners in our federal system.
The affront to federalism posed by section 42 is compounded by the fact that the federal government-not the federal government in concert with the provinces but, rather, the federal government acting alone-would control the rules of the referendum, its timing, and even the wording of it. Worse still is the danger that the federal government might also use huge amounts of advertising and public opinion polling dollars to manipulate the results. Indeed, the record of the present government demonstrates the likelihood of that happening. Under such circumstances, the referendum votes of the people of Prince Edward Island would be buried under an avalanche of votes from the huge metropolitan areas of the country. In Ontario alone there are at least eight cities which have populations greater than Prince Edward Island's. Surely democracy is more than just a matter of numbers. I ask hon. members, should Prince Edward Island's long history as a separate province not count for something?
A much fairer formula for Prince Edward Island, for the other provinces and for all of Canada is, I think, the so-called Vancouver formula-a formula agreed to by all the provinces and the federal government this past summer, but one on which the Prime Minister has refused to act. Under that formula, constitutional change would require the approval of Parliament and seven provinces making up 50 per cent of the population of Canada, with an opting-out provision on certain selected exclusive provincial rights. Any proposed changes to the constitution would then proceed according to the formula. Such a formula would give my small province some role in constitutional matters though, of course, not a veto.
For example, suppose six provinces comprising 50 per cent of the population of Canada agree to a constitutional change but they require the approval of a seventh province, irrespective of its population. Prince Edward Island could be that

October 20, 1980
The Constitution
seventh province. Similarly, although less likely, suppose seven provinces agree to a constitutional change but they do not quite make up 50 per cent of the population. They might require the approval of Prince Edward Island's tiny population to put them over the top.
I am not arguing that Canada should tailor-make its constitution to meet the particular circumstances of Prince Edward Island, or of any other single province for that matter. I am saying, though, that whatever formula is adopted, it should not be unfair to any province. By that test, the Vancouver formula is infinitely better than the so-called modified Victoria charter.
Sections 41 and 42 constitute a direct assault on P.E.I.'s interests as a separate province of Canada. The resolution is an affront to our province-and, indeed, to all provinces-in a number of ways.
May 1 draw your attention, in particular, to section 44. That section effectively emasculates the Senate of Canada in constitutional decision-making. It says that an amendment to the constitution can be made without the approval of the Senate under specified circumstances. The government is proposing to change unilaterally, in a fundamental way, a central institution of Parliament; an instrument established at confederation specifically to safeguard the rights of small provinces like Prince Edward Island. And it is doing so in a fashion that the Supreme Court of Canada declared ultra vires when the government tested the legality of a similar measure, Bill C-60, before the court just ten months ago.
To my mind, Canadians all too often and too lightly dismiss the Senate as an anachronism. Now is not the time, nor is here the place, to point out the usefulness, both real and potential, of the red chamber. But it is well worth stressing the importance placed upon the Senate by the provinces, especially the maritime provinces, at the time of confederation.
In a federal assembly based on representation by population, the maritime members knew they were destined to be heavily outnumbered. Their one hope of redressing the political imbalance lay in the Senate, or the "Legislative Council" as it was then called. The upper house was clearly seen, and specifically constituted, as a defender of regional and provincial interests. The question of representation in the Senate was, in fact, the most hotly debated issue of the proposed federal scheme at the Quebec conference in October, 1864.
The leader of what was later to be called the Liberal party, George Brown, called the equality of representation for the regions in the Senate "the very essence of the compact" that was confederation. "On no other condition", he said, "could we have advanced a step". Professor Robert MacKay, an acknowledged expert on the Senate, has described it as "the last means of defence for the protection of provincial or sectional rights". Yet the present federal government is
proposing to reduce dramatically the power of the Senate in constitutional matters. Not only will small provinces like Prince Edward Island be left to fend for themselves in the face of national referenda dominated by the large populous provinces and cities of Canada, those small provinces will also lose the protection afforded them through the Senate by the terms of confederation itself.
What the present federal government is trying to do is nothing less than change the rules of confederation to the point where we will no longer have a federal system in any true sense of the term. My leader has said that the Prime Minister's concept of federalism is much closer to a unitary state than a federal state. I believe he is right. If we are to have a form of unitary system in Canada, then the maritime provinces may as well close shop today. Certainly, they will cease to have any real say in constitutional questions.
And where will it all end? In future it will be easy for the federal government to obtain the constitutional changes it wants. Not even the Senate will be there to stop a majority prime minister hell-bent on getting his own way. For example, the British North America Act guarantees the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators representing the province. That guarantee is a most important one for P.E.I. Few other provinces, perhaps none of them, need the same protection because their respective populations are large enough to assure them an adequate number of seats in the House.
Yet section 50(f) of the government's resolution proposes that the relevant section in the Canadian constitution may be changed in accordance with the amending procedure prescribed by section 41 or 42 of the resolution. Given the adverse implications of section 42 for P.E.I., one wonders how long the island will be guaranteed a minimum of four seats in the House of Commons. My province will not be able to count on the Senate to safeguard its historic constitutional right in that connection, since the role of the upper house in constitutional matters will have been severely curtailed if the resolution is not substantially changed.
A moment ago, Mr. Speaker, I referred to George Brown's 1864 description of confederation as a "compact". I believe that, in a special sense, confederation was a compact and that great violence will be done to it by the federal government's resolution.
I would be the first to agree with my lawyer friends in the House that the confederation settlement was not a contract in the technical or legal sense. The BNA Act was, after all, a British statute, not a Canadian one. None of the colonies was sovereign at the time of confederation, so no government among them was legally competent to enter into any binding agreement with the others. Furthermore, Ontario and Quebec were brought into existence by the BNA Act. Thus they could not have been parties to a legal compact that established them.
Confederation was, nevertheless, a distinctly Canadian response to a Canadian problem. If confederation was not a
October 20, 1980

compact in the strict contractual sense, the parties to it did make mutual commitments. The terms of the union written into the BNA Act, though finally settled by the British government, followed very closely the Quebec resolutions agreed to by the political leaders of the British North American colonies.
Some of the colonies represented at the Charlottetown and Quebec conferences-my own province, for example-chose not to enter confederation until after 1867, despite pressure from the imperial government. That fact demonstrates that the colonies did have, and did exercise, a fair measure of self-determination.
In a moral sense, then, if not in a legal sense, confederation was a compact. The various communities shared widespread assumptions about the nature of the confederation agreement and those same assumptions made it possible for the communities to accept the agreement.
There was, in other words, a spirit of confederation. That spirit dictated, among other things, that the federal Parliament may not unilaterally cause the Canadian constitution to be amended in any way it chooses. Unilateral action by the federal government on fundamental constitutional amendments, especially those affecting the provinces, would be incompatible with federalism. Worse still, such action would be a serious breach of the mutual commitments made when the Dominion of Canada was established and when new provinces were subsequently added. Yet that is what the present government proposes to do with its resolution.
The spirit of confederation is not only linked to the fact that distinct social and political communities came together to build a new country. The spirit of confederation is also linked to the fact that those communities, in one form or another, continue to exist to this very day. The spirit of confederation in 1867 consisted of a due regard for the nature and interests of the communities that formed Canada. And the spirit of confederation is the same now. The country could not have existed in 1867, and it cannot exist now, without a reasonable respect for the communities which comprise it and for the institutions through which those communities express themselves.
By riding roughshod over the provinces in such a basic area as the constitution, the present federal government is extinguishing the spirit that gave birth to our country and that has helped keep it united for over a century.
The current federal government is trying to act alone to change permanently the nature of Canada, overriding the wishes of Parliament and the provinces. It is proposing a charter of rights that, however commendable in some ways, imposes enormous obligations on the provinces in what are their exclusive fields-education, property, and civil rights. And, in all of these changes, the government is applying a double standard. The Prime Minister is asking the British parliament to make all the changes he wants. But changes sought by others, in future, will require a new amending formula that is heavily loaded in favour of the federal govern-
The Constitution
ment at the expense of the provinces, especially Prince Edward Island, which would be excluded from the process altogether. The government's resolution betrays the spirit of confederation and, in doing so, betrays Canada itself.
Your Honour, I do not want to leave the impression that 1 am personally opposed to everything in the resolution. The entrenchment of the principle of equalization, in section 31, is especially welcome. Still, let us not be seduced into believing there is more in section 31 than meets the eye. Although there is an expressed commitment to provide "essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians", how such a goal is to be achieved is not mentioned. Certainly any reference to equalization payments is conspicuously absent.
In any event, equalization payments, though laudable, are not a panacea for the economic ills that affect many parts of our country, including my own region. The fact is, the per capita income in the Atlantic provinces still lags well behind the Canadian average despite equalization payments and other efforts by both levels of government to reduce regional economic inequalities.
Indeed, an over-reliance on the transfer payment approach to regional disparities is part of the problem. Instead of helping the so-called have-not provinces to become self-sufficient, transfer payments-whether to individuals or to provincial treasuries-have tended to make those provinces even more dependent on the rest of Canada. Since transfer payments are rarely an investment in the economy of the recipient, the money commonly gets recycled back to Quebec and Ontario through expenditures on goods and services produced in the industrial heartland of the country.
In P.E.I., for example, government transfers to persons contributed 23 per cent of the total personal income of the province, compared to only 13 per cent for Canada as a whole. Of the $505 million expenditures by the federal government, the provincial government, local government, and hospitals on the island in 1978, the last year for which figures are available, $426 million was provided by the federal government alone. Prince Edward Island, like the other Atlantic provinces, has become, in a special sense, a ward of the federal government.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced that such regional economic servitude is exclusively the result of either neglect or accident. One cannot overlook the fact that it has served the interests of central Canada to have the Atlantic provinces as a ready market for their manufactured goods, rather than engaged in manufacturing themselves. National policies, from protective tariffs to freight rates, have consistently favoured Ontario and Quebec-the very provinces whose votes have enabled the Liberal Party of Canada to govern the country for most of this century.
As the Premier of Prince Edward Island put it at the first ministers' conference in Ottawa last month:
Could it be that the central government only responds 'in the national interest' when those who are asked to make concessions are minorities in the House of Commons, but never when those expected to make concessions are the numerical majorities? Could it be that, if we had a truly federal state, in which all partners

October 20, 1980
The Constitution
had a more significant voice, national policies might more truly reflect the interests of all provinces and, hence, the entire country?
I wish to close my remarks today on the constitution, Mr. Speaker, by expressing profound regret that the government has seen fit to proceed with its constitutional package in a highly partisan fashion. Not only has it alienated most of the provinces through its high-handedness, it has also refused to involve, in any real way, members of the opposition parties in the House. To the extent that the people of Canada have been invited to participate, it has been through government manipulation at the hands of professional pollsters and propagandizes.
The Prime Minister has made constitutional reform his exclusive preserve. I want to stress at this point that, in my view, no member of the House should doubt the Prime Minister's genuine dedication to Canada nor the breadth of his knowledge of constitutional matters. But a constitution must reflect the preoccupations of more than just one man. A constitution must reflect the aspirations of the society for which it provides the rules of government. What is more, a society's constitution must have a degree of acceptance in the population at large, even if the legal complexities may not be understood by every citizen.
I believe this government can learn a lesson from history, from the Fathers of Confederation, in particular. Over a century ago they set aside their often bitter partisanship for a greater cause, the union of the British North American colonies. Sir John A. Macdonald, no shrinking violet himself when it came to partisan politics, invited his arch-enemy George Brown, and two other reformers, to join him in a coalition to bring about constitutional change as a means of breaking the political deadlock then faced by the Canada, a deadlock that was greater than any between the federal government and the provinces today. To his lasting credit, though he hated the government leader, Brown accepted Macdonald's invitation.
The coalition of 1864 lasted right up to confederation because the politicians of the day were prepared to place the public interest ahead of their narrow partisan or personal interests.
By the same token, most of the delegations from the various colonies at the constitutional conferences preceding confederation were composed of representatives of more than one party. At the Charlottetown conference, for example, the P.E.I. delegation was comprised of three government members and two opposition members. At the Quebec conference, the ratio was four to three, with the delegations of other colonies similarly formed.
I am not now calling for a coalition government to deal with Canada's current constitutional problems. By my fear is this: if the Prime Minister and his government are able to use their parliamentary majority to impose their will-against strong opposition in Parliament, against the opposition of almost all the provinces, and against significant opposition in the country at large-the victory will be seen as a Liberal party victory. For constitutional change to have lasting success, it must be seen as the country's victory.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: The Fathers of Confederation, despite vigorous debate, soon recognized their meetings in Charlottetown and Quebec as a divinely granted opportunity. They rose to the occasion and built better than they knew.
1 must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I was taken aback by the force of media opposition to my party's call this past summer for a broadly-based special convention to deal with proposals for constitutional change. Such a convention would involve representatives from all parties, at both the federal and provincial levels, government and opposition members alike, as well as a number of distinguished Canadians outside the political realm. To my mind that proposal was a worthy one, though it may be too late to act on it now. It is, however, not too late to follow the spirit that motivated the proposal for a constitutional convention, the same spirit that gave birth to confederation more than a century ago.
The distinguished political scientist, Donald Smiley, has written, and I quote:
A politically organized society cannot in the long run survive without the capacity to appeal effectively to the will and imagination of its citizens, particularly one so little formed as that of Canada and so vulnerable to disintegrative forces from within and assimilative pressures from without.
However successful the present government might be in parliamentary one-upmanship, a constitution cannot be forced on a people if it is to serve them long and well. I urge the government to reassess its tactics in the crucial days and weeks ahead. The confederation spirit has served the country well for over a century. If given another chance it will not let us down now.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to most of the contributions and speeches which have been made on this very important subject matter, the proposed resolution which will, I think, affect the future of this country very dramatically in time. 1 do not for a moment attempt to minimize the impact of this proposed resolution, if adopted. I think the real question is not whether it will have an impact on Canada and on its citizens but whether that impact will be beneficial or detrimental to the future of Canada and to its citizens.
I have listened through a great many debates in this House.
1 have participated in a few. I have always felt somehow that the House of Commons, with all its faults, had always met the challenge of the day, and I have a feeling that it will once again.
I must commend the hon. member who just sat down for his very reasoned, passionate and logical contribution. There have been many in this particular debate because the whole nature of the House of Commons is such that members from all parties on issues, particularly as important as this, should reflect the concern and the misgivings of their particular regions. That really is the main function of a federal system,
October 20, 1980

