1980-10-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I expect the unanimous consent of the House to my motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity; and as we get closer to the budget, it becomes more urgent and more pressing. Because the imposition of a tax on exported natural gas would reduce provincial revenues in British Columbia and thereby limit the province's ability to provide to its people such services as hospital and medical care; and because such a tax would also tend to dampen the effort being put into the search for additional energy supplies in British Columbia, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That this House urge the Minister of Finance to refrain in his forthcoming budget from imposing a tax on natural gas and other forms of energy.


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.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I would like to move a motion. In view of the testimony by a pilot at the air safety hearings yesterday that Air Canada puts subtle pressure on pilots to accept low fuel supplies on certain flights and that this has already caused incidents where flights have been forced to land to refuel before reaching their destination, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That this House calls upon the Minister of Transport to require Air Canada to leave the decision on how much fuel is taken on for each flight entirely up to the pilots.


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.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to put a motion of urgent and pressing importance. In view of the government's plan to increase substantially the fees charged to private pilots landing at Canadian airports effective on November 1, 1980, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That the Minister of Transport be directed to cancel his plans to raise the landing fees from $1.65 to $5 per landing for light aircraft flying into Vancouver International Airport until such time as the government carries out the commitment made by the former Progressive Conservative minister of transport to reactivate the alternative Boundary Bay airfield for general aviation use, a commitment which must be met promptly if air safety is to be maintained in the Vancouver control area.


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.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the policy of this government is to pay $36 a barrel for heavy oil from Venezuela and Mexico and to force refineries to accept this oil rather than to use heavy oil from western Canada priced at $16.75 a barrel, and because paying foreign producers while there is a surplus of heavy oil in western Canada represents an oil policy so out of touch with reality that it staggers the imagination

October 21, 1980
and constitutes a complete abdication of ministerial responsibility, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That this House ask for the immediate resignation of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and urgently requests the Prime Minister to replace him with a minister who has demonstrated a greater ability to formulate policy and to manage a department, such as, say, the Minister of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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.


AVIATION HALL OF FAME
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to place before the House a motion requiring serious and pressing consideration. Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame has been established in the city of Edmonton with the purpose, among others, of preserving and highlighting the heroic flying deeds of some of the early bush pilots of northern Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the federal government generously support by way of an annual monetary grant this very worth-while project which has been established in the national interest.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Madam Speaker, I would like to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. As hon. members probably know, last Thursday the MLA for Calgary-Buffalo, Mr. Tom Sindlinger, was thrown out of his party caucus after he dared support publicly the proposed resolution respecting the Constitution of Canada.

Considering that the House will surely recognize that it is urgent to guarantee the rights and basic freedoms of all Canadians, and considering that a provincial member lost his right to speak within the caucus of his party, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael):

That this House send a message of congratulations to the MLA for Calgary-Buffalo for his loyalty to Canada and urge him to continue his work in a spirit of sharing that is indispensable to achieving Canadian unity.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIVE RIGHTS
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, the First of a series of five-year policy statements entitled "Directions for the Eighties" has caused considerable resentment within the native community. Whereas finding solutions to the problems faced by the native community is of the utmost urgency to Canada, and since the proposed policy caused sufficient embarrassment to the minister to cause him to halt immediately its implementation, thereby exhibiting a total lack of control by the minister over his officials, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development immediately investigate what his officials are doing, make a statement on motions to the House and put an end to these chaotic and embarrassing occurrences within his department.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgency which has arisen since the resignation of Dr. Hugh Horner as grain transportation co-ordinator. In the short time which has elapsed problems have once again surfaced in the movement of grain from western Canada to
October 21, 1980

western ports. Elevators are being plugged, and farmers are unable to deliver grain, denying them of needed revenue.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That the Minister of Transport immediately request Dr. Hugh Horner to reassume the responsibilities of his former position for a sufficiently long period of time to get the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board out of this mess and the farmers out of a financial squeeze.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the fact that chartered banks and other financial institutions are quoting different rates of interest under the proposed SBDB program, and since the purpose of the SBDB program is to provide interest rate relief to small business, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance to take the necessary steps to ensure that the full benefits of the SBDB program accrue to small business and are not used to subsidize chartered bank profits.


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


Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Science and Technology, who is speaking on constitutional matters today to western Liberals-I suppose he took them with him-I will address my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Oral Questions
This month the minister's stand-in speaker at the Financial Post high technology conference made the same announcement as his colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, when he stated that:
The federal government faces serious Fiscal choices. It is likely that the government will not be in a position to respond financially in anything like the amounts required by the high-tech industries in the 1980s and 1990s.
In plain talk, this means that the government has so fouled up its priorities that it has no money. Does the minister identify himself with the statement, and does he agree that he has lost the battle in cabinet for vitally needed funds to develop this country, create legitimate careers and jobs for young Canadians, and reverse the government's dismal economic record?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, I am glad to see that support for making research and development and industrial development generally a priority of government is a matter which transcends party boundaries, and I hope we will see this continuing in the months to come since encouragement of research and development is a matter of priority with this government.
Despite fiscal constraints, I think we will see confirmed practical ways of carrying out that priority in a way that means jobs, innovation and development for Canadian industry.


James Gordon Gilchrist: Madam Speaker, in spite of such lofty rhetoric, the minister knows very well that if we do not begin massive programs of research and development, more jobs will be lost to foreigners. The Japanese, through their high technology, have already replaced the Swiss as watchmakers to the world and they have taken over hundreds of automotive jobs in the minister's own riding. Will the minister undertake to remind the Minister of Finance that the government's commitment- and I underscore the word "commitment"-is to increase its investment in research to 1.5 per cent of the gross national product by 1985, not decrease it. This is too vital an area for another Liberal broken promise.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I do not think there is time in this question period for me to detail the long record of Conservative broken promises-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the interest rates.


An hon. Member:: When did you resign, Herb?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I do not have to remind the Minister of Finance about the importance of support for research and development. He shares the view that I and all of us on this side of the House share, and which I hope members on the other side share as well, regarding the importance of this matter and of government leadership in this area.

October 21, 1980
Oral Questions


James Gordon Gilchrist: Well, Madam Speaker, let me be specific. Could the minister explain how the same policies, which have plunged Canada's technological effort by one quarter of 1 per cent to the shameful level of under 1 per cent of the gross national product-equal to Iceland and Ireland and other such "high technology" countries-will suddenly magically turn around, reverse the decline and instead bring about a two-thirds increase, even if that figure is met? And if it is not met, how can it be in Canada's interest, since it will put us so much out of step with our trading partners and cost us thousands of Canadian jobs?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we intend to improve, upgrade and substantially add to what is already in place.


FUNDS ALLOTTED TO SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, perhaps in view of the previous answers I could direct my question to the Minister of Finance, who is also acting Treasury Board head. As the chief architect of our federal fiscal framework, I wonder if the Minister of Finance, in view of the comments made by his colleague about support of science and technology being shared by the Minister of Finance, would indicate why he has permitted the public service to snowball once again in size, going up over 7,000 in numbers since last April alone, costing the treasury in the full year $140 million, when the total amount allotted to science and technology as a department is $7 million, or one-twentieth of that amount?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member had better address the question to the President of the Treasury Board instead of to the alternate president of the treasury board.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I will give the Minister of Finance another chance because I think the lack of funding for science and technology in this country is a terribly important issue. Would the Minister of Finance, perhaps after he has crowned the three hundred thousandth new public servant in this country-that is the number of public servants we have just exceeded-indicate whether he plans to take up, especially with privately-owned foreign concerns in this country, the need that they give their local subsidiaries in Canada a greater mandate, especially in the field of research and development?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, no one could disagree with the motherhood portion of that question.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In
view of the fact that an internal review of Amax's permit to dump 100 million metric tons of toxic heavy metals into Alice Arm, British Columbia, has been completed, would the minister advise the House whether or not he now agrees with the conclusions of the McCart report? It reads in part as follows:
-the potential impacts are serious enough to preclude marine disposal of tailings.
If the minister has not yet reached that conclusion, would he now call for a formal impact assessment and public hearings?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I have in fact received the report and I want to discuss it with the authors. Hopefully I will go to British Columbia this evening to discuss it with them this week. I may have a fuller answer for the hon. member early next week.


IMPACT OF DUMPING ON NISHGAS AND COMMERCIAL FISHERY
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I hope he and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will get together on this issue. On October 6, 1980, the minister sent out a letter in which he called for a review committee to consider a public inquiry on the Amax question. Would the minister now advise whether the impact of this dumping on the Nishga people and the commercial fishery are considerations of the government, or is the review process simply a further cover-up of the backroom election deal made between Amax and the Liberal party?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I had a chance to discuss this question with the chief of the Nishga people a couple of days ago. I indicated that if he wanted to give further consideration to the materials before him before asking me to consider seriously a public inquiry, I would be more than happy to give him that opportunity. As I perceive it, further discussions will be going on before I will be required to make any decision of that kind.


CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Very clearly the corporate interest is being supported by the government in this particular situation. The conflict between the evidence produced by the corporate sector and that by independent scientists looking into this matter indicates that the ocean will be seriously polluted and that in fact there may be an impact something like genocide of the Nishga people at the head of Alice Arm.
Will the Prime Minister simply stand up and indicate that he will call a full public inquiry into this situation, since the permit given to Amax is the only one of its kind in Canada and was granted behind closed doors in the middle of the 1979 federal election?
October 21, 1980