and 1 must say that I was particularly impressed the other day by the contributions, for instance, of two members from Newfoundland, diametrically opposed as they are, in good Newfoundland tradition, on certain issues. They reflected the tremendous appreciation they have for this great country. They reflected, in impassioned speeches, the concern the regions have that somehow we may be stumbling into a formula which somehow would create the type of imbalance that the Fathers of Confederation were concerned about.
I am not a historian. I am not an expert on the constitution.
I reflect, as did the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), those very forces which molded my thinking. The hon. member's views are conditioned by the privilege of having lived in Newfoundland prior to 1949, although at times he does not look that old, and he is now a member of the federal Parliament. My views arc conditioned by my background, that of an English-speaking Quebecker in my infancy. I am one who has had the privilege of sitting in this House elected from a Quebec riding for I do not know how many years, perhaps 15. Now 1 have an equally glorious opportunity to represent a riding in Ontario.
Fortune was such that I spent 18 months in the Quebec Assembly where not only Bill 101 was adopted but also Bill 1, which we hear little about these days. It was struck down by the Human Rights Commission of that province. 1 sat in that assembly in the months preceding the legislation which set up a referendum, and so I know to a great degree how emotional this debate can be and how thin the line is between reasoned participation and impassioned rhetoric which will not stand the test of time.
I participated in this House in the official languages debate. I can remember the resistance to change in those days. That was understandable. Members came from parts of the country where bilingualism was not an issue. To the everlasting credit of the House of Commons that important piece of legislation was adopted, after reasoned debate and concern for what were legitimate points of view expressed in that debate. I think in retrospect there is nobody in this House who would want to touch that piece of legislation, even though time has proved that at times it was implemented with too much zeal, or not enough.
I was here and participated in the flag debate. 1 remember that debate very well. What I remember are the good contributions which were made from all parts of the House. Again I understood the concern of hon. members who felt that somehow we were severing for all time our ties with the Commonwealth of Great Britain. 1 remember the impassioned and moving speeches on the Red Ensign and on the contribution that flag had made to this country in two wars. There were legitimate concerns, but again in retrospect 1 think we feared for nothing. The Canadian flag has been a unifying flag, perhaps because it was acceptable to all Canadians regardless of whether they traced their heritage to Great Britain or France. It was a flag which was devoid of symbols. It was uniquely ours, and again I must say that that was a traumatic debate which lasted the better part of a year, or a summer at least.
The Constitution
1 will not refresh the memories of hon. members with other milestones in the slow but sure evolution from colonialism to full nationhood. Initiatives have been taken not only by this side of the House but also by Conservative prime ministers. I might say on behalf of the hon. gentleman who has led the Conservatives and who was prime minister for a little while that, in his way, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has contributed to unity by his methods and by the efforts he made to learn the other official language of this country.
I often wonder if perhaps in French-speaking Quebec those efforts are appreciated to the degree they should be, because never again can we Liberals in that province subtley suggest that the Conservative party did not understand or did not want to reflect bilingualism. I think that myth should be dissipated once and for all, not only because of the efforts of the Leader of the Opposition to learn French but because of the stand of the opposition on the Official Languages Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I do not propose to speak in any great detail about this clause or that clause. After all, what we are asked to do in the House is to refer the resolution proposed by the government to a joint committee of the House and the other place. Once that proposed resolution reaches the committee, there, I am sure, many of the concerns, observations and fears of hon. members opposite can be resolved, discussed, debated, put at ease and, perhaps, result in amendments-I do not pretend to know. But I do know that hundreds of thousands of people who are watching this debate on television, Canadians from all walks of life, are beginning to ask-at least that is what I found over the weekend-"when will you complete the preliminary step toward the adoption of the resolution, and when will this resolution be turned over to the committee?" I do not pretend to know the answer, but I leave with the House leaders the observation that if this debate is to have the desired effect on a matter as fundamental as changing the constitution, if it is to be done in the proper atmosphere, then I think we would want to come to some conclusion as to when this resolution should be referred to the committee, and I do not think the opposition would want to be charged with obstruction through a series of questions of privileges or points of order.
As so many hon. members have pointed out, we are affecting the constitution of this country to a tremendous degree, at least the written portion of the constitution, the British North America Act. I have thought very deeply about it because, by reason of the fact that I am English-speaking and did have the privilege of living for so many years in Quebec and representing ridings in Quebec, I was preoccupied, more than most, 1 suppose, with constitutional minority rights. The minorities about whom I was most concerned, of course, were the Frenchspeaking Quebeckers. I used to get up in the House in the 1960s and speak with great pride about how well I was treated in that province as an English-speaking Quebecker. I am sure I spoke in every province in the 1960s at the request of the late
3842

October 20, 1980
The Constitution
Mr. Pearson on the type of Canada we could fashion with a high degree of tolerance and understanding of both official languages, cultures and religions, which was a way of life in Quebec, if only the same tolerance and understanding could spread right across this great country of ours.
1 must say that I have seen tremendous progress. I can remember when, in 1962, I felt a moment of embarrassment when a group of my constituents came to visit Parliament and I could not find a bilingual guide to explain the beauty of this building. That is no longer the case. 1 can remember also when documents were never tabled in the House in both official languages simultaneously. It was understood. You babbled something about translation when you tabled the documents, and it was done six weeks or two months later, if at all. That is no longer the case.
I have seen much progress in Ontario. Since I have represented Lincoln, I have been impressed at the progress that the Conservative government of Ontario has made in the area of language and culture.
1 was also there in Quebec, Mr. Speaker, when the provincial government took away some of the privileges that I had as an English-speaking Quebecker, which to me had become rights; for example, the right to put a sign over my store in any language if I was in business, a right which Quebeckers no longer enjoy. I realized then how fragile the rights of individuals are if the force of those rights is found in provincial legislation and not in the federal constitution. 1 came to that conclusion a long time ago, Mr. Speaker.
Indeed, when I think back to the vision of Mr. Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights, Mr. Pearson with his flag, or the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) dedication to the Official Languages Act, I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that if these fundamental changes had not been made, if we had not moved to strengthen the symbols of federalism and strengthen federalism in the House itself, if we had not once again pleaded with French-speaking Quebeckers of the calibre of our Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), the present Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) or, going back, the late Guy Favreau-I could name them all, some of them no longer here-if we had not prevailed on those people to come to the House of Commons to remind French-speaking Canadians that this was their country, all of it, not just Quebec, that indeed there was a role for them to play, that they could become prime ministers and that they could become cabinet ministers of great strength and influence who commanded respect despite the fact that they were French-speaking Quebeckers, that discrimination, at least here, was a thing of the past, I doubt very much that we could have won the referendum.
So 1 say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all hon. members, that what we are doing right now will have the same impact in two, three, five or ten years from now if the force of separation in that province or in other provinces rears its ugly head. The Fathers of Confederation opted for a federal system. If you read their speeches carefully you will find that they also opted for a strong central government in our federal system, as
strong as they could obtain and not lose the support of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.
I have suggested that, throughout the years, through provincial legislation, through economic shifts, the central government has become relatively weak in comparison to some of the provincial governments, particularly in the field of the economy. You might say to me now that there are ways and means in which this imbalance can be redressed. That is true, it has happened. The federal government assumed tremendous powers through necessity during the war, powers which it has been reluctant at times to give up. Some powers, I think, it has given up too easily. But the present formula for federalism, what we are tinkering with-and that is the danger of tinkering with it-has been remarkably successful.
We are the finest country in the world because of our economic system. We have been able to combine free enterprise with social reform, and provide our system with the best educated work force in the world because of our dedication to equality of opportunity and free education wherever possible. We have the healthiest work force in the world, thanks to medicare and the determination of a series of governments to look after social reform. We have the very unique concept of equalization, sharing, which have spelled the difference between inequality and equality of opportunity in this country.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-Government advertising-Approval of unilingual advertisements; the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn)-Finance-Government policy on interest rates; the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar)- The Constitution-Participation of native people and northerners in constitutional discussions.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.
October 20, 1980


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


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent. Item No. 14, the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent. Item No. 17, the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent. Item No. 18, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent.


RADIOACTIVE WASTE
Robert Lloyd Wenman: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider declaring a moratorium on the further construction of nuclear power stations pending the report of a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons to look into ways and means of improving techniques for radioactive waste disposal.
He said: Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago some other members of the House of Commons and I had an opportunity to examine closely Canada's nuclear industry through questioning in the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. I remember at the time, in late 1977, the then minister of energy, mines and resources, Hon. Alastair Gillespie, stating with very strong confidence to myself and my colleagues that the answer to the problem of nuclear waste
Radioactive Waste Disposal
disposal was at hand. Perhaps he could be forgiven for his remarks since he was using the report of Dr. Hare as his source, which indicated in 1977 that "there are good prospects for the safe, permanent disposal of reactor wastes and irradiated fuel." Unfortunately, three years have passed since those remarks were made and the Hare report was published, and we are no closer to a solution today than we were at that time.
The most recent study of the problem by an all-party committee of the Ontario legislature made some interesting conclusions, specifically that Canada's nuclear waste program is ineffective, run by the wrong organization and foundering on public mistrust. The committee found fault with both federal and provincial governments for a lack of adequate research into disposal sites and a failure to support stringent safety regulations when shipping radioactive materials. Moreover, the committee concluded that governments have tended to present biased accounts to the public in regard to nuclear fuel disposal.
I believe the remarks of the minister to which I referred earlier are an example of such biased, overly optimistic accounts.
I almost wish the former member for Etobicoke were here with us today to give us further reassuring testimony. Instead, we must now face the reality of nuclear wastes without the comfort of even his verbal safeguards which have become unfounded over the past three years. What happened to the "good prospects" referred to in the Hare report? Nuclear wastes pose a threat to the environment, and subsequently are a threat to the health and safety of all of us and our constituents. The danger of these wastes is a function of the extreme radioactivity of spent fuel of any nuclear reactor. For several reasons the most significant of these waste products is plutonium-239, known in some circles as the "element of the lord of hell". Although primarily known and feared as the principal component of atomic weaponry, plutonium-239 also is the central threat to our environment. It is known that one milligram of this element can cause lung cancer if inhaled. In laboratory tests one eight-millionth of a pound of plutonium-239 caused lung cancer in animals. In fact it is one of the most lethal poisons known to mankind.
Compounding the lethality problem of plutonium is the incredible longevity of the element. Whereas other reactor waste products may have a half life in the order of 30 years, that of plutonium-239 in fact is 24,000 years, that is, fully one half of all the plutonium-239 we produce today will still be with us with its attendant radioactivity 24,000 years from now. Expressed in other terms, it will take 240,000 years before the plutonium-239 created today will reach a low enough level of radioactivity to present no real threat to the human race or our environment. Nor is plutonium-239 the only radioactive waste product of nuclear reactors.
Even the heavy water used as a moderator in the Candu emerges from the reactor radioactive, and all radioactivity affects human tissue in exactly the same way. By ionizing atoms it changes the configuration of cellular molecules. In so far as molecular function depends upon its configuration, that molecule, and hence the cell, becomes incapable of fulfilling its intended function. It has been found that radium which is

October 20, 1980
Radioactive Waste Disposal
similar to plutonium-239 in its effects on the human body can cause necrosis and tumours of the bone and anaemia resulting in death. Also it can result in cancer of the skin, lungs and thyroid.
I have dwelt for some time on the unpleasant details of radioactivity because it is important for all members of the House to realize the consequences of plunging headlong into the development of nuclear power. I say "headlong" because the government has yet to provide any clear indication of progress in regard to the problem of waste management. I should have excited the minister, but I have been unable to. But, 1 have cited the example of a minister's responsibility for overseeing the development of a Canadian nuclear policy over the last few years. He said that solution was at hand, that in fact they had found the solution. They have not found the solution. I defy anyone in the nuclear industry to come forward now and state that we are closer to a solution than we were in 1977. I hope in response to this motion today that someone will stand and say if there is any such person. I hope that person will come forward and state that we are closer to a solution than we were in 1977. Any reading of science I have done indicates that in fact we are no closer.
1 understand that AECL has now delayed for at least two years the selection of a disposal site for Canada's nuclear wastes, so three years is extended to five years. Let me give an example of the consequences of the failure to find such a disposal site. In my own riding I have been trying for the last four years to have some low-level radioactive material removed from a specific site in Surrey. Earlier AECB made a commitment to remove the material by December of this year. I am afraid that kind of commitment is like the one given by the former minister who said that a waste site would be found for high-level radioactive wastes. We cannot even solve the basic problem of low-level radioactive waste. Now they are saying that this December guarantee to remove this product from my riding to a more permanent waste disposal site may not be met. And it is now suddenly up to the provinces. Now that we cannot find a solution, throw it to the provinces, which seems to be the policy of the federal government.
[DOT] <mo)
I think in this particular case we have a clear example of the irresponsible behaviour of the present government and its agencies in regard to nuclear energy and radioactive waste disposal. The AECB in this case licensed the manufacturing process which created radioactive wastes, yet once the wastes were left behind the AECB refused to accept responsibility for them, sloughing them off instead onto the provincial government.
It is this kind of attitude which contributes to public contempt and suspicion of the nuclear industry in Canada. A Gallup poll taken January 11 of this year, commissioned by none other than the AECL themselves, found that 47 per cent of Ontario residents opposed a waste disposal site in their community, even if a safe disposal method were found, while 39 per cent did not know, and only 6 per cent supported the
idea of a waste disposal site. There has to be a reason why these people are concerned. 1 have listened to some of these reasons for their concern and I cannot understand why the government opposite is not concerned in the same way.
There is good reason to oppose a nuclear waste disposal site in your community. In the first place a satisfactory storage system has yet to be worked out. Immobilizing the waste in glass has been suggested, but unless an adequate cooling system can be developed the glass itself will melt down and leak wastes into the soil. Furthermore, the reacting waste forms gases which could shatter the glass unit. Other problems relate to the site itself. Drilling holes into granite creates fractures, these fractures in turn might allow the entry of water. Earthquake activity can further extend a fracture. We must never forget that we are dealing not with decades, or more centuries, but with thousands upon thousands of years. These are some of the problems which have to be faced. We should not deceive ourselves into thinking the problem is an insignificant one.
Right now the only means we have for looking after radioactive wastes is to store them in temporary cooling ponds, which are a type of large swimming pool. Every day 1700 pounds of reactor wastes are placed in these pools from Ontario's reactors alone. By the year 2,000 we will have to find a way of disposing of 80,000 tons of highly radioactive waste. In this context I should point out that these statistics come from the commission's report itself entitled "The Management of Canada's Nuclear Wastes." The report recommended a step-by-step program calling for an operating repository capable of receiving Canada's nuclear wastes to be in operation by 1995 to 2,000. We have yet to reach the first step in that program, which was the declaration of a national plan to deal with nuclear wastes. Is that the kind of response we are going to get? The prospect of 80,000 tons of radioactive waste sitting around in storage pools becomes increasingly unpleasant.
At this point a most obvious question springs to mind. Canada's first nuclear reactor started up in 1945 when this country was, and is, foremost in nuclear energy research. We were leaders, and perhaps we still are, in nuclear technology, but we are not leaders in the disposal of the waste products from our technology. There is absolutely no excuse for a country as technologically developed as Canada to have made no provisions for the management of reactor wastes. Yet despite the fact Canada's commercial nuclear program has been in operation since 1962, the minister of the environment, when I questioned him in committee in 1976, referred to the disposal of nuclear wastes as a "new development". His deputy minister then elaborated by saying that the Department of the Environment and the Department of Energy had recently been contacted to pursue the matter and to come up with policy recommendations.
Sixteen years passed after the first commercial reactor started before the government realized it had a problem on its hands with the storage and disposal of nuclear wastes. Granted, a reactor usually takes ten years before it is producing significant amounts of waste. But we have not stopped at just
October 20, 1980