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member had listened to the minister he would have understood that we asked for a review of the question precisely for that reason.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. Inasmuch as government procurement policies are acknowledged to be a key tool in advancing Canadian scientific expertise by providing opportunities for private Canadian firms to develop their unique proficiencies through the supply of specialized services and technological benefits to the Government of Canada, will the minister advise the House as to the specific rules and criteria used by his department to ensure that Canadian bidders are given a decided advantage when bidding on contracts of a technological nature?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member wanted to ask that question in committee this morning. Hopefully we will be able to go into further details at the next session. I am pleased the hon. gentleman has called to the attention of the House and all hon. members the role the Department of Supply and Services is playing in the research and development field.
Yesterday I issued a press release relating to the 172 contracts which I had signed for research and development with various institutions and corporations in Canada valued at $10,348,943. The criterion which we used is the furtherance of research and development in Canada for Canadian-based companies and the marketability of the products of that research and development.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister, who may not be aware of the fact that a $250,000 contract was awarded by his department in 1978 to the Tracor Corporation of Texas for the supply of an airport noise monitoring system to be installed at the Toronto International Airport. The awarding of this contract was met with strong opposition from the Canadian acoustical community.
Does the minister realize that at least four qualified Canadian firms had bid competitively on that contract, that scientific experts in the Ministry of Transport and elsewhere, including other government laboratories, had strongly and forcefully advised against the procurement of the Texas system, and that the $250,000 imported system now sits in mothballs at Malton Airport because it does not work? It is completely useless. How does the minister explain this blunder in the face of his remarks of a few moments ago?
Oral Questions


Mr. Blais:: Madam Speaker, I would point out to the hon. gentleman that I am not familiar with what occurred in 1978. My responsibilities were assumed in March, 1980.
I will look into the matter which the hon. gentleman has identified. 1 point out to him that when we deal in the field of science and procurement with contracts in the range of $1.5 billion a year, the amount of the contract which he has identified, namely $250,000, is not huge. But notwithstanding that, I will look into the details and give him a full report.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It refers to transport matters but I think it has much interest to the Minister of National Defence, to whom I wish to put the question. It now seems obvious that despite repeated questions and repeated non-answers from ministers of transport, in my case back to 1973, they have been fully aware of the problems related to the ELTs. I wonder if this minister would undertake to have his colleague put on the table of the House the report or reports which are in existence dealing with those problems.


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, the question of the hon. member is very interesting to me and as far as the defence department is concerned we always have been very interested because if the use of ELTs was compulsory in all small aircraft, our costs on search would be much less.
We have collaborated very closely with the Ministry of Transport to see how they can devise a new ELT with a proper battery which can stand all kinds of weather. We are pushing very hard to have this done as soon as possible because it will afford protection to the flyers and also to the department.


John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, the minister did not answer my question. I am going to ask it of him again, plus a further question, because he touched on the cost. The cost to pilots has been more than $4 million. The cost in dollars to the Ministry of National Defence has been incalculable, to say nothing of the cost in lives, which is completely unacceptable.
Given those facts, would the minister give a clear and definite undertaking that he will support in cabinet, if necessary, or with the Minister of Transport, the research necessary to produce a suitable ELT and support with some dollars, the placing of them in private aircraft; and as I have asked earlier, will he have the report which is available now placed on the table of the House?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Madam Speaker, I think I did answer the question when I stated that we are now co-operating with the Department of Transport to have an ELT as technically

October 21, 1980
Oral Questions
improved as possible to protect human life and the cost of our research.
I should also add that in my dealings with cabinet, the committees and the Department of Transport, he can rely on my entire co-operation to support the Minister of Transport in that direction.
As for the report, I will discuss it with my colleague, the Minister of Transport, to see whether it can be made public.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER-SECRETARY GENERAL OF GOVERNMENT OF GABON
Madam Speaker:: I wish to point out a distinguished guest in our gallery, namely the hon. Louis-Gaston Mayila, MinisterSecretary General of the Gabon government.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OF MEXICO
Madam Speaker:: I would also draw attention to the presence in our gallery of the Minister of Natural Resources and Industrial Development of Mexico, Mr. Andrez De Oteyza.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the assistance which the government has announced it is prepared to give Massey-Fer-guson with regard to the financial difficulty it now faces, is it the policy of the government that it will in future make available the same kind of financial assistance to all Canadian companies which run into the same or similar type of financial difficulty as Massey-Ferguson, and does it intend to make that assistance to all other Canadian companies in proportion to the size of their operation?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the announcement which I made yesterday is with respect to assistance that we had decided, jointly with the province of Ontario, to offer as part of the refinancing of Massey-Ferguson.
The question as to whether similar occasions will arise in the future will have to be decided in the light of the circumstances of each case and, in particular, in light of the economic costs
and benefits associated with the particular company for Canada as a whole.


George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, as a job lost in any area is just as important as a job lost in any other area, and as those people who are employed by one company, irrespective of size, are just as important as those employed by a big company, is it the intention of the government to give exactly the same kind of treatment and support and show the same kind of interest as it has now indicated it is willing to give to Massey-Ferguson, or does it simply believe in the policy that "big is beautiful", and the government is not really interested in small companies that run into the same kind of financial problems as large companies?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we already offer very substantial help to small and medium-sized companies in Canada through programs such as the Federal Business Development Bank and the enterprise development program.


An hon. Member:: Come off it!


Mr. Wilson:: Answer the question.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: We are certainly prepared to examine possible new initiatives which would add to these very successful programs. I have especially noticed the abandonment by my hon. friend on the part of the Conservative party of its traditional reluctance to have the government intervene in the marketplace.


George Harris Hees: In other words, the government's policy is "big is beautiful and to hell with everybody else".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment who is responsible for forestry, I direct my question to the minister responsible for intergovernmental relations. On July 1, 1980, the government of British Columbia announced a new Crown land disposal policy which potentially will alienate and destroy tens of thousands of acres of forest at fire-sale prices. This is at a time when all governments through CCREM have demanded the importance of expanding our forest base.
Is the government aware of this policy and its potentially destructive impact on our forest resource and, if so, what action has the government taken to dissuade the government of B.C. from its mindless attack on this vital and fast dwindling natural resource?
Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the
October 21, 1980

Environment): Madam Speaker, the hon. member must be aware that the decision made by the government of British Columbia is entirely within its competence because the resource is provincial. The hon. member allows us to make the point that this government never does have and never has had the intention to tell the governments of the provinces what to do with their resources; we have confidence in their ability.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: You get full marks for comedy.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, I can assure the parliamentary secretary that this party is quite aware of the prerogatives of the provinces when it comes to resources. What it does prove, in fact, is that laws and constitutions cannot stop fools from acting like fools.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: In view of the importance of this resource, as stated many times by the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, a federal-provincial body representing all provincial governments across Canada as well as the federal government, and in view of the serious consequences of this totally irresponsible action, will the minister responsible immediately consult with industry and labour representatives and together with them work to persuade-to persuade, not to force-the provincial government of British Columbia to reverse this idiotic and self-destructive course?


Mr. Simmons:: Madam Speaker, what the hon. member is getting exercised about is the decision or determination by the B.C. government to allow some of its Crown land to be used for agricultural purposes. I do not know what he has against agriculture. We on this side do not have anything against the subject.


Mr. Nielsen:: Nothing for it either.


Roger Simmons: We also see this decision of the government of B.C. as a decision which is strictly within provincial jurisdiction. We have no intention of interfering with it. I suggest to the hon. member that his question ought to be more properly directed to the appropriate minister in the government of British Columbia.


Mr. Clark:: Or perhaps to Westminster.


THE BUDGET
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister took a vow of silence yesterday, and he would not answer me, so I have a question for the minister. The Prime Minister, of course, is a bit afraid.
Oral Questions
Last year the government of the day introduced for the first time a five-year forecast in connection with the budget entitled "Economic Assumptions Underlying the Fiscal Projections of the Budget". In addition, just before the budget was brought down we tabled a tax expenditure account. Other information was also tabled, such as the explanation of the new expenditure-management system. The minister does not have such a system so I do not expect him to table it.
Does the minister intend to table a five-year economic forecast with his budget to follow the precedent set last year; and will he be tabling an annual tax expenditure budget and report that would show tax revenues forgone and which will bring up-to-date and refine the one published last year, as that report admitted that it was not entirely refined? Will these things be done?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as one who has always believed in open government-


An hon. Member:: "Open government by closed mouth".


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -I propose to table all the documents which became part of the budget picture last December. I would add, and I am sure that the hon. member will understand, that these projections and assumptions are just that and, as I learned and as he learned, some of the projections which he made last December did not last very long. Despite that disability, I still think that it is worth while to give the largest possible amount of information to the public, even though much of it is at risk.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I am very much encouraged by what the minister has said because it shows that perhaps he is still ready to learn and to follow good practices. I would also like to ask the minister whether or not he will be dealing with the question of sunset provisions of tax measures. We had promised last year a review to determine whether or not it would be rational to have sunset provisions attached to certain tax measures.
Also, will the minister follow our example by referring the question of tax treatment of charitable donations and the question of capital gains taxes to a parliamentary committee as we intended to do? These are very involved questions. Will he follow our example in these areas as well?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, in the statement which I made in April I indicated that I would be tabling a paper on capital gains. I will be doing that, if not on the day or the day after the budget, then very shortly thereafter, so that the House will be able to base a consideration of capital gains on an analysis which has been prepared within the Department of Finance. This document will be made available to the House as early as possible after the budget.
Obviously, some of the proposals will have sunset clauses, but I want to make sure that the sun does not set on me as it set on the hon. member.


John Carnell Crosbie: It will rise again.
3874

October 21, 1980
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Agriculture, but as he is away from the House, I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. We are aware that last summer, through its Agricultural Stabilization Board, the Department of Agriculture provided assistance to qualified hog breeders and feeders. A great many of them, however, are complaining that payments are being made slowly. I should like therefore to ask the parliamentary secretary if the board has received many applications, how many cheques have already been sent out to the two categories of producers, and if these payments could be accelerated.