one reactor, we have continued to build more, with little or no regard for environmental consequences.
This leads me to another point. Not only have we continued to construct nuclear reactors without having any means of disposing of the wastes. Moreover, we have exported our nuclear technology and its incumbent problems to any country willing to pay the price. We have exported the technology, we have exported the basic raw materials, but we have not been able to provide the expertise to deal with the disposal of the wastes. Here we enter into the realm of safeguards and a whole host of other complications to this industry. India constructed her first nuclear explosive device with the aid of a Candu reactor. Pakistan is well on its way to producing an atomic bomb. But those very real problems tend to obscure another aspect of nuclear sales and one which becomes increasingly more significant for those countries with peaceful intentions. I am referring specifically to the problem of waste disposal for those countries which accept this bargain of unlimited energy in exchange for the hazards of nuclear wastes.
I refer again to my questioning of cabinet ministers in 1976. I asked if Canada has a moral obligation, a moral responsibility. If we are going to export this technology, these raw materials to less developed countries than ourselves when we cannot handle the wastes, how do we expect them to do so? The then minister of the environment replied that he could not do anything about that because he did not have the information to give them. Therefore, it stands that if we cannot provide the information to help nations protect themselves from our technology, are we not morally obligated not to export it?
Furthermore, the minister said the Canadian government had no means of implementing in other countries the environmental rules we may observe in our own country. That position was confirmed by the minister then responsible for external affairs. Given this attitude, which has not changed in the four years since those statements were made, it is clear the government is guilty of moral bankruptcy for continuing to export our nuclear capabilities to countries less equipped than ourselves to handle these potentially dangerous problems. It is equally clear the government should cease to export any nuclear materials until such time as adequate safety and environmental standards are in effect. If need be, this would include the return to Canada of all spent fuels from our nuclear reactors abroad. But of course we cannot do that because we have no means of dealing with the transportation or handling of these wastes once they have reached our shores.
The previous government was prepared to face the problems posed by nuclear energy. The Conservative party had indicated its intention and had begun to establish a joint House and Senate committee to examine the various aspects of nuclear power. My own motion, which I sponsor here today, is more modest in its scope in that it calls for an examination of the nuclear waste problem only. However, it is because of the long term and significant dangers associated with spent fuels that I ask the House today to consider placing a moratorium on the
Radioactive Waste Disposal
future construction of nuclear power plants until the problem of wastes can be adequately dealt with. I am not saying we have to stop our industry, 1 am saying we have to spend as much energy finding solutions to the problem of nuclear waste as we spend paying bribes to foreign governments to buy our technology. If we spent just that much effort perhaps we would get closer to that solution which is supposedly at hand.
This issue is still too important to be left to internal departmental study, which is a very convenient way of putting something on the shelf and forgetting about it. It demands attention from members of all parties of this House of Commons. Because of the threat posed by nuclear wastes to future generations, this House would be derelict in its responsibility to the Canadian people if it did not hold public hearings. Why should the public not have its say in this country as it does in almost every country in the world?
It is clear that attempts to advance waste disposal research further are hampered by a public distrust of AECL. It is equally clear that such distrust is, to a large extent, justified. AECL continues to see waste disposal as a public relations problem. Combined with the failure to do anything about nuclear waste until the problem is almost unmanageable, AECL's attitude has alienated those very people whom it can least afford to offend. Public hearings by a joint House-Senate committee would enable both sides to clear the air and would be considerably less partisan than an industry-sponsored hearing which must consider its own vested interest. This is a matter for government, not a matter for the industry.
I would like to sum up with a brief thought. In the case of plutonium-239, in the words of an author of a recent book on this subject, "We are asking all foreseeable generations of human beings to guard this element from accident, sabotage and acts of God". The very least we can do as responsible members of Parliament is to try to ensure that from the moment we knew about the problem, from that very moment, we began with all our efforts to seek solutions, knowledge and technology relative to waste disposal so that we can safeguard, not just ourselves, but future generations of not only Canadians, but mankind.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the initiative taken by the hon. member opposite in raising the question of nuclear matters in Canada today, particularly the question of nuclear-spent fuel disposal and the related matter of public participation in that important subject.
The hon. member has drawn to the attention of the House the fact that the generation of electricity by nuclear reactors carries with it the problem of how we can best dispose safely of the spent fuel produced.
More than 99 per cent of the radioactive material produced in the typical Candu station remains in the used fuel which is now stored temporarily at the reactor sites. Hon. members will be aware that this fuel contains useful material which could be

October 20, 1980
Radioactive Waste Disposal
recovered and used to produce yet more energy as technology to that end develops. If the useful material were to be recycled, most of the residual radioactive material would be left behind as separated waste. No matter whether the radioactive material is left in the fuel or separated as waste, clearly, as the hon. member opposite pointed out, it must be handled with care and isolated from man until the radioactivity decreases to an insignificant level.
The question then arises as to whether this can be done safely. We have heard today of the present practice which is to store the spent fuel at the reactor sites. It can indeed be stored there indefinitely with suitable maintenance, but that practice would place a burden on future generations, to maintain that high degree of surveillance over the spent fuel. Accordingly, researchers are working, under agreement reached between the Ontario government and the national government, to investigate various ways of permanent disposal. The choice to be made is to discard the entire used fuel bundles from the reactors after sealing them in corrosion-proof containers, in which case the used fuel would be considered a waste in the true sense of the word, or to recycle the useful materials in the used fuel and melt the pure wastes, that is the fission byproducts, together with glass-making chemicals to produce a highly insoluble solid for disposal. Scientists and engineers, including the geologists, involved in this research agree on the suitability of geological disposal. The used fuel or solid radioactive glass waste would be placed in a deep vault carved out of primeval rock.
In Canada we are fortunate in that we have, for example, in the Canadian Shield more than 1,000 locations which have the theoretical potential as sites for waste disposal. A nuclear waste vault in such circumstances would look like a large hard rock mine with the spent fuel isolated under 500 to 1,000 metres of rock. A single vault would be sufficient to hold all of the nuclear waste produced in Canada for the next 50 years.
That research which, as I say, has been conducted under the aegis of the Ontraio government and the federal government, has been subjected to a variety of reviews. In a few minutes I want to turn to the question raised by the hon. member on public participation in this aspect as well as other aspects of nuclear energy generation. Before doing so, however, I want to refer to the annual report of the technical advisory committee on nuclear fuel waste management program, a committee of independent experts, of which the hon. member opposite may know.
It might be useful if I were to point out to the House that in the committee's over-all view, the current research program is well conceived. There are many impressive accomplishments, as the report of the technical advisory committee notes, and the research objectives are becoming more clearly defined and the most critical areas in which more research is needed are being identified. The committee was reassured by the increasing participation in the program by university and industry scientists and engineers and the excellent understanding of relevant international research activities on the part of the principal investigators.
The committee in its report in May stressed that a proper scientific and technical evaluation of the program can only be made if the necessary research information is available. In particular it noted that extensive geoscientific work in the field is necessary and that it is essential that approvals for field research be obtained. I might add parenthetically that such activity is going forward at this very moment.
Further, the committee affirmed its general approval and support for major increases in funding for the expansion of the geoscientific and geotechnical programs, especially in regard to field research activities and the development of an underground research laboratory.
In discussing the work which has been done in the field of evaluation of the current program for the disposal of nuclear spent fuel, the hon. member opposite made reference to the final report of the select committee on Ontario hydro affairs of the Ontario legislature. I am pleased that he did so because that report contains much information of value to those who are actively concerned with the current research phase of the spent fuel program.
The hon. member opposite may be aware that the report of the Ontario select committee has characterized the current nuclear waste program as fundamentally sound. It has also put forward a number of proposals for futher evolution in the current practices in the program, practices mainly related to the participation of the public and to the over-all management of the program. I can assure the hon. member that those recommendations will be studied by the federal government as well as by the Ontario government. I am quite certain that many of them will be subjects of discussion between the two levels of government.
I see that the time is passing. The hon. member opposite, in bringing forward his motion, has raised a variety of subjects to which I would like to respond. However, given the limited time available, it might be better if I were to restrict myself to one or two of his observations.
He spoke of the problems associated with the export of nuclear technology from Canada. First he drew a picture of his concern about the safeguards which are in place to prevent any repetition of the experience with India and to prevent the abuse of Candu technology by countries importing that technology. I am sure the hon. member is aware that the Canadian safeguard provisions against non-proliferation are as stringent and as demanding as any in the world today. 1 am sure he is very conscious that Canada has foregone commercial opportunities for additional commercial sales as a result of our commitment to an unparalleled high level of safeguards against nuclear proliferation.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Safeguards such as those with India?


Roy MacLaren: Second, in terms of technology with regard to spent fuel disposal, the hon. member opposite will be aware that the Canadian research program is merely one of many such programs. Many research programs are conducted by
October 20, 1980

other governments which generate electricity through nuclear fission. Additionally there are, of course, international research programs under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Authority in Vienna. Those programs of research are also directed toward some of the questions which the hon. member opposite raised earlier.
Mr. Speaker, the motion before us calls for a moratorium on the further construction of nuclear power stations. 1 do not know whether the hon. member had that moratorium in mind for Canada only or whether he also meant a prohibition on the export of nuclear technology. Be that as it may, he looks for a moratorium while improved techniques for radioactive waste disposal would be examined by a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons.
In our view a moratorium might be appropriate in areas where the government cannot proceed because of confusion or indecision. I do not know whether it was that experience of the previous government in this area which led it to the proposal for a moratorium when it was in office. For our part, we have not felt the need for a moratorium because our policy is not marked by confusion or indecision. On the contrary, the government's views on nuclear energy, and particularly on the future of the nuclear industry in Canada, were set forth in a brief statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as reported in Hansard for May 1, 1980. The Prime Minister said we were not undertaking a public inquiry, in the broad sense of the word, because we believed the time schedule for keeping our nuclear industry viable is short. The Prime Minister also noted that we were in some danger of seeing the Canadian nuclear industry become obsolete and losing its opportunities to sell Canadian high technology in other countries. He noted too that we wanted to take this opportunity to determine in what ways the promotion of the Canadian nuclear industry and, indeed, the sales abroad of Candu technology, might be encouraged. There is no intention, of course, in that connection to prevent the Canadian public, either concurrently with the review or subsequently, from expressing their views. The Prime Minister did stress that a long inquiry about whether, as he put it, we stay in the game or get out, would not be feasible since it might well be during the time taken up by such an inquiry that our industry lost its momentum in the face of both international competition and national considerations.
Mr. Speaker, as members of the House know, there have been a variety of inquiries here in Canada over recent years into the various aspects of the generation of nuclear energy. I would refer the hon. member opposite, when he raises the question how Canadians have had such opportunities, to a whole series of inquiries. I might mention the Cluff Lake board of inquiry in Saskatchewan, the Ontario Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning, the Ontario Royal Commission on the Health and Safety of Workers in the Mines, the Select Committee of the Ontario Legislature investigating Ontario Hydro affairs-to which the hon. member referred- the Ontario Environmental Assessment Board into the expansion of the uranium mines in the Elliot Lake area, the Federal
Radioactive Waste Disposal
Environmental Assessment Review Office panels on Eldorado's proposed uranium refineries, and meetings of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works of the House which has addressed a variety of nuclear energy questions. I should add, of course, that members may have available the first report of the technical advisory committee on the nuclear fuel waste management program, to which I referred earlier. I am sure the hon. member opposite, coming from British Columbia, will be aware of the Bates inquiry which is finishing its work. There is also a provincial parliamentary committee which has been looking into various questions relating to nuclear generation in New Brunswick.
With such a variety of reports, commissions, inquiries and boards in place over recent years, there has not, in our view, been any lack of opportunity for public participation in the discussion of nuclear energy questions.
In addition, both the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and I myself in recent months have had an opportunity to meet with representatives of a variety of organizations, some representing the nuclear industry and others representing such bodies as Energy Probe, Energy Pathways and the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, which represent a range of attitudes towards nuclear energy. We have had the benefit of their views and so have the public servants involved in the current review of the nuclear industry.
In raising questions about the nuclear energy industry in Canada I would have thought the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) might have spent a moment or two more on the various benefits which have accrued to Canadians from that energy option of which he is so much aware. I am sure it was only through lack of time that he did not. There are, in my view, three principal ways and a number of subsidiary ways in which the nuclear energy industry in Canada is of benefit to Canadians.
It is important, first, as an essential part of our diversified energy strategy. Second, the Candu reactor is a leader in Canadian industrial development in the high technology area. The Candu industry is one of the few industries of wholly Canadian character with a high degree of technological content. As many international observers have pointed out, the Candu reactor is a remarkable achievement in an area of great technical challenge.
Third, the Candu industry, in its export potential, represents a vehicle to help carry Canadian industries into foreign markets and to bring the benefits of Canadian technology to countries which are desperately short of energy and which can find through nuclear generation the sources of energy for their industry and domestic use which they so much need.
I believe my time is about up, although I could add more about the nature of the nuclear industry in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.

October 20, 1980
Radioactive Waste Disposal


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise to support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), although 1 must say I do not think it goes far enough either in dealing with a moratorium on the waste disposal problem or in dealing with the industry itself. Having listened to the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, one is left with the feeling that should the waste disposal problem be dealt with adequately he would certainly be supporting the nuclear industry. The previous speaker made some comments in relation to the value of the nuclear industry to the Canadian economy, but I did not hear him or any other member of his party propose their ridings as a national disposal site for waste in Canada.
Looking at the field as a whole, there are five main areas which need to be dealt with. The first is mining, the impact the actual removal of uranium from the ground and the primary milling processes will have on the workers in that area, along with the storage of first-level refined ore. This is an area where very little money has been spent by the federal government in assessing the health impact and the environmental impact, though both are very real and tragic.
The second relates to refining. Some money has been spent on this. The main expenditures have been on fuel fabrication and the fuel cycle itself, the actual phase whereby some cash flow is generated. The government has been spending money in this specific area.
The problem of waste disposal is one that disturbs not only myself but people everywhere because of the dramatic expansion in the volume of nuclear wastes sitting in various places around the world. It is interesting to look at a recent energy, mines and resources report which points out some of the factors they are considering. Most members of this House are aware that most of the fuel bundles and wastes from the nuclear cycle have been stored in cooled-water areas. This is called surface disposal. One of the less enlightened proposals which have been discussed involves sticking the nuclear waste into the Arctic or Antarctic ice sheets, which all of us know are likely to melt at some point, certainly with the "greenhouse effect" from C02 that is now affecting the world.
Disposal into outer space is another very unenlightened proposal. Disposal on ocean plains is another option the United States and a number of European countries are now considering, though with some distaste, because when this method was used in the past the containers burst open releasing nuclear waste. Frequently overlooked in connection with this type of disposal method, is the fact that once the nuclear waste gets into the environment, it is very quickly bio-accumulated, rising up the food chain and into the food web and eventually into man, who is at the top of the food chain.
Another prospect is geological containment on land, a method that seems to be preferred by members opposite. 1 will be raising some very serious questions this afternoon regarding that proposal, including the use of salt formations for disposal purposes.
Last year 1 had the opportunity to ask some questions of the vice-president of research for Atomic Energy of Canada, Mr. Hart. I would like to put a couple of his responses on the record. 1 asked him:
-first, where waste is at present being stored in Canada; how much, in gross tonnage; and exactly how it gets there from the site it is currently at.
Mr. Hart replied:
I do not have the exact tonnage, but you can think of it as about one Olympic-size swimming pool, perhaps half to two-thirds full.
In my view, that is a pretty frivolous attitude to take toward a very serious environmental problem, one that we all recognize as capable of causing serious cancers in man. The second question I put is very relevant to the proposals put forward from the government side regarding geological containment on land. 1 put the following question to Mr. Hart at that time:
If we look, for example, at the Atikokan and Sudbury areas, if the waste was to be moved from one site to another, could you give us some idea of how that waste would be moved there? Also, in what form is it going to be stored in the geological areas that it is proposed to place it in?
Mr. Hart replied:
If a site is selected away from the reactors, which is likely, the fuel will be transported in shielded flasks which have been tested for fire resistance, crash resistance; there are some other tests as well. It will be transported either by road or rail and taken to the site. When it is at the site, the concept we have now, which is still, as I say, under research, is that it will be buried deep in a stable geologic formation. The material will, in fact, be buried deep in these formations. It will be tested for some time in that formation and then the hole will be backfilled. It will be monitored for a while, but the idea is to prove that it can be left unattended for all time.
It is important to point out some of the problems of locking it into geological containment. For example, ground water could at some future point get in and move some of the radioactive materials into the ground water supply. Members opposite, and perhaps those to my right, should become better versed about such things as iodine 129. The half life of iodine 129 is 17 million years. When we are talking about that type of containment or some of these other government proposals, such as placing it in the ocean or in ice sheets, we are talking about geological time. We are simply not talking about the history of civilization, which extends for only 10,000 years. We are talking about the safe disposal of wastes that have many millions of years in just half lives. There could be further ice ages, enormous disruptions on the planet; the placement of materials of this type in the environment in any way at this point in time is inadvisable. At some future date another generation will have to pay for the risk we took in order to better our lives. We have not really reflected on the very serious health dangers our actions will impose on future generations.
Another example is technetium 99, again a substance with a multimillion-year half life, capable of moving very quickly in the groundwater system. This is something we should keep very much in mind. Very pertinent to our discussion today is another question I put to Mr. Hart last year. I quote:
Exactly how radioactive is the material that would be moved? For example, if the container were here in the room and there was a crash and some of it fell out on the floor, just how radioactive is it?