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for his question. Indeed, the two programs which have been implemented by the Department of Agriculture will require expenditures of $46.5 million and $6.5 million for hogs and piglets respectively. As far as hogs are concerned, 25,487 applications have been received and 5,998 cheques have been issued. The remaining cheques should be issued before the end of 1980. As far as piglets are concerned, 3,900 applications have been received and the cheques should be sent out within the next two weeks.


SECOND WORLD WAR
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On September 14 this year there was an unveiling of a memorial to the 15,000 Polish officers who lost their lives in 1940 as a result of an execution near the town of Katyn in Poland. At that commemoration there were representatives from the official opposition, representatives from the government of Ontario and the opposition of the government of Ontario, as well as a number of municipal politicians. The federal government had intended to send a representative but at the last minute the plans were changed.
My question to the minister is: on what basis did the government change its mind and decide not to have representation at this very important event; and was external pressure applied to the government which caused it to change its mind?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I believe there was representation
by several governments, but that had no influence on the attitude of the government because our long-standing policy has been not to participate in any activities relating to the Katyn forest massacre. I think the fact that the people of Poland at that time were undergoing such traumatic events should alone be sufficient reason to justify that position.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. If the government has had this long-standing policy, why did it decide to send a representative to the memorial commemoration, the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park? Why did it change its mind at the last minute, and what governments were pressuring the Government of Canada not to send a representative to that event?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that it was the governments of Poland and the Soviet Union which made representations to us, but I repeat that that had no influence whatever on the long-standing policy of this government, which was established long before such representations were received. Members of Parliament, of course, are free to attend such events on their own behalf and a number of members from this side of the House did so.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last night the Premier of Newfoundland made some extreme statements, claiming that measures proposed by this government could result in Newfoundland losing control over Labrador and its right to a denominational system of education. Could the Prime Minister assure the House that such is not the case?


An hon. Member:: Isn't it in the Supreme Court?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, members of the opposition are asking about the Supreme Court. I would point out that the statements are clearly untrue, based not on an interpretation of the courts but on what our resolution itself says. When there are other methods of amending the constitution, we do not propose to use the amending provision; we propose to use the one which is preserved in our resolution by section 53 and item 4 of the schedule. In other words, we cannot change the boundaries of a province without the consent of that province.


An hon. Member:: A referendum?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is stated clearly in our resolution, if only Premier Peckford took the time to read it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker-

.
October 21, 1980


Madam Speaker:: Pardon. The Right Hon. Prime Minister had not finished with his answer, 1 am sorry. I will give him the floor.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the opposition often asks questions in two parts so I do not see why they would object to a question in two parts by a member on this side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On this question of denominational schools, Mr. Peckford again failed to read the resolution. When we talk of freedom of religion, we are not following the type of protection given in the United States which forbids the establishment of religions. Therefore, far from abolishing the right of denominational schools to continue to exist, our proposed resolution, on the contrary, guarantees the existence of that freedom of religion. It is also guaranteed by section 93 of the British North America Act which is continued by the present resolution. So again, on this item Premier Peckford is completely off base.

[ Translation]


AIRPORTS
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Transport and the importance of my question, I shall put it to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Last Thursday the Secretary of State, addressing the Mirabel Cargo Association, recalled that during the election campaign the Liberal party had promised to proceed with phase two of Mirabel, which was part of the original project, adding, and 1 quote:
-in fact, there is absolutely no question at this time of proceeding with phase 2 of Mirabel as provided for in the original plan and entailing the construction of a second airport and another landing strip.
Can the Prime Minister tell us today whether the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications was then speaking on behalf of the government and whether he, the Prime Minister, was advised of that decision?
Oral Questions
against; under those circumstances, can the parliamentary secretary assure us that a study is being made on the possibility of achieving the original objective which, according to the statement of the Minister of Communications, has been definitely cancelled?


Mr. Bockstael:: Madam Speaker, there is still an element of uncertainty due to deep changes in our economy and the use of the two services, especially that of the Mirabel airport. The matter is still under review and the Minister of Transport will have an announcement to make at a later date.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I wonder if the minister might share with us the nature of the proposal which was put before this government and the government of Ontario with regard to the recapitalization and reorganization of Massey-Ferguson which justified the government taking this most unusual position of guaranteeing the new equity investment of those who might put their money into Massey-Ferguson without similarly guaranteeing the jobs of the people who work there.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend missed a very important part of what I had to say in making my announcement on behalf of the federal government yesterday. At that time I said that among the very important conditions attached to the willingness of the Government of Canada and the government of Ontario to guarantee a portion of the equity refinancing of Massey-Ferguson would be conditions involving the preservation of jobs and the carrying out of further research and development, production and investment by Massey-Ferguson in Canada. These will be conditions very much attached to what we intend to do in facilitating the refinancing of Massey-Ferguson.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transport, I must say the question is still under study; it would be unwise to announce a decision at this time. When the impact of the over-all situation at Mirabel and Dorval has been looked into, the minister, in agreement with cabinet, will be in a position to announce the decision to the House.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, in view of the reply of the parliamentary secretary, it seems clear that the Minister of Communications made an unfounded statement in affirming that going ahead with phase 2 had been definitely decided


Ian Deans: In order that we can better understand what it is that the minister proposes to do and the nature of the guarantees that he is going to extract, is the minister prepared to stand in this House and explain to us and the people of Canada exactly what form the guarantees will take which will assure us that the equity investment guarantee will in fact mean for Canadians that there will be jobs, that there will be a reorganized company and that there will in fact be a profitmaking operation from which we can derive benefit? If he can, will he explain why the government, if it feels this is a good thing to do, did not take an equity position and gain for Canada at least some return?

October 21, 1980
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the exact details of the eventual arrangements are subject to detailed negotiation to ensure as a government, on behalf of the workers of Massey-Ferguson, the 300 suppliers and 300 dealers-the small businesses which my friend on the Conservative side forgot about when he asked me a question a few minutes ago-that we have in place commitments with respect to investment, production and research and development, commitments we will insist on having in place as a condition of making available, along with the government of Ontario, the guarantee of equity that we mentioned yesterday. I do not think my hon. friend would want me to prejudice the type of outcome of negotiations which he is calling for by making some premature disclosure of details which will harm our negotiating position. I also want to say that the position we are taking is the kind that has been very strongly called for by the UAW representing the workers at Massey.


WATER RESOURCES
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the minister knows, the province of British Columbia has now referred the question of the American proposal to flood the Canadian Skagit river valley in British Columbia to the International Joint Commission. I ask the minister why there has not yet been any move on the part of the federal government to support that initiative on the part of the province of British Columbia.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, negotiations have been ongoing in this matter between American and city authorities and British Columbia. Our position is well known. We have never been enthusiastic about this project but there is, after all, an agreement involving the province of British Columbia. We believe it is for the province of British Columbia to face up to its responsibility and to attempt to change the minds of the U.S. signatories in this respect.


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, the minister knows that has not been the position of the federal government for ten years. If that is now the position of the federal government, the federal government is leaving the province of British Columbia in an extraordinarily difficult position in dealing with the United States of America. The minister has been very brave about trying to cover up on the messy and seamy side of the Canadian arrangements.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: I want to know now, is the Government of Canada prepared, after all these years, finally to get on the side of British Columbia and tell the American government that their order is invalid, that the order is not fair and that we
will not have our valley flooded? Are we going to get an answer or is the minister going to run for cover?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the position of the government has been consistent; we believe this problem should be settled by negotiation. We have consistently offered our good offices to assist the province of British Columbia in that regard.


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Science and Technology, I shall address my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. This government has agreed to carry on the funding to universities for scientific research, but we understand they are thinking about imposing a duty on the importation of scientific equipment and supplies. Can the minister assure us that this will not happen, because there is not much use increasing funding for research to universities if we are going to slap a tax on their imported machinery.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I think my friend is referring to a recent report of the tariff board after it held hearings into this matter. If I am not mistaken, the report is presently under study by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.


OTTAWA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF ADEQUATE FACILITIES
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Meetings are being held today between Eastern Airlines and the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Municipality executives relative to future direct flights between Ottawa International Airport and the United States. Any decision, however, hinges on agreement by the minister of immigration to having proper customs facilities put in place. Will the minister assure us that such facilities are forthcoming, thereby saving Ottawa from the shame of presently being one of the few international capitals with no direct flights to its largest neighbour and most important market?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I will be pleased to do anything I can to get Ottawa better air service. We are certainly keeping abreast of those negotiations. When the time comes to make a decision concerning immigration facilities, we will certainly be prepared to respond, but we have to wait and see what the negotiations with the airlines result in first.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, will the minister consult with his colleague, the Minister of Transport, to get his support so
October 21, 1980

we can get this project off the ground and not wait for ten years from now, as we have to with his new manpower policy?


Lloyd Axworthy: As you well know, Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport has a very direct and personal interest in improving service in the Ottawa region. I will be glad to consult with him both on transport and on manpower matters.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour, I will direct my question to the parliamentary secretary. The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, operating out of the health and science building at McMaster University in Hamilton, has been committed to the increasingly vital role of promoting the fundamental right of Canadians to a healthy and safe working environment. Can the centre be assured by the government of adequate funding to carry out this important mandate effectively and efficiently?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Louis R. Desmarais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.


An hon. Member:: A yes or no will do.


Louis R. Desmarais: The creation of the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety was authorized by an act of Parliament in 1978, with the active support of all parties in the House, 1 might add. When the bill was being considered the then minister of labour, the Hon. John Munro, stated that this vitally important new institution would be financed through funds appropriated by Parliament. This has been done in the last two years and it is the intention of this government to continue to do that.
The organization and development of the centre-


Some hon. Members:: Speech.