Mr.   Hart@: The flasks have been tested by a railway locomotive going 80 miles an hour crashing into a solid concrete abutment, and there was, in fact, no leakage at all.
October 20, 1980

1 question the intelligence of our friendly scientists working for Atomic Energy who would think of such an experiment as tying a flask on the front of a locomotive and running the locomotive into a cement wall at 80 miles an hour. Some pretty serious questions concerning responsibilities to the Canadian public arise when a statement like that is put on the record. Ele went on to say:
You could sit on the flask itself. If there was some leakage, I guess it would depend on how much.
1 think that is self-evident, Mr. Speaker. The exchange goes on as follows:


James Ross Fulton: Let us say there was a pound of it here in the middle of the floor.
Hon. members should keep in mind that if there were a pound of this material from one of the nuclear plants in Canada sitting on the floor of this chamber, I would be equally anxious to ask the vice-president in charge of research whether I would be safe sitting here. He replied:
If there was a pound of it in the middle of the floor, no, you probably would not be safe sitting here. You would probably be safe sitting back at the door there.
I really question what is happening in the nuclear industry in Canada when we get such statements from people who are being paid by the taxpayers of this country and, who go to such lengths as tying a flask of radioactive material on the front of a locomotive and then running that locomotive into a wall at 80 miles an hour! If that is government policy, then I think we have a much more serious question on our hands than perhaps immediately meets the eye.
It is not only the waste from the nuclear industry itself which causes problems; there are radioactive wastes from industry as well. A lot of people do not recognize that smoke detectors, for instance, contain radioactive material. Hospitals and universities also house such material. Earlier in this session I raised a question in the House regarding the University of British Columbia. It is my understanding that over the last couple of decades the university has simply dumped its radioactive waste in Vancouver Harbour, off Point Atkinson. Apparently someone went out in a rowboat and simply threw it over the side. I have gone to a great deal of trouble to try to find out where the waste sites are but officials do not recall where the radioactive waste was dumped from the boats.
This is not an unfamiliar problem, Mr. Speaker. Quite recently questions were put to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) in this House regarding the transportation of radioactive material in Canada. It appears that when 58 containers of ore were being moved on a passenger flight in this country, not one of them had the lid properly secured.
We have to look not only at the health of workers in the mining industry but also at refining, fuel fabrication and the fuel cycle to see the dangers to the public and workers. The majority of funds in this country are going to those two areas, which are highly scientific and highly technical.
Radioactive Waste Disposal
A few days ago in Toronto I had the opportunity of listening to Dr. Noel Brown, Chairman of the United Nations Environment Planning Committee who gave a very interesting overview of the Three Mile Island incident. He pointed out that had that incident occurred anywhere else in the world-for example in places where our CAN DU reactors have gone-it might not have been so easily dealt with. In the United States, and to a great extent in Canada, there are enough scientists in the nuclear field who could get together quickly in an emergency. But had such a thing happened in India, for example, there might have been a much more serious incident because of the lack of an adequate scientific response.
I must point out that the hesitant, piecemeal approach which has marked the entire history of the nuclear industry, going back to the 1930s was taken because of sheer economic expediency. In all our efforts to get a saleable commodity, be it electricity or the various readioactive substances used in medicine, sheer economic expediency has governed our dealings with health or environmental issues. Very little money has been spent on these very serious problems and we have yet to hear from the government of any major new expenditures in this regard.
I should like to return to the prospect of placing these containers, be they composed of cement or of various metals, whatever the scientific community decides, in the geological formations. How long will it be before the various radionuclides reach the surface? That is a serious question, since it is inevitable that they will. All the types of storage tried to date have been viable at the very best in terms of centuries. These materials will inevitably get back to the surface. They will work their way into streams and back to the food web and thus have a very serious impact on man.
A case in point is Eldorado Nuclear Ltd. which is still dumping waste at Port Granby. At this time, all levels of government are co-operating to try to get that company to expand-particularly its uranium hexafluoride operation, commonly known as UF6-from 5,000 metric tons per year to
9,000	by 1984. The nuclear garbage coming from that industry will be around, not for decades or centuries, but for ice ages to come, so we must be concerned about the impact of such debris on future generations.
As recently as 1976, $7 million was allocated to clean up Port Hope where 550 homes were found to have radiation levels above AECB health standards. I think most hon. members have a fairly good understanding of the Love Canal incident in the United Sates, of which there are now potentially hundreds. We have Canada's very own, home-grown Love Canal situations as a result of a government which did not care to allocate enough money to make sure things were done right from the very beginning and that conditions were made safe. So far, building materials including studs and parts of walls have been removed from 220 homes that contained the highest levels of radioactivity. A further 152 homes have had stacks installed in order to remove loose radon gas from them. I must point out that radon gas has had a very serious impact on the health of workers in the uranium industry and that very little

October 20, 1980
Radioactive Waste Disposal
research is being done on the problem. Soil has been removed from beneath 280 homes sites because the ore left over from the refining process was highly radioactive. Rather than hauling it to a central site which one would expect of a government with some foresight, it was simply dumped into ravines and used as backfill for home sites. To date, 104,225 tons of low level debris have been moved to Chalk River but there is still
200,000	tons of contaminated earth in Port Hope. I am not aware that the government has any plans to deal with this serious situation.
1 should like to quote a statement of George Wald, the 1967 Nobel Prize winner as follows:
-no one knows how to store the waste products, which will remain dangerous for half a million years. The whole of human civilization is perhaps 10,000 years old, and we are producing material that will represent a lethal liability for man and for life on earth for hundreds of thousands of years to come. At present this stuff is being stockpiled just about where it is produced, while we try to figure out what to do with it.
I certainly support the private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. I wonder, if nuclear waste were being properly cared for, whether he would openly support the nuclear industry, which is posing the most serious issue facing mankind on this planet at the moment. A previous speaker on the government side of the House just softsoaped the issue, in my view, Mr. Speaker, hoping that the public will remain quiet on this crucial health and environmental issue in Canada.


Royce Herbert Frith: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to point out to the three previous speakers that I come from a riding neighbour to the riding of Algoma, which, of course, is critically involved in the extraction of uranium, an ore used in the uranium hexafluoride operation in Port Hope. In May or June of this year it was announced that the uranium refinery for the production of uranium hexafluoride would be located in Blind River. My part of the country has, therefore, been involved in the nuclear issue.
It goes without saying that it would be irresponsible of any government not to take the question of nuclear waste disposal very seriously. Some members on the other side, however, have stated that the government is doing nothing about research into the question of safe and efficient disposal of nuclear waste at the present time. That is to stretch the truth, Mr. Speaker. Many Canadians call for a moratorium on nuclear waste disposal but in my opinion that is simply to run away from the problem. A significant percentage of the hydroelectricity demand in the province of Ontario is met by nuclear energy. This means, as the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) mentioned, that these rods of fuel are at the present time stored in pools.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[Translation)

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


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, when 1 was speaking at five o'clock, I was expressing the opinion that confederation has been a remarkable success. 1 talked very briefly about our economic system which has evolved and which combines the best of the free enterprise system and social obligations to the less fortunate and our dedication to the quality of life, thus providing our system with the best educated work force in the world and the healthiest population because of medicare.
October 20, 1980

I spoke of our equalization principle. Without it there could be no equality of opportunity in this country. I spoke about the principle that those who can afford it should help those in need, not only on an individual basis through the transfer of unemployment insurance, for example, from the worker in Ontario to those less fortunate, but also with the transfer of funds through our equalization formula.
Canada has been a remarkable success story, and it is recognized around the world that we have the finest country in the world. When we combine our standard of living with our degree of freedoms, 1 doubt if any country can match ours.
However, if confederation has been such a great success, why am I an advocate of the proposed resolution before the House, which in a relatively short period of time I hope will be referred to the special joint committee of the House and the Senate? As learned members opposite have emphasized in the last week, the fundamental philosophy behind the BNA Act has been, of course, compromise. It reflects a combination of the civil code, for instance, and jurisprudence to look after the rights of individuals.
But the one defect and the main defect in the BNA Act, is that it does not contain an amending formula. It does not contain an amending formula because the Fathers of Confederation did not think one was necessary. Perhaps in the light of the times one was not necessary. Forceful advocates of the rights of English Catholics like Connolly and McGee made sure that our rights were protected in the BNA Act. Others made sure that the rights of English Protestants were protected under section 133. Concern for French-speaking Canadians in the west was minimal. Numerically it was not a problem. Even the rights of French-speaking Canadians in Ontario were not a pressing problem in the field of education, because where French-speaking Ontarians lived they lived together and could control their own system of education and their own schools that long ago.
There is a relationship between the concern of Canadians today for individual rights ard the general acceptance across Canada at this very moment today that we should get on with the business at hand, that this proposed resolution should be debated a few more days and then sent on to committee. I think this is the first time since I came here in 1962 that Canadians have shown any concern at all about the issue of constitutional change. If anything, the tendency in the past has been to say, "Oh, not again; why are you debating proposed constitutional changes and amending formulae at a time when we have unemployment problems, inflation problems, tariff problems and energy policy problems?" I think the reason is that in recent years Canadians have become more conscious of individual rights and of how fragile individual rights really are.
Our history has been blemished like the history of any other country, and I will not repeat what has been said in this House about how we treated Canadians of Japanese origin during the war, about how we treated the Jehovah's Witnesses in Quebec in the 1950s and the infamous padlock law, about how some of the privileges of English-speaking Quebeckers have been eradicated, the result of provincial legislation, and about how in
The Constitution
most provinces in this country individual rights of people, particularly in the field of education, are not as generous as they were at the time of confederation. This is unfortunate, but I think that perhaps for the first time the need to enshrine our rights in the constitution has become a real issue in many homes.
Take, for instance, the whole issue of mobility. I was minister of labour for a number of years, close to the labour movement as a result, and 1 can remember the anger, the agony of trade unions in this country, particularly in the construction industry, when construction workers in Cornwall found they could not work in the province of Quebec two years ago, and when painters from Hull could not work in the national capital, in Ottawa. This was a real issue which was resolved through debate and discussion between appropriate ministers of one province and the other, but the element of retaliation was there: "If you do not allow our construction workers in your province, we will not allow your painters in our province." This registered with Canadians, particularly those who come from Europe.
I can remember one very angry union leader asking me, "Is it really a big step from a work permit by the minister of manpower of a particular province to the day when we are going to need permits to travel across this country? Is it all that far-fetched to think that the next step will be the need for visas to travel from one province to another?" Intelligent and concerned Canadians see this trend toward balkanization. They wonder about it and ask, "What are we going to do about it?" When the Premier of Newfoundland-and I do not want to belabour him-stresses and emphasizes his dilemma, on the one hand, of providing jobs for the people of his province in the flourishing oil industry in Newfoundland, and the problem of denying access to those jobs to Canadians of other provinces, this is not a reassuring situation. The issue, for instance, of owning land anywhere in Canada by Canadians is another problem-


An hon. Member:: Where is that covered in this bill?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I did not say it was. I did not interrupt the hon. member, and I will not interrupt him. If he would remain quiet during the rest of my speech, I will be very pleased. I did say earlier, when, I hope, the hon. member was in his seat, that the details to which he referred can be discussed when this resolution gets to committee. But I do not want to be bogged down on particular little points. I could ask the hon. member where, in here, is the province of Ontario prepared to recognize French as the official language in our province? It is not in there either, nor is freedom of choice in the field of education, nor was it intended, and I will come to that matter in a few minutes, if I am permitted.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Is the hon. member going to put in an amendment about this?

October 20, 1980
The Constitution


Some hon. Members:: Put it in.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1 will come to that. I suggest that the opposition members put in an amendment and they might be surprised at the reception on this side of the House.
What is proposed, Mr. Speaker? It is proposed that we bring our constitution home, the BNA Act, a further evolution, as I said earlier, a logical transition from a colonial state to a nation. The Governor General is now a Canadian, the new flag which is ours, and the Official Languages Act which reflects the true nature of Canada, and now we are suggesting, after all these years, that we bring the constitution home. I am not suggesting we should have moved at a faster pace. After all, we have achieved all that in a spirit of relative harmony and with virtually no bloodshed as compared to, say, the United States. But what is the sense of bringing home a constitution which we cannot amend because the Fathers of Confederation did not see the need at the time for an amending formula? What would be more logical, in selecting the amending formula to come along with the BNA Act, than the only formula which all the provincial premiers at one time agreed to in Victoria in 1971?


An hon. Member:: What about the Vancouver consensus in 1980?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: With the hon. member's voice one can hear anything he says, but unfortunately he does not make too much sense.
That formula is the only formula that the provincial premiers of this country were able to agree to, and I think that, barring a better one, and with the two-year period in which the provinces and the federal government can get together and come up with a better one, this makes sense.
Let me come back to the other point, Mr. Speaker. What are the entrenched rights which we think Canada needs and which provincial legislation provides in some cases? I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that provincial legislation is only as good as the legislatures or the premiers of that province at that time in history, and there is no guarantee that if our rights are enshrined in provincial legislation, those rights will be found in that same provincial legislation five, ten, or 15 years from now. So our rights must be enshrined in the constitution.
Is anybody here against the enshrinement of the fundamental freedoms, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of belief, freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of the press and other media, freedom of peaceful assembly and of association?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Is anyone here against the right to stand for office for election to the House of Commons? Is anyone here against the democratic right which includes the requirement that no House of Commons and no legislative assembly continue for longer than five years?
Is anyone here against mobility rights?


An hon. Member:: What about freedom of property?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: What about the democratic right which gives people the opportunity to speak from their seats? That is part of it, so I am not going to let the member worry me. Mobility rights? It is perhaps the most important right we can have at the moment, the right to work anywhere in this country in any province.


An hon. Member:: What about free enterprise?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The right to establish ourselves and seek employment anywhere, the right to remain in Canada or leave the country, minority language educational rights which provide that citizens of the English-speaking or French-speaking minority of a province have the right to educate their children in that minority language, wherever numbers warrant-what is so important about that, Mr. Speaker? It is extremely important. How many of my friends in my province, in Quebec when I lived there, refused or had to refuse promotions, transfers by multinational corporations in other provinces, refusing jobs in Ontario, Manitoba or British Columbia because of their unease and concern that their children would not be able to continue their education in French? And now, because of provisions in Bill 101, English-speaking Canadians from the west, from Ontario and from the maritimes, are concerned also about transferring to the province of Quebec because of their unease about Bill 101 which permits them to have their children educated in English only with the permission of the government, and only then for a short period of time.


An hon. Member:: Why did you not challenge the legislation?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Go home and you tell the people in your province what they should be doing about minority rights, and we will all applaud. The last time I was in Lincoln riding, I came to the conclusion that I was still in Canada. I was welcomed there, I was elected there. I beat a Tory there, and 1 will beat him again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Is anyone in this House opposed to legal rights, the right to life and liberty, the security of a person, protection against unlawful search and seizure, unlawful detention or imprisonment, the right to be properly informed of the reasons, and non-discrimination rights which ensure that all Canadians, regardless of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age or sex, have the same before the law?
As I said earlier today, I think the Official Languages Act indicates what can be done in this House when people of good will stick together. In 1969 the Official Languages Act was passed with the support of all parties. As I recall it, some of the more eloquent speeches came from members opposite. But that too should be enshrined in the constitution so that subsequent parliaments can deal with the situation if some pressure
October 20, 1980

groups try in some way to amend, water down, or make inoperative that particular legislation.
My time is nearly over, but I urge members of Parliament to consider approaching this particular debate in the same spirit which existed when pieces of legislation dramatically altering this country were passed. I am thinking of the flag, official languages, and many others. 1 urge that this matter be referred to the committee sooner than later. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians watching this debate. For the first time hundreds of thousands of them are in favour of what is proposed here because, for the first time, thousands of them are concerned about individual rights.
A new Canadian who comes here is concerned about his or her rights. In many instances that is what brought people here in the first place. They are concerned whether their culture, language, freedom and ways of life will be protected, as I think the House should be. They wonder why there has been a delay. In fact most of them are wondering why it has taken almost 50 years to reach the point where we are working toward bringing our written constitution back to Canada.
Those people who are concerned about a referendum should not be concerned. The chances of it being used are not necessarily remote but, according to the formula, as a last resort. What does it mean? What does it intend to do? It will appeal directly to Canadians to settle an impasse between the central and provincial governments. To whom should we appeal? We have reached an impasse in our ability to do things, to enshrine human freedoms, rights and privileges. It is the people who suffer, not the members of Parliament. It is quite logical to appeal to them in a referendum if we must, because after all their rights are being held up.
As I said before supper, I believe the high calibre of the debate should continue. There have been remarkable contributions from all parts of the House. If we look at this with a view to bringing to an end an impasse which was never intended by the Fathers of Confederation when they omitted to provide an amending formula, and if we look at it as one of our great responsibilities as members of Parliament to bite the bullet and do the things needed for Canadians, many years too late, I think all of us will be able to look back in five or ten years with approval on our own contributions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say how pleased I am to participate in this debate. This evening 1 hope to point out, certainly to the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), and other members of the House of Commons, the real concern of members on this side of the House respecting this resolution, and the real concerns of many, many Canadians across Canada. 1 will try to demonstrate to the House, as best I can, the fact that the country we know as Canada is really a partnership. It was formed that way and it was operated that way. One of the greatest threats the resolution proposes is the potential destruction of the partnership which makes Canada a truly unique country.
The Constitution
Also I should like to be able to say that this measure represents a major historical event in the progress of our nation. A nation's constitution is the basic law of the land. It provides the framework for social, political, and economic actions of its citizens. It is the document which establishes the basic ground rules of Canadian society. As such, any proposals to change this basic document should have the effect of increasing our sense of community and improving our institutions and processes in order that the quality of life of Canadian citizens can be advanced. In short, changes to the constitution should be directed toward greater harmony and understanding. They should be unifying and, above all else, they should not be undertaken lightly or without effective discussion and agreement between all partners of this confederation.
I believe the measure we are discussing today does none of these things. Without question, in my opinion, it is one of the most dangerous documents I have seen come before the House of Commons in the ten years I have been a member of Parliament. Both the manner in which this resolution is being presented and the resolution itself represent a direct threat to the very foundation of Canada. The resolution denies over 100 years of common Canadian experience. Since 1867 Canadians have been working toward developing systems and processes uniquely Canadian that can be applied to resolve Canadian problems within a framework which meets the underlying conditions of that common experience. The resolution which comes before us in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in my opinion, could destroy a fundamental part of our common heritage-our federal system of government.
Before I move on to the method of introducing this resolution and the specific contents of the document we are debating, I should like to say a few words about the nature of our federal system, why it evolved as it did, and how it has been used to meet the needs of Canadians. Canada's federation is a blend of government systems not found anywhere else in the world. It is truly a unique wedding of the principles of parliamentary government with the forms and institutions of a federal system of government organization. I believe all members of the House have a good grasp of the principle of parliamentary democracy, but it is true that sometimes we forget the importance of federalism in the Canadian experience and how we brought ourselves to the point we are at today.
Canadians gain a lot from both parts of our system. From the principles of the common law and parliamentary government we gain protection of individual rights and freedoms, an assurance of democratic principles and guarantees of our independence as a nation and freedom as a people. Individual rights and freedoms are matters of basic importance to all Canadians. If there was a measure to improve their protection in Canada, I am certain all members and all Canadians would wholeheartedly and gladly support it. However, the protection and the benefit Canadians gain from our federal system are also matters of basic concern to all of us. I believe this proposal is a direct threat to those uniquely Canadian concerns because it threatens the federal system we have established to protect and assure them. Canadian federalism is just not a

October 20, 1980
The Constitution
superficial luxury. When the Fathers of Confederation wedded the two systems of federalism and parliamentary government they did not do it simply as a sop to the provinces, nor did they do it as a means of window-dressing our constitution to distinguish it from the parliamentary system of Great Britain. Finally, 1 am convinced they did not do it simply as a means of causing problems for future generations of Canadians.
Canada's blend of federalism with parliamentary government emerged from a unique set of conditions which still apply today in Canada. Flad these conditions not existed there would have been no need to marry the two distinct systems of government. Under different conditions it would have been easier simply to form a unitary state modelled on the parliamentary institutions of Great Britain and let it go at that.
What are these conditions which necessitate a federal form of organization in Canada? First, I believe our size is a major factor. Even today we have a relatively small population scattered across a vast and varied land. Governing this nation with a unitary national government could not help but produce feelings of remoteness and alienation in places like British Columbia or Nova Scotia. Even residents of the capital city would tend to feel removed from their governments because things of immediate local concern, such as schools, roads and property taxes, would all be governed by our national government. As a result we have developed a system of dividing the labour between the two levels of government, one that is equipped to deal with major questions of truly national importance and one which is closer to the people and equipped to deal with those questions of a more localized nature which could easily get lost in the shuffle under a unitary national government.
The second main factor requiring a federal form of government is, in my opinion, the diverse social, cultural and linguistic character of our country. This diversity is enhanced by our size and the relative isolation of large parts of our population. I believe it is the federal system and not the parliamentary form of government which protects the rights of Canadians in this area most effectively. Under a unitary state the distinct views and needs of cultural groups would again be lost in a shuffle of competing minority group interests. Under a federal form of government minority groups can have a much greater impact and participation in those items which concern them in their everyday lives.
I would like to take a few moments to expand on these concepts because I believe they are important if we are to try and understand the nature of the threat to federalism, which this resolution implies. 1 believe the two preconditions of federalism, which 1 have outlined briefly, come together in a national characteristic which is distinctly Canadian. Canadians are among the most self-reliant and independent people in the world. Our unique contribution to that self-reliance and independence is loyalty and a strong desire to celebrate our distinctiveness. We have a national government in place to guarantee certain basic universal rights and freedoms. But we
have created a federal system to allow us as a people to develop and grow differently within the bounds of those universal rights.
These uniquely Canadian requirements were well illustrated in the BNA Act which wedded parliamentary government to the federal system in order to provide a unique solution to a truly Canadian set of conditions. Basically it is the federal system which affords the greatest assurance and protection for our people. The significance of this is well demonstrated in section 92 of the BNA Act which outlines the rights and powers granted to the provincial governments. While items of provincial jurisdiction are not absolutely inviolate under the BNA Act, the importance which the founding fathers placed on the federal system is clearly illustrated by the difficulties that will befall any national government which attempts an unwarranted intrusion into the provincial realm. Similarly, the desire to afford strong protection is illustrated by the granting of powers to the provinces which are much stronger and more extensive than those which have devolved to the state level of government in the nation to the south of us.
The unique solution to Canadian conditions provided by the wedding of two forms of political organization also recognizes the need for a truly national consideration. The parliamentary system of government is designed to protect individual rights and provision was made in the BNA Act which would allow the national government to go to the aid of individuals or groups whose rights might be threatened by provincial governments. Conversely, it is the federal system and the relatively greater strength of the provincial governments which affords protection against an infringement of our rights by the national government itself.
The conclusion which should be drawn is clear. The Canadian system is a unique experiment which has served us pretty well for the last 113 years because our national needs and the needs stemming from our regional and cultural diversity have evolved a system that is a partnership. This Canadian partnership implies relative equality for our two levels of government in areas where their interests are common or shared and relative independence in areas where their interests are largely exclusive. In other words, the Canadian experiment attempts to bring our diversity together where there is common interest and shared experience while at the same time allowing all Canadians an opportunity to celebrate their differences in different regions of the country. I contend our partnership does not allow for minority shareholders. The board of directors of Canada, if you like, is composed of relatively equal partners each with an area of expertise which allows him to make a valuable contribution and each with an area of responsibility which requires that consideration be given to the common responsibility. The over-all goal of this organization is the protection of life and liberty and the furtherance of quality of life in Canada. Each component part is important to the achieving of these goals and each has a very distinct role to play. I believe this resolution provides a threat to the federal component of our system and if we lose that component we
October 20, 1980

lose something which is uniquely Canadian, designed to deal with our uniquely Canadian conditions.
I believe Canadians want to resolve a problem that seems to be simply an eternal squabble about our constitution. I also believe they will support any action which provides a greater degree of protection for their fundamental rights of liberty and freedom. In other words, Canadians want to be Canadian. They want to be proud of their nationality and their institutions. They know their identity and they do not want to continually have it questioned as a result of constant bickering over the constitution or eternal federal-provincial fights. On the face of it, this resolution before us does not openly contradict any of these fundamental Canadian desires. If it passed I submit that there would still be a unit called Canada marked on the maps of the world and we would still have a Canadian flag and a national anthem. But many people in various parts of the country-certainly in the part from which I come-are asking "But for how long?" I believe as I mentioned earlier, that this resolution is deliberately, designed to change the concept of the Canadian federation as a partnership.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is imposing his personal opinions on the partners of our confederation. Those opinions will effectively destroy the partnership which countless generations of Canadians have worked so hard to forge and which, as I mentioned before, is working pretty well. If, as I suggest, these actions by the Prime Minister destroy our Canadian partnership, how long will it be before citizens in the west and the east, or the north and the south, decide they no longer need to be a part of the country because they no longer enjoy the rights of the partnership they feel they have enjoyed, certainly up until this time.
I believe there is a general consensus across Canada as to the positive benefits that can be achieved by a charter of rights in a new constitution. I also believe there is almost universal agreement on patriating our constitution with a suitable amending formula which reflects the reality of Canada's own totally unique experiment. However, 1 do not believe that Canadians would accept these improvements if the cost was the destruction or even the possible destruction of the Canadian partnership and the risk of fragmenting the country. Those possibilities are, in my opinion, certainly very distinct. Yet, this is exactly what I feel the Prime Minister is proposing to do and why I referred to the resolution earlier as being one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation to come before Parliament while I have had the privilege to be a member of the House of Commons.
I believe that the method which the Prime Minister has chosen is a dangerous method. The Prime Minister has imposed a deadline on the entire question. In effect, one of the partners of our confederation has said to all the other so-called equal partners that this process will be accomplished within a certain period of time whether they like it or not. In effect, the Prime Minister strode into the nation's boardroom, deliberate-
The Constitution
ly pointed a gun at the head of each of the other directors and said, "You will behave or suffer the consequences".
In a federation which was built on the concept of partnership and all that it implies in terms of discussion, compromise and consensus, putting partners under the gun destroys any hope of goodwill or mutual trust. Obviously, the Prime Minister has decided to create a Canadian constitution in virtually his own image. Items like the fundamental rights of Parliament or the partners in our confederation can be shoved aside if he so wishes. As a result of the way in which the Prime Minister is implementing this action, it is clear there will be no change without the personal stamp of the Prime Minister.
Through this resolution the government intends to patriate the Constitution of Canada with the addition of a charter of rights and a formula for amending the constitution once it is home in Canada. It is the amending formula the government proposes which provides the greatest threat to the partnership of our federation. Once again, I stress that if the partnership is damaged, then we in Canada are in for very troubled times.
The amending formula proposed in the resolution is in two parts, and these are contained in section 41 and section 42. Section 41 outlines the procedure for amendment by the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of the provinces. Section 42 provides for a referendum on constitutional change which will be called by the national government if it sees fit. I wish to deal with section 42 first.
Let us assume for a moment that a change in the constitution was not accomplished under the provisions of section 41, which I will deal with shortly. If the Government of Canada particularly favoured that amendment it could, under section 42, issue a proclamation calling for a referendum to be held. Further provision of the bill states clearly that the federal government is solely responsible for making the laws that govern the rules of a referendum, subject only to the restriction that no Canadian citizen shall have his or her rights to vote removed.
How does this affect the concept of a Canadian partnership? First, there is no provision to allow the provinces to call a referendum across Canada in the event that it is the federal government which opposes a particular constitutional change. Second, there is nothing in the resolution that provides standard rules or principles to govern the referendum itself. Since the Governement of Canada is solely responsible for the rules of the referendum, it could easily amend the laws in that regard to suit its position on any given constitutional proposal. If it was in favour of a particular change, it could relax the majority required; if it were opposed, it could, 1 suppose, substantially tighten the requirements. In either case, the provinces would come under the complete domination of the federal government.
Instead of being equals in the Canadian federation, this provision creates ten second-class citizens within the partnership itself. Having made second-class citizens of the provinces under section 42, the federal government then proceeds to destroy the partnership even further under the provisions of