Louis R. Desmarais: -is moving ahead very rapidly in accordance with-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis R. Desmarais: -the plans of the board of governors which is comprised of unions, management-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis R. Desmarais: May I come to my conclusion?
Privilege-Mr. S. Robinson


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Louis R. Desmarais: 1 might say, Madam Speaker, that the increased activities of the organization would require a much heavier budget in the year 1981-82. The present Minister of Labour has committed himself to seek-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: I have a number of notices of questions of privilege. Does the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Fleming) still feel he has a question of privilege?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes or no?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State, Multiculturalism):: Madam Speaker, I believe I had the basis of a question of privilege, and that is why I gave you notice. But on the basis that there was no deliberate intention in the charge made, I am willing to withdraw the question of privilege. If, however, there is an indication it was deliberate, I will try to make my point. In reviewing it, I believe it is up in the air. The words do not state it but there is an implication. I do not think the right hon. member would be deliberate in that charge.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I, of course, would not suggest the minister is being deliberate in anything that he does.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MR. ROBINSON (BURNABY)-STATEMENTS MADE BY MR. BLAIS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning certain remarks made in this House on October 16 last by the hon. Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) during his learned discourse on the notice of motion before this House. At page 3755 of Hansard for October 16, 1980, the minister, in referring to the distinguished president of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said:
-Mr. Tarnapolsky, is a strong supporter of the legislation with which we are dealing, including the entrenchment of the bill of rights.
I regret to say that this is a completely misleading statement on the part of the minister. I would ask he take this opportunity to make it quite clear that in fact the contrary is true and that Mr. Tarnapolsky opposes very strongly a number of important sections of this proposed charter of rights.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Before allowing the hon. minister to reply, because I feel that he should have the opportunity to do so, I do want to remind the hon. member for

October 21, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Beatty
Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) that this is purely debate. If the hon. member is not satisfied or does not agree with something that a minister or a member of this Elouse has said in this House, it does not constitute a question of privilege.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman that I am not ready to withdraw the remark. Quite to the contrary. I listened to Mr. Tarnapolsky on the program "Cross-Country Checkup". He indicated quite clearly that he supported the measures being introduced and debated in this House.
I might say that once the committee stage is reached I would suggest the committee call Mr. Tarnapolsky to appear to discuss the matter-he has agreed to go-and I am sure the hon. gentleman will see that my statement was well founded.


Madam Speaker:: I cannot allow the hon. member for Burnaby to speak twice on this question of privilege, which I feel is not a question of privilege. It is a matter of disagreement as to the interpretation made of certain remarks outside the House, from what I can gather. Therefore, there is no prima facie case of privilege in this particular circumstance.


MR. BEATTY-ENERGY ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, last Friday afternoon I asked your permission to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege after I had had an opportunity to review the transcript of your ruling on the question of privilege raised by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).
As you will recall, Madam Speaker, my colleague's question of privilege arose from the massive advertising campaign which was begun last summer at the taxpayers' expense to promote the Trudeau government's constitutional initiatives. The substance of the hon. member's concern was that the spending of millions of dollars by the government to promote policies that did not have the support of both sides of this House constituted an attack upon the privileges of members.
Your ruling last Friday was extremely helpful in that it gave the House an indication of what you felt would be necessary, before spending on an advertising campaign by the government, to constitute a question of privilege. While you clearly saw the threats posed in the government's dangerous new entry into advocacy advertising-which is the selling of a particular, disputable, point of view-through the use of quantities of tax dollars that are so large they cannot be matched by groups with opposing views, you said that this action, in itself, did not constitute prima facie grounds for a question of privilege.
Your ruling provides an extremely useful guidance for members about what sort of conditions would have to exist before such an advertising campaign could give rise to a question of privilege.
The relevant part of your ruling, Madam Speaker, which is recorded at page 3781 of Hansard for October 17, 1980, reads as follows:
The spending of public money cannot be the issue, but when a person or a government attempts to interfere with our deliberations through spending public money, or otherwise, directly or indirectly, or acts in contempt of the House, such action would constitute a prima facie case. However, the interference must be such that the member or the House is truly hindered or intimidated.
A second possible basis for a question of privilege was also mentioned in your ruling, namely, that such advertising represents, and I quote:
-a publication of false, perverted, partial or injurious reports of the proceedings of the House of Commons or misrepresentations of members.
While it can easily be demonstrated that the government is using tax dollars for an advertising campaign that is replete with false information about energy in Canada, the advertisements do not represent these falsehoods as the position of Parliament or as the policy of individual members. A strict construction of the grounds necessary for a question of privilege to exist would not include the fact that the government is using millions of dollars to spread false information at the taxpayers' expense. This dangerous abuse of tax dollars would have to be opposed by methods other than by the raising of a question of privilege. As the House will be aware, Mr. Murray Coolican of the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee has laid complaints against the government, listing the numerous falsehoods contained in the advertisements, with the Advertising Standards Council and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
For this matter to be raised in the House of Commons, it would have to be dealt with in the context either of debate or of the question period. As your ruling quite properly makes clear, such misleading advertising would not constitute a question of privilege unless it could be shown that it misrepresented the opinions or activities of Parliament or its members.
This brings us to the other conditions you outlined, Madam Speaker, where a government advertising program would present sufficient grounds to justify a question of privilege. I would remind the House of your exact words as reported in Hansard at page 3781 as follows:
-when a person or a government attempts to interfere with our deliberations through spending public money, or otherwise, directly or indirectly, or acts in contempt of the House, such action would constitute a prima facie case.
It is my intention to demonstrate that the energy advertising campaign currently being run by the government was, in fact, designed to interfere with our deliberations through spending public money. I will show that the campaign was designed and initiated well in advance of the unveiling of the government's energy package which is to be revealed in the Minister of Finance's budget next week. The purpose of the campaign includes preventing members of this House from discharging their responsibility to have, in the words of Your Honour, productive debate on the government's energy policies. In this regard I remind the House of Your Honour's statement at page 3780 of Hansard.
The original purpose of this privilege was, as the hon. member for St. John's East rightly pointed out, to guarantee the conditions necessary for productive debate.
October 21, 1980