October 20, 1980
The Constitution
section 41. The amending formula outlined in this section is complicated, but certain key elements stand out clearly.
The first element is that no changes to our constitution will occur without the consent of the provinces of Canada which now hold, or have ever held, 25 per cent of the population of Canada. Of course, this provision gives the provinces of Ontario and Quebec veto power over any constitutional change in the future. Furthermore, population trends indicate clearly that no other provinces in Canada are likely to join this select group of veto holders in the foreseeable future.
The second element is the amendment procedure that applies to the rest of Canada, which is: agreement by two of the provincial governments in each of the Atlantic regions and the western regions. However, these two provinces must contain between them at least 50 per cent of the population of the region for their approval to have any effect. Clearly, this amendment procedure discriminates against the smaller provinces in our federation and denies them the rights and responsibilities of full partnership that they feel, and justly, that they have enjoyed up to this point.
Furthermore, it discriminates against the western provinces and Atlantic provinces as regions by institutionalizing different classes of provinces in the amending process. For example, consider the position of my home province of Manitaba and the province of Saskatchewan. Because of the relatively small populations in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, neither province can substantially affect the result of a constitutional amendment. Manitoba could combine with either British Columbia or Alberta in the western region to meet the requirement for approval or rejection of a proposed amendment. However, Manitoba and Saskatchewan acting together could not alter the outcome of an amendment one way or the other without the assistance of either Alberta or British Columbia. Therefore, the proposal creates second-class provinces within the nation and further subdivides the provinces within the regions.
What does the principle of subclasses of provinces do to the idea of our Canadian partnership? I contend that it destroys it completely. Under the constitution of a country, people should be equal regardless of where they live within that country.
The Canadian partnership is further eroded by the fact that one of the partners of our federation is not granted any status at all, not even second-class status. Since the proposal requires that approval be granted by at least two provinces containing 50 per cent of the population of any region, where does Prince Edward Island fit in? If Prince Edward Island combines with any other province in the Atlantic region, it still does not provide 50 per cent of the population. Accordingly, for purposes of constitutional amendment, it will always be necessary for two of the remaining three Atlantic provinces to be involved in the process.
Prince Edward Island's participation will have no effect one way or the other, and in constitutional change it will be meaningless. Prince Edward Island is a province to which this Prime Minister has kindly granted no status whatsoever. It cannot even lay claim to second-class or third-class status with respect to the amending formula. It is ironic that the home of
the Charlottetown conference and the birthplace of our nation is now to be granted the unique distinction of having no status at all. That is a far cry from a partnership of relative equals such as I outlined earlier.
I believe the Prime Minister has taken what I consider to be a destructive course of action in a somewhat cold and calculating fashion. I also believe that this amending formula has been deliberately designed to stem the increase in political power which would flow naturally to the western provinces as the population increases and our importance to the national economy becomes more apparent.
It is abundantly clear that the western provinces are grossly underrepresented in the process of constitutional amendment proposed by the government in this resolution. The requirement that two provinces within a region agree to a proposed amendment opens the door to divide-and-rule tactics by the federal government. In addition, it allows the federal government to maintain its stranglehold over the provinces which, by right, should be relatively equal partners in confederation.
The province of Manitoba is under no illusion that it is able to make the same kind of economic impact as the larger provinces such as Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta or Quebec. However, the people of Manitoba take very seriously their rights and responsibilities as full and equal partners in our confederation. This proposal could simply take those rights away, and Manitobans like other Canadians in other provinces would become second-class citizens of our country in terms of constitutional changes. If Manitobans become second class citizens under the constitution or, for that matter, if any other citizen in any other province becomes second class, there is no partnership. There is no equality for our citizens and the domination of the national government is complete.
I am warning the Prime Minister this evening that talk about western separation which we hear about from time to time in this chamber is not idle. Westerners are Canadians, and I believe they always will be Canadians in their hearts. But if one man and one party can unilaterally create second or third class status for the citizens of 50 per cent of the nation with a single stroke of the pen westerners cannot help but ask where is the value in remaining Canadian. Until now, the citizens of western Canada have been accorded relatively equal partnership in our confederation. If the Prime Minister insists on making people in the west second raters, it could easily be an action they are unable to accept, especially if it is coupled in the next few weeks or months with export taxes on natural gas, or on hydro. In fact, any unilateral action affecting the area of resources might lead to a real and growing separatist threat in western Canada.
Having made those comments and issued that warning to the Prime Minister, I would like to devote my remaining time to outlining proposals which might help the government out of the situation in which it finds itself as a result of its actions. We on this side of the House believe they would be well received all across Canada, they have been demonstrated to be
October 20, 1980

workable, certainly from the provinces' point of view. But before going further, 1 want to explain once again to the government exactly what is so distasteful about the resolution which has been brought before us. First on the list is the Prime Minister's partiality not only for unilateral federal change to the constitution, but indeed, for one-man change. This serves only to destroy our hard-won partnership and has inflamed passions all across Canada.
Second is the double standard implied throughout the government's resolution. It is a double standard because unilateral federal action applies to any amendments proposed by the present government while all other partners in the federation must endure the application of the amending formula. It is a double standard because the Prime Minister, by his actions, creates distinctions and classes among the partners in our country and, by extension, creates second and third class citizens in a country which above all else values the democratic rights of freedom and equality.
Instead of destroying our unique Canadian partnership, I urge the Prime Minister to live up to his commitments made during the referendum campaign in the province of Quebec and propose measures which will renew and strengthen our federation, not weaken it.
On this side of the House, we are 100 per cent in favour of patriating our constitution, just as we favour any and all procedures and reforms which will strengthen the Canadian partnership in a manner consistent with the social and political realities of Canada. I believe the problem is not so much the idea of a charter of rights or the patriation of the constitution as it is the dangerous effect on our federation resulting from the manner in which the solution is being imposed, and the serious consequences of the amendment proposals which form such a large part of the resolution.
To restore faith in our provincial partners and begin to restore the sense of goodwill which is so necessary, I believe the Prime Minister should make the necessary arrangements to renew the federal-provincial negotiations beginning some time in the early part of the new year. Furthermore, if the Prime Minister is intent on persisting in unilateral action, he could make great strides toward restoring confidence across Canada if he changed this resolution to include the amending formula known as the Vancouver formula which was accepted, at least in principle, by the provinces. It would require that Parliament plus at least seven provinces containing at least 50 per cent of the population, express their approval of any future constitutional change. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that creates more evident equality and more of a partnership than we find under the proposed resolution. However, in certain clearly defined areas, such as the rights of provincial governments, provincial property or the ownership of natural resources, individual provinces would have the option to opt out of the proposed change. An amending formula such as this would have the advantage of restoring the goodwill and co-operation necessary for our Canadian partnership. It is not perfect; I do not think any of us could devise a perfect formula. But it is better in one way; it works.
The Constitution
Finally, I would urge the Prime Minister to call a special constitutional conference of a wider nature so as to implement changes in our constitution and set out the appropriate amending formula as I have outlined.
The irony of the proposal before us is almost beyond description. Not only does the Prime Minister intend to unilaterally impose his own will on the Canadian people, but he wants to accomplish that goal by asking the British government to change our constitution. In order to provide a system for amending the Canadian Constitution in Canada, by Canadians, the Prime Minister proposes to ask the British government for its permission. While that is the legal way at present, Canadians as a people are mature enough to be able to accomplish the necessary changes on their own through the vehicle of a widely based and representative constitutional convention. The British people and the British government are also mature enough to recognize that Canadians have the right and the responsibility to determine the ground rules for their own future.
If it were not for the fact that the government's proposals are so dangerous, the irony of a situation in which an anticolonial prime minister is using an essentially colonial vehicle to implement these changes, would be humorous. It is not humorous though. I think it is frightening. This proposal and its possible consequences on the various regions of Canada, along with the intrusion into the provincial domain of natural resources, could together lead to a frightening period in Canadian history.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the arguments and comments of all members in this House who have participated in this debate. I am honoured to rise in my place as the representative of Nickel Belt and to bring what I know are their concerns into this forum.
I am especially happy to comment on the proposed charter of rights and freedoms, a charter which will end all types of discrimination. As a person from a northern community, an ethnic and a woman who has been active in the working world for some 27 years, I have indeed been witness to discrimination. I would like to comment about that for just a moment as a working woman. I know what it is to be passed over for promotion simply because I am a woman.


Walter David Baker: Tell them the story you told me.


Judith A. Erola: I do not have the time. I am only allotted 40 minutes. However, 1 would love to tell that story. I would like to say something to those, women particularly, who say they want something special. I say I want equality, nothing more and nothing less.
Northern Ontario is a hardy land and the people who settled it were equally hardy. They were immigrants from many countries with a multitude of ethnic, social and cultural backgrounds. They came to Canada because Canada offered them

October 20, 1980
The Constitution
something different. It offered them unlimited opportunity and it offered them freedom-freedom to follow their own dreams and to pursue their own interests.
I grew up in an ethnic environment. I can tell you there always existed a great pride in being a Canadian. Ethnic communities across this land are very conscious of their responsibility to the country which has given them so much. They first and foremost are good Canadians.
Every member who has taken his place in this House of Commons has, I am sure, at one time or another been present at a citizenship ceremony when new Canadians were sworn in. Everyone has seen the shine in their eyes. It is a genuine pride. They are proud to be Canadians, and we were proud as children to be Canadians. They are proud despite the acts of discrimination against many ethnic groups in Canada during the war. Indeed, the Canadian record is not without blemish. Most of us in this House have been made very much aware of what happened to the Japanese in Canada. I should like to tell you something of what happened to people of Italian, Finnish and to some degree German parentage in Canada during the war.
Italian parents of my friends suffered greatly, and they suffered unjustly. Though Canadian citizens with two sons Fighting for Canada overseas, these people were marched off to be fingerprinted and their guns confiscated. We were all aware of other injustices against other ethnic groups. As a matter of fact, it happened within the church of my community. Despite it, ethnic communities across this country have persevered. Life goes on and injustice can be corrected.
I remember my parents and grandparents, Finnish born, speaking about the promise of Canada, of the history and especially the future of Canada. I think you will find that across this nation the ethnic communities are in general more tolerant and more sympathetic than any other group on the issue of linguistic rights. They themselves speak a second language in most cases, be it German, Finnish, Japanese, Ukrainian, Croatian, what have you. They appreciate the benefit that a second language can provide. It is an asset, an opportunity, a means through which we can broaden our understanding of one another.
Certainly in northern Ontario, in Nickel Belt, the Francophone community has had to fight long and hard to enjoy linguistic equality. However, I am happy to say that the previously unsettled atmosphere has now changed in my area. Let me tell you what used to happen to the Francophone in days not so far gone by. They fought first of all to have French minority language rights in the elementary schools. That happened. At the end of grade eight, after eight years of French language instruction, these children were placed into an English milieu. What happened to them in grade nine or ten? They dropped out. It was generally accepted that they were ineducable when the fact was they had been educated for eight years in one language and were then expected to sink or swim in another language.
That was changed. Through long and bitter struggles, we developed French secondary schools in our area. I believe we
now have five. What happened to them at the end of secondary school? Did they have to go on to an English university? No. The people of northern Ontario did not tolerate that. They turned around and created a bilingual university, Laurentian University. In northern Ontario a student can go from kindergarten right through university in the French language. I am very proud to say that Laurentian University now offers a translators course which is the pride of not only northern Ontario but all of Canada.
I can also state that many of the youngsters have reversed the situation. Many of those who now attend French immersion classes share my own ethnic background, or that of other ethnic groups which help make up my riding. I might add that our courts in northern Ontario are now, for all practical purposes, bilingual. The battle was not an easy victory in northern Ontario. One of my early election promises was that I would fight to have minority language rights enshrined in the constitution.
[ Translation]
To my constituents of Nickel Belt and French Canadians all over Canada, I proudly present this constitution, a constitution which guarantees the right to education in the language of the minority.

This resolution before us will enshrine in the constitution the rights to linguistic equality and educational choice where numbers merit. They will be protected forever. Linguistic rights are but a small part of this constitutional package. The renewed constitution will be the embodiment of our national purpose. It will define the basic sets of principles by which this nation will be governed in the future. It will be a symbol of the strength of Canada as one nation and the vitality of Canadian democracy.
I would like to dwell on this idea of symbols for a moment. Frankly, I think the beaver has been much maligned of late. I am very familiar with the beaver, there being many of them in my part of the country. Occasionally they are a nuisance. However, it was the only truly Canadian symbol that my mother, as an immigrant, had to offer us when I was growing up. I am rather proud of them. It will be very much easier for new immigrants who come to this country. They will have a flag and a constitution. These are not mere symbols, but real and tangible symbols.
Today we have so much more in our country, a flag, and a constitution that will be our guarantee for the people, a guarantee from their government to protect them from undue discrimination and harassment for all time. Basic human rights will be enshrined, not as mere lip service to well founded ideals but as part of the law of the land. The package of rights will have an effect that is long overdue. For example, upon the passing into law of the provisions of the proposed new Canadian constitution, injustices such as presently exist with respect to the rights of Indian women in Canada will disappear.
October 20, 1980

This is where I chastise some members of the House, Mr. Speaker. Section 12(1 )(b) of the Indian Act which establishes criteria whereby Indian women are arbitrarily discriminated against has never really been an issue close to the members of this chamber, with the exception of a few, even though it was a blatant example of discrimination. The provisions of our new constitution will not allow such unjust treatment to continue. It is true that there is a period of transition; but the important point to remember is that such an injustice will not have the opportunity to reappear.
For those members who are shaking their heads, may I say that the women of this Parliament took matters in hand last spring and crossed party lines to make a statement saying they did not endorse it. Since then I believe that 42 bands have rescinded that part of the act. I am very proud of them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Judith A. Erola: I should add that all the women in this Parliament participated in the activity of this committee and signed the declaration.
A guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms can do nothing less than make us stronger; stronger as a nation and stronger as a people. If a government is to be judged by those whom it governs, and well it should, one of the main criteria for evaluation must undoubtedly be freedom. The best government is that which provides the maximum freedom for the individual. This document provides the Canadian people with a guarantee of that freedom.
Since the release of this proposal we have heard ominous statements of gloom and impending doom. There is concern in some provincial capitals that certain clauses of the new constitution will deprive them of their protectionist attitudes and practices. To this argument I can only say that this is Canada; we do not require internal passports in this country or papers and dossiers to travel from region to region, to work in one part or the other. This is Canada, a free land; a land where every Canadian is given the choice to choose his or her residence, occupation and lifestyle.
I have been behind the Iron Curtain where checkpoints are established on all access roads to cities to control the movement, not just of visitors, but of their own people. They do not enjoy freedom of mobility. To deprive our citizens of their freedom to live and work unhindered in any region of Canada is clearly an unacceptable option. Democracy demands better.
As a mother of two young people and through my contact with other young people, I am continually encouraged by their openness and candour. Something that young Canadians have done a great deal of-and I applaud them for it-is travelling. Every summer we see them on the road, from Newfoundland to British Columbia, discovering their country-discovering places in which they might like to live and work in the future. It is difficult to explain to them the artificial barriers to their mobility that have been created by narrow regionalism.
The Constitution
I met with several senior mining industry officials in Ottawa over a week ago and the first thing that they commented on to me was the importance of the mobility clause to the future of the mining industry. Unfortunately it seems that some of the provincial premiers-and some hon. members opposite-think industry can operate in a vacuum. I must inform them that it cannot.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I think I should read from a brief they presented to me, part of which they will be presenting this weekend to the conference of mines ministers in Halifax. The brief states, in part, as follows:
There is no doubt that Canadian unity is being seriously eroded, not only by the continuing dispute between governments over the distribution of powers, but also by the economic barriers that the provinces are setting up against each other. This contributes to the fragmentation of the Canadian common market and impedes the movement of capital, labour and products. Further, the climate of uncertainty thus created has affected business decisions. The result is to raise the cost of doing business in Canada, making it less attractive to new investment, both domestic and foreign, at the very time when massive amounts of capital are required to finance the many major projects which this country needs if it is to fulfil its destiny.
They went further, to urge all governments to give earnest consideration to these concerns which are shared by all productive sectors of the country.
Ultimately, the decisions on the future of this country will be made by the people. It is the people who will choose a formula for future amendment if the first ministers fail to reach an agreement. It is the people whose rights and freedoms are being protected, and therefore it is the people who must be the final authority. The people of Canada deserve and want a Canadian constitution, not a constitution that is an act of the British House of Commons. This last remnant of colonialism is an embarrassment to Canada and to many Canadians. Are we not a mature enough democracy to be trusted with our own constitution? Can we not be trusted to responsibly protect the rights of all Canadians?
I am a proud Canadian; the people of northern Ontario are also proud Canadians. The people of northern Ontario, like most of the people in this country, want to see action now-for us, for our children, for their children and for all future Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle).
Is the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. For-restall) rising on a point of order?


J. Michael Forrestall: I should like to ask the hon. member a question, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, by now the phrases, "constitutional reform", "renewed federalism", "amending formula" and "charter of rights" must be etched in the minds and souls of many Canadians. But most

October 20, 1980
The Constitution
Canadians, just like some of us here, must be wondering what this all means and what has rendered our constitution so useless in the face of certain events which have happened suddenly and other events which have taken some time to develop.
There is a whole series of such events but I want to mention just two or three which have occurred over a period of time placing certain strains on the framework of our institutions and the fibre of our country.
The first event is the so-called "quiet revolution" which has been taking place in the province of Quebec for some time. Revolutions are really a short cut to evolution and the results of a revolution demand sudden and rapid change. It is really not the fault of English Canada, which was not a part of the revolution in the province of Quebec, that this change is now required so quickly. A lot of my friends from the province of Quebec do not realize that one of the problems there was that the provincial government paid very little attention to the most basic concept in the evolution of a culture-education.
It was only in the mid-sixties that the government of Quebec established a department of education and assumed that jurisdiction for itself, having earlier left it to the church. As I have said, the revolution made quick change a necessity. This change was proposed in two forms, and those two forms were pursued simultaneously. One of them was separatism, something that is totally unacceptable to the majority of the province of Quebec itself, and certainly to the rest of Canadians. The other form of quick and sudden change was the spreading of certain rights, which our compatriots in the province of Quebec legitimately desired for themselves, to the rest of the country.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) can never get it through his head that those of us who stood in this House voting against another resolution dealing with the Official Languages Act were not so much against the Official Languages Act itself but, rather, against the way in which it was being implemented. It was to be implemented over a period of time which coincided with the Prime Minister's own personal timeframe which was too quick for the rest of Canada to accept. However, I do not want to dwell on the revolution in Quebec because it is not as germane to this debate as are certain other factors.
The second event which occurred, again over a long period of time, it could be said, was the incredible technological revolution which took place after the Second World War. Things which happened with respect to the electronic media altered very dramatically and fundamentally our very lifestyle in this country, as they did throughout the western world. Development in this field gave the federal government direct jurisdiction over something which was formerly entirely in the domain of the provinces. The television set is now, for better or worse, the focal point of all our cultural activities. That is probably stretching it somewhat, but it certainly is the focal point of much of our culture, and it is no longer just an
entertainment medium. It is no longer just an information medium, either. It is certainly and most profoundly a medium of education.
As we all know, Canada would never have been possible in the first place if the provinces had not received an ironclad guarantee that they would always be in control of education and culture. John A. Macdonald was a fierce federalist, and he wanted to keep education in the domain of the federal government, but none of the partners would have joined if he had insisted on that. So, with the evolution of radio, television and other means of communication the federal government, through its residual powers, retained jurisdiction over the regulatory control of these media and, in so doing, asserted itself very clearly in a provincial jurisdiction. This caused all kinds of problems, with which we are still trying to wrestle.
Then, of course, there was one other event which occurred rather more suddenly. That was the energy crisis, all the problems which were associated with that, and the obvious need to develop a strategy which would deal equally and fairly with all Canadians regardless of whether they lived in the producing or consuming provinces.
If we look at the three events I have mentioned, we might ask: why was it that our constitution was not adequately equipped? What were the weaknesses in the constitution which made it inadequate to deal with mounting tensions? First, the constitution was inadequate in that it did not provide a formula to redistribute the residual powers which were granted under the British North America Act to the federal government. In other words, in terms of the electronic media and federal intrusion in that area the constitution was not sufficient to bring the partners of confederation together and to redistribute these powers and give some of this regulatory jurisdiction back to the provinces where it belonged. The provinces did not take the initiative of bringing the matter before the Supreme Court for adjudication there.
There is a very weak and vague definition in the constitution with respect to the relationship between the individual and the state, and the constitution is rather weak, as I have said, with respect to the relationship between the provinces and the federal government. There is a lack of a formula whereby meaningful change could occur without creating tensions. The constitution also provides for an electoral system which is not suitable for a modern democracy, particularly one functioning within a framework such as ours, so rich in geography and so diverse in culture and demography.
Institutions failed as well. In particular-and I mention only one example-the Senate did not fulfil the role which was intended for it by the Fathers of Confederation. The Senate, as hon. members know, was to be a regional forum where sober second thought was to be given to what happened in the House of Commons and regional concerns were to find expression. However, as the different provinces joined confederation they had different priorities. The province of Prince Edward Island wanted many senators. The province of British Columbia wanted the railway. As it happens, in British Columbia we have 12 per cent of the population and only 5 per cent of the
October 20, 1980

senators. Those five or six senators who sit in the upper House representing British Columbia are all from the lower mainland, which represents one-fifth of the land mass of British Columbia. Even if that were different, I do not believe the Senate, since confederation, has ever fulfilled its role.
The prerogative of government leaders to appoint senators has always been abused by all prime ministers, and the other place has failed to assert itself in a way which would have eased the tensions and crises we have experienced from time to time. So, people ask themselves, "What can we do now to correct all these crises which are with us?'' The people in the province of Quebec can say legitimately that something will have to happen if they are to stay in confederation. There is dissension in western Canada as well. There are feelings of alienation and, as we have heard in the last few days from some of our friends here in the House of Commons, sentiments of separatism are being expressed even there.
Among the people I represent there is certainly a clear consensus, if not unanimous accord, that we should undertake this first and most symbolic act of patriating the constitution. Some questions come to mind right away which would have to be answered, of course, but certainly all of us want to carry out this symbolic act. The questions to which 1 have referred include: Who would be the guardian of the constitution when we get it to Canada? Will it be the Governor General, will it be the Queen, or will we choose a president to be the guardian of the constitution? When Britain surrenders its jurisdiction over the BN A Act, what will it mean to our relationship with the Commonwealth? I happen to think that our attachment to the Commonwealth and to Her Majesty the Queen is so strong that not even the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would have the gall or the courage ever to tamper with that.
So I say, let us patriate the constitution. Indeed, sir, that is the feeling expressed by all the spokesmen who have participated in the debate so far. I also feel, and the people whom I represent feel, that it would not make much sense to patriate the constitution without finding a key which would unlock it so that it can be amended when we do get it.
We have talked about a number of scenarios and proposals which the first ministers of the provinces have discussed with the federal government regarding an amending formula. There are two proposals in particular which come to mind: the Victoria charter and the Vancouver formula. I happen to think that the Vancouver formula would be much more fair and equitable, as was so eloquently stated by my hqn. friends, and indeed it is the expressed opinion of our party that the Vancouver formula would provide us with that key which has proved so elusive.
The resolution which is before the House does more than just patriate and amend our constitution. It is in the area of the entrenchment of rights that I personally have serious reservations. I should like to say a few words about what it means to me and to the many people to whom I have talked to have a charter of human rights entrenched in the constitution.
The Constitution
I should like to agree at the outset that no one, either in this chamber or outside it, has a monopoly on the ideals which have been referred to here-freedom, liberty and human rights. But it becomes painfully obvious that some of us have different definitions of those rights and different perceptions as to whether these rights should or should not be entreanched in the constitution. Are we so naive as to think-as obviously the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mrs. Erola) who spoke before is-that with the entrenchment of human rights in the constitution we will end all discrimination for all time? Are we so naive as to believe that with this one act we could end all discrimination forever? The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) was probably nearer the mark when he said that the constitution is not the source of our rights and freedoms but that it is the consequence of history in practice. You cannot legislate attitudes of people.
Basic freedoms and human rights have different meanings in different parts of the world. There are constraints to people's rights and freedoms for reasons of space and reasons of geography. The country in which I grew up has at present 66 million people, yet it is only as big as my constituency in north eastern B.C. Obviously in such an environment one cannot exercise the same rights and freedoms as one can in a country like Canada.
Then there is intellectual freedom. Again, not all of us are as mature and free intellectually as some others are. There is also economic and political freedom. Some say there are no political rights without economic freedom, and they relate that to free enterprise. Some of us did not feel free until we started our own businesses, when we became free to make our own mistakes. I was always under the illusion that I was also the benefactor of things I did right. However, that is no longer the case. We are now more of a collective society and we talk more about collective freedoms.
In a society such as ours we have obligations towards our neighbours. This confines our rights and freedoms. There is also the perception of our neighbours which should be taken into account because, as it is said in the Bible, if your neighbour does not think you should be free, then indeed you are not.
In some countries in the western world today there is conscription and people have to join the armed forces and train in case of war because they are close to a flashpoint of international tension. In this country, after we have entrenched our rights and freedoms, we should no longer have to do this. Certainly our Prime Minister has never felt he should ever have to join an army to defend our country. What would the freedoms which we have entrenched in our constitution mean if some day it should be the intention of a country with a different political ideology to attack and overrun our soil and we all sat back and exercised the right, which the Prime Minister seems to have reserved for himself, never to have to take up arms to defend our nation? What would happen to our entrenched freedoms if the communists were ever to take us over? I grew up in a country where there was an entrenched bill of rights which was written by Adolf Hitler. What did

October 20, 1980
The Constitution
these entrenched rights mean when it was all over? 1 can tell you, sir, what it meant to me at the tender age of 12. It meant to me that I wanted to leave that country and start a new life some place else. Certainly when 1 came over here I had some real expectations about how this country should evolve.
From time to time there must be change. Indeed, one of our former prime ministers, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, said this about the entrenchment of rights when he spoke at the constitutional conference in 1968:
If a mistake is made in an ordinary statute, it can be remedied at a subsequent session of Parliament or the legislature. But a constitutional error may be almost irremediable and the consequences serious in the extreme.
From time to time we must make changes to our constitution and from time to time we must expand it. Who knows, maybe we might even find it necessary to restrict certain rights and freedoms for a short period of time. The Prime Minister should know that. In 1970 he found it necessary to impose the War Measures Act. Will he now say that no such thing will ever happen again when our rights are entrenched? Can we all gain access to the Supreme Court tomorrow morning if anything should threaten us individually or as a society? I say that such thinking is naive in the extreme. Our constitution should be flexible enough to expand on occasion the rights, liberties and freedoms of individuals, and, if the need arises, to ask individuals in our society to join a collective cause to defend the greater goals of our country. Is it not one's basic right to bring up one's children in a safe, wholesome and congenial environment and to protect them from influences which would adversely affect them in their formative years? But as proposed in this formula, there is also the right, now to be entrenched in the constitution, to express oneself in any way one wishes. If we draw upon the experience of the United States where freedom of expression is entrenched as the cardinal principle of democracy, we must accept the fact that our newsstands will be cluttered with smut and pornography because there are people in our society who like to express themselves in that way.
Is it not one's right to receive services which are essential to sustain oneself as a useful and full member of society, services that are provided by the government? The Post Office is an example. Does that right not conflict with the right to strike and withhold such services which is to be entrenched in the constitution? What about this most fundamental principle of democracy, the freedom of association, which is also to be entrenched? Freedom of association is really the very basis or foundation of our political system. One is free to associate with political parties and to express oneself publicly. How is the Supreme Court to interpret that after it becomes entrenched? The NDP, our friends to the left, might be wise, before they jump into that bath-tub, not only to check with the Saskatchewan premier who has some reservations with respect to resource questions, but also to check with "god" McDermott as to how he feels about it, because if freedom of association is interpreted in future in this country the way it is in other more advanced industrial nations, it means one can no longer be
compelled to belong to a union. Not only is one free to belong, one is free to withhold membership. I wonder whether the NDP has given any thought to that little goody before they run away with their enthusiasm in support of this resolution.
For a few minutes I should like to talk more specifically about the latest attempt of the Prime Minister at social engineering in terms of two separate and distinct groups of minorities which will undoubtedly suffer very serious adverse effects. The first of these groups is our native Indians. In this connection, a group of native Indians will be going before an international tribunal in Amsterdam in the next little while to charge the federal government with ethnocide, which is a form of cultural genocide. One wonders why people in a society as free and generous as ours would have cause to seek redress in an international tribunal against the obvious and blatant discrimination they are suffering.
In this resolution we are talking also about the entrenchment of certain cultural and linguistic rights. I happen to think that if there are any cultural and linguistic rights which should be entrenched in any constitution, it should be those of the original people of this land, the rights of people who have no other place to go to replenish their culture. The fountain of their culture is mother earth on this North American continent. It is not derived from French, English, Italian or German-languages and cultures in evidence throughout the world. Their culture is indigenous, it is right here and there is no place else to go.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) spoke in emotional terms about his experience when he visited with the Acadians in Nova Scotia who were celebrating 375 years of presence and culture in his native province. He said in glowing terms that this culture is still very vivid and alive. I wonder if the same thing can be said for Indian culture. If native Indians could look back 375 years, I wonder if they could make the same claim-that the culture which existed then is still vivid and alive in our country today. I say they could not, and i say we must do something to ensure that whatever change we make to the constitution and whatever we entrench in the constitution it must make provision for some of the legitimate aspirations and, indeed, the legitimate rights of native Indians of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: In his early culture the native Indian always understood the important relationship between rights, freedoms, responsibilities and restraints. The native Indian in North America gathered material goods only to be given away as gifts and in so doing he ensured the protection of the society in which he lived. We could have drawn a lesson from that, but unfortunately we did not. Not only have we denied native Indians their traditional rights, but we have fractured and broken the treaties we made after we came. We promised native Indians that as long as the wind blows, the water flows and the sun shines, they would be able to hunt, fish and live in harmony with nature as they had before, even though we knew at the time we signed the treaties that there might be some day
October 20, 1980

when rights of this kind could no longer be exercised as they were then. But even today we have not yet told the Indians that that is indeed the case. This resolution tells the Indian population, the Inuit and the non-status Indian population, that the Prime Minister is as committed now to the white paper of 1969 as he was then, and that today he is committed to a course of assimilation and integration at the most rapid pace possible. His opinion on it has not changed since 1969. Why does he not consult with native leaders before making these amendments to the constitution? In answer to my questions in the House he said, "We will patriate the constitution, we will bring it home, and then we will consult with Indians and other interested groups." He forgot to say that the rights of certain minority groups would be entrenched and that the rights of other minority groups would be very much in a secondary position.
I should like to say a few words about another minority group to which I belong. It is not as small or as helpless as the others I have mentioned. It has always been reluctant and perhaps somewhat afraid to speak out. Most assuredly it does not have the same kind of claim and right to speak out in this particular debate. I refer to the one third of our population consisting of new Canadians who did not inherit this great land by birth. All of us in this House with the exception of my hon. friend from the Arctic have belonged to this minority group at one time or another, or our ancestors have. People come to this land for different reasons, mostly for reasons of economic opportunity, which compelled them to make the move. But in many cases it was to escape political persecution and tension. They came to this country to seek political freedom. By accepting citizenship in this country they felt they were entering into a contract, a contract to which they had contributed the assets they had brought with them, such as their education, the skills they had acquired and brought with them and which someone else had paid for. They made a commitment to totally embrace the practice and way of life which was in evidence in Canada when they came. In return they expected the kind of freedom which was in evidence here, the kind of democracy that is the envy of the world. And they expected it would be assured not only to them for the rest of their lives but to their children as well. So they have a very clear stake; they entered into a contract and I, as one of this minority group, think this contract is now about to be broken.
As I said earlier, most of these people came from countries which do possess an entrenched charter of rights. Probably the most beautiful and philosophical charter of rights is that contained in the constitution of the Soviet Union. But what does it mean? It does not mean anything unless it is entrenched in the hearts and minds of the people who interchange with each other. Immigrants expected they would be accepted as full and equal members of this society and that there would be no disadvantages for reason of race, religion or colour. Again, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mrs. Erola) spoke in glowing terms of the immigrants with whom she came in contact and told us how they had been discriminated
The Constitution
against. Well, sir, to entrench rights creates nothing but expectations which sometimes cannot be fulfilled. What, for instance, does freedom of religion mean to some of us? Does it mean that an immigrant family can come from India and bring with them their sacred cow and walk it down Yonge Street in Toronto? Of course not.
I can honestly and truthfully say, sir, that I have never been discriminated against. But my commitment was very complete to this country the very first day I arrived here. I was under no illusion that my children could be taught my native language in school. I was under no illusion that I could for ever practice my culture. I knew I had to attune myself to the mainstream of life which was practised here. Indeed, that was the reason for which 1 came. Certainly I have been in contact with bigots, of whom one has to be charitable and understanding, and it will probably be only my children who will become full members of this society.
Honestly, though, to talk about the generosity of this country one has to look at my experience as an example. Here I am, a member of Parliament. If someone had told me when I landed in Halifax on October 15, an immigrant at the age of 19, that some day I would be a member of the House of Commons, well, sir, I would not have believed it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: Nevertheless, there are members of ethnic groups in my constituency who are being discriminated against every day and were discriminated against after the First and Second World Wars, as well as in between. The reason they are sometimes discriminated against is because they have unreasonable expectations about the relationship between the old country and the new country and their own relationship with this country.
An immigrant knows better than anyone else that one cannot legislate the attitudes of people. Immigrants are most tolerant of those who are narrow minded and who have no understanding. Our immigrants know that only time can heal and that the only rights one has are those which are entrenched in the hearts and minds of the people with whom you live, the people who are your neighbours, the people who share your community. Entrenching the laws does not and will not help the immigrant, or the Indian, to make accommodations for bigotry and insensitivity.
What can we do as a government other than entrench rights? We can create a climate in which hostile attitudes will change. We can assert ourselves in the field of education. When I entered Parliament in 1972 multiculturalism was one of the identifying features of our country. Now we seem to be saying that multiculturalism is a secondary objective, that there are only two cultures and two languages with official status, the others being in a secondary position.
Sir, 1 know my time is running short but if you would permit me I would like to read a statement by the present Prime Minister when he spoke in 1969:

October 20, 1980
Adjournment Debate
One must be in the wheelhouse to see what shifts are taking place. I know we have spun the wheel and 1 know that the rudder is beginning to press against the waves and the sea-perhaps the observer, who is sitting on deck sipping his tea, sees the horizon much in the same direction and doesn't realize it, but perhaps he will find himself disembarking at a different istand than the one he thought he was sailing for-
When I speak to my friends in the native community and my friends in the ethnic community I say I have the sinking feeling that we shall be landing on an island to which we did not think we were headed if we allow this resolution to go ahead, amended by a foreign country with entrenchment of special rights for some and not for others.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.


Mr. Henderson:: May 1 call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, on October 9 I asked a question of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Flemming), who is also in charge of government advertising. I was witness to the astounding defence which that minister was making that day in support of the government advertising campaign to justify the government's resolution to bring back the constitution.
One thing which all Canadians will accept is that television advertising is designed to oversimplify the most complex issues, problems or products. The idea is to simplify to the point of oversimplification. It is the job of a television advertiser to put the issues into a 30 second clip, and in this case they will determine the future of the country for generations to come. The fact that the government has hired an agency to put on the television screen the picture of flying geese to convey to the Canadian people the simplicity of the issue of bringing home or patriating the constitution is almost insulting. Canada is probably facing its most complex issue in the past decade, and the government is resorting to the simplest of techniques in an attempt to simplify the complexity of the issue.
The second thing I wanted to point out is that in this particular advertising campaign not only is the issue oversimplified, but there is also untruth. If one listens to the script of
those ads, they are saying very forthrightly that Canada has a constitution which was made in England; that it is time the constitution was brought home and we had a constitution made in Canada by Canadians. Historically, that is just plain wrong.
If 1 read my history books correctly, the Fathers of Confederation spent at least three years in Canada discussing, arguing, compromising and negotiating on the issues which faced the Canada of that day, and finally came up with a proposal to form the British North America Act which was then taken to England and passed by Westminster with only two minor changes being made. The fact is that the British North America Act is a constitution made in Canada by Canadians. The fact is that the television ads are blatantly untruthful.
The irony, as the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) just pointed out, is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who is a great anti-colonialist, wants to use our colonial station to revise the constitution in England in such a way that he can have his charter of rights and freedoms in Canada untouched by Canadian hands.
The government's advertising campaign on the constitution is oversimplified, untruthful and, third, misleading. On the one hand the Minister of State for Multiculturalism said in the House on October 9 that all the advertising was under the aegis and guidance of the Canadian Unity Information Office and that, therefore, it was a non-political, non-partisan campaign. Such a statement is plainly misleading. An officer of the Canadian Unity Information Office the very day of the minister's speech was reported in newspapers as having issued a statement to the effect that the final decision on specific cases in that advertising campaign were made by cabinet.
It is ironic that for two years a commission travelled across Canada studying the issues of unity. One of the co-chairmen of that commission is sitting in the House as a Liberal cabinet minister now, and he is being totally ignored. The Pepin-Robarts report has been totally ignored in the document which is under debate right now. It would appear as though there was a two-year campaign at a cost of millions of dollars that went for nothing in terms of the final product.
It is misleading for the Minister of State for Multiculturalism to say, as he did in his speech of October 9, that the final word comes from the Canadian Unity Information Office when in fact a decision was made by cabinet in the particular case which I brought to the attention of the House. I am referring to the portion of the campaign which used billboards; the fact is that the advertising on the billboards was unilingual. This is a total contravention of the bilingual act. If, as that officer of the Canadian Unity Information Office has said, the final decisions were made by cabinet, then they are responsible for the unilingual billboards which were in total contravention of the act and in violation of the law. How could the minister stand and say that it is a non-partisan campaign? One cannot have a non-partisan campaign when partisan decisions are made by cabinet. It is totally offensive for the government to wrap itself in the Canadian flag. I believe the hon. member for
October 20, 1980

Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) said the other day that everybody who is for his particular constitutional package is a good Canadian and everybody who is against it is suspect. Somehow that begins to smell. It now appears to be almost unpatriotic to disagree with the Liberal party and the Liberal government.


Ron Irwin: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), I take it that his main point is the non-bilingual billboards because the other matters to which he referred have been dealt with by the Speaker. 1 do not want to go back to issues which have been debated day after day in the last week or so.
Billboard advertising was under the auspices of the Canadian Unity Information Office. There was a national campaign. At the time it was felt that the whole country wanted patria-tion in some form. The billboards did not indicate that the Liberals wanted it, nor did they indicate that the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democratic Party were against it. The billboards were more or less straightforward. They advertised patriating our constitution-"one constitution"; "make it ours".
As for the matter of bilingualism, billboard advertising was in both French and English.


Benno Friesen: In different places in the country.


Ron Irwin: Let me get on with that. For instance, outside of Quebec where there is a high concentration of French-speaking Canadians, in such places as St. Boniface, Bathurst, Campbellton, Dalhousie, Moncton, Sudbury, Timmins, Windsor and Cornwall, there were two separate billboards, one in French and one in English. In my riding of Sault Ste. Marie with perhaps 2,000 to 2,500 French Canadians, which is not a high concentration, there were bilingual billboards. There were not many, but 1 believe 1 saw some. There were French and English billboards on Montreal Island.
On September 8, radio and television advertising was stopped. Billboards were rented on two-month contracts, and on October 15 most of them were removed. If they have not been removed, it is because the space has not been rented, but our responsibility ended on October 15.
As my hon. friend knows, government is not perfect. Everything was done that could be done to remedy the situation when the issue was raised. It is not the intent to continue along these lines. Obviously we are not a single mind even on such a basic issue as "one constitution; bring it home; make it ours."


FINANCE-GOVERNMENT POLICY ON INTEREST RATES
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, on June 3 last, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the following:
Adjournment Debate
Is the government's policy at the present time to keep interest rates higher than the market forces would normally indicate?
If one examines the interest rate structure in this country since this government took office and after the flurry of high interest rates immediately following its taking office, through the months of June, July and up to now, it would seem that interest rates have been deliberately kept higher by the government than market forces would normally indicate. One begins to wonder why this is and what, in fact, is happening. To refresh people's memories, the Bank of Canada, lending to commercial banks, is prepared to lend at 25 bases points over the average rate of 90-day treasury bills as determined at the weekly auction. This week the Bank of Canada is prepared to lend at 11.6 per cent. The rate was slightly different when I asked the question in June. However, there is no question that the rate charged by the chartered banks to their most preferred borrowers is to some extent related to the Bank of Canada rate.
During the period through last fall when the Progressive Conservative government was in office, the difference between the Bank of Canada rate and the chartered bank rate was somewhere around one-half per cent or about 50 bases points, sometimes extending to as many as 100 bases points, but not more. Since this spring, the rate has rarely fallen as close as it is today. Even today the difference is 115 bases points. When the question was asked, it was 120.82 bases points.
One wonders why this is happening. One would have to look at a series of Bank of Canada statements, which are produced weekly, to see what in fact is taking place. It is clear that the Bank of Canada, in order to keep rates up, reduced its holding of treasury bills in one week alone by $424.5 million, and further in order to keep rates of interest up and to keep the Canadian dollar at a lower figure than it would normally go if rates were allowed by the market forces to justify themselves, increased its holdings of foreign currency in one week by $325.9 million.
Dealing in treasury bills alone, year over year, while the amount of treasury bills placed by the government on the open market has been $5.36 billion, the administration opposite has reduced its holdings of treasury bills by $110 million. In other words, the government has been operating the money markets in such a way as to influence those markets, paying more for its treasury bills than it needs to, or raising prices for treasury bills higher than necessary, enabling it to dispose of all its treasury bills on the private market.
That would not be so bad if it were not for the suspicion of myself and others that this government is in bed with the large chartered banks. While this year the chartered banks have increased their deposits by $15.8 billion, their holdings of government securities have not increased markedly at all. In effect, the government has been operating its financing in such a way as to absorb almost all of the private funds available in the marketplace and has not been leaning on the chartered banking system to supply its funds. The parliamentary secretary will know from his experience in the field that the Bank of
3866

October 20, 1980
Adjournment Debate
Canada has estimated privately that there may be about $12 billion in annual savings by Canadians available for investment. The effect of the way the government has been operating is to soak up all that investment in order to finance its bond issues and make sure that interest rates in Canada are kept higher than they normally would be.
From January 1, 1977, until the present time, the amount of government borrowing has increased from $42 billion to $77 billion. Of that increase of $35 billion, over $28 billion has been directly soaked up by the public. Most of the money borrowed has been soaked up by the public. Certainly in the past year the banks have taken virtually none of it.
This government uses the Bank of Canada as a vehicle to finance its outrageous debt, and uses the interest rate system to force interest rates up in Canada so as to deprive private business of money. Consequently, we get the very proper statement from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business that in Ontario alone 17.2 per cent of businesses have delayed planned expansions or cancelled new job opportunities because of excessively high interest rates.
I maintain that the interest rate policy of the government is designed to force up interest rates and thus make it possible for the government to place its outrageous debt requirements on the open market. This deprives small business, medium business and indeed, large business, of the opportunity to borrow at realistic rates. The effect of the government's activity has been to increase interest rates to business by between .5 per cent and 1 per cent, at least. The policy so far this year has been to hide behind the scheme of allegedly relating interest rates to the average of treasury bills. But this is a dirty float- the same dirty float as they used in foreign exchange dealings.


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may remember that when the question he referred to was posed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with a supplementary to me, 1 indicated that the policy of the Bank of Canada has been and continues to be to resist sharp fluctuations in interest rates in Canada, especially in the 91-day treasury bill market, by buying out of the market and selling into the market, as the case may be, when the Bank perceives
that the interest rate fluctuations are beyond normal bounds or are erratic and threaten to destabilize capital markets in the country.
The hon. member will recall that the purpose of these activities of the Bank of Canada is to maintain orderly markets. If he would look at the mandate given to the Bank of Canada in the Bank of Canada Act, he would see that one of the three stated purposes for the establishment of the Bank of Canada was to maintain orderly markets in Canadian capital and financial areas.
The mandate of the Bank of Canada is to maintain orderly markets. Over the period to which the hon. member has referred, it has both bought and sold government securities which means that in some cases it was moving in opposition to a rise in interest rates and that at other times it was moving in opposition to a decline in interest rates when it thought those interest rate movements were excessively erratic.
There is no evidence at all to support the hon. member's contention that the bank has been consistently keeping interest rates above their equilibrium level. In fact, it is quite clear that the bank could simply not maintain interest rates above what the market would say is the equilibrium rate in the marketplace for any length of time whatsoever because it would mean that the bank would have to be operating in one direction against the market in a consistent way, and the bank simply does not have sufficient power to force itself against the market consistently over a long period of time.
All I can say to the hon. member is that if he will look more carefully and perhaps take some guidance from the answers which have been provided to him in previous sessions of the House, I think he will find that in fact his contention is unfounded and that the bank has simply not been undertaking any such policy as he suggests in his question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.20 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



Tuesday, October 21, 1980