When I wrote to Your Honour this morning to indicate my intention to raise this matter this afternoon, I sent Your Honour a copy of a document entitled "National Energy Policy, Communications". This memorandum outlines a possible federal advertising campaign on energy. Mr. Donald Han-right, who is the director of communications with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, has admitted publicly that he is the author of that document, so its authenticity is not in doubt.
I draw the attention of the House to page 3 of the paper which, under the title "Strategy", reads as follows:
The underlying strategy in this communications plan is to achieve three goals, in sequence:
1.	Take control of the energy debate.
2.	Retain that control through action and leadership.
3.	Remove 'energy' from the list of high-ranking national concerns.
The purpose of this campaign was very clear. The government was to embark on a major advertising campaign to seize control of the energy debate-


Mr. Lalonde:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker-


Erik Nielsen: You cannot have order in the middle of a question of privilege.


Marc Lalonde: On a point of order, I suggest to the hon. member that he take note also of something which happened in this House and that Mr. Hanright, whom the hon. member has quoted, has also said-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Hanright declared that this minister had rejected-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I do not see readily what hon. members are protesting about. It seems to me, and 1 stand to be corrected if I interpret the standing orders wrongly, that a point of order can be raised at any time when a member is addressing the House. That is exactly what the hon. minister asked for. I recognized him, which seems perfectly normal to me. Has the hon. minister concluded his point of order?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my point is very brief indeed, and it is in relation to something the hon. member has just stated. He quoted a senior official of my department. 1 submit to him that he is being quite unfair to this particular senior official because the same senior official indicated, when he was interviewed on this subject, that his memorandum had been rejected by his minister. Therefore, it would be quite inappropriate for the hon. member-


Charles Joseph Clark: Show us the new one, Marc.
Privilege-Mr. Beatty


Marc Lalonde: -to refer to this document on a very partial basis and not to quote or refer fully to the statement made by the senior official in question. I stated in this House myself that this document had been rejected by me.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, it is regrettable that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) felt it necessary to smuggle in a speech on the merits of the resolution under the guise of a point of order. It was clearly not a point of order.
It is very clear that the purpose of this campaign is that the government is to embark on a major advertising campaign to seize control of the energy debate and to, in the words of the document, "remove 'energy' from the list of high-ranking national concerns". It would be bad enough if such an action were targeted strictly at the government's opponents in the private sector. Spending vast amounts of public money to polish the government's image and to eliminate public concern over an issue which has reached crisis proportions for the whole industrialized world would in itself be extremely dangerous and disturbing. The document makes it clear, however, that the targets of the advertising campaign are not strictly in the private sector. They also include members of this House.
Let me read a paragraph from page 3 under the heading "Taking Control".
Federal 'control' will be suddenly, forcefully gained with announcement of the 'package'. This, however, will be a lumpy, almost indigestible mass of policy. Unless that initiative is retained by merchandising both the package and its individual elements, and existing programs in the Fields of supply, allocation and conservation, that initiative will go by default to the inevitable detractors (including a largely hostile media, the producing provinces, the foreign-owned multinationals, and the Opposition).
What must be noted here is that Mr. Hanright is not talking about the government's opponents in the abstract. He is referring very directly and very specifically to the opposition in Parliament, as his decision to capitalize the word "opposition" makes very clear. How are the government's opponents, including the opposition in Parliament, to be out-manoeuvred under Mr. Hanright's proposals? One element, as Mr. Hanright pointed out, will be the announcement of an energy package which, according to the government, will come with the unveiling of the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) next Tuesday. The other element will be a massive advertising campaign to sell those initiatives.
Under the heading "Retaining Control", Mr. Hanright described the difficulty the government would have in obtaining sufficient favourable attention for its initiatives this fall. He continued:
In any event, these matters are relative. For potential opponents, the timing is even worse, provided we build on the initial communications advantage be continuously selling the federal position through the late summer, fall and winter. These detractors will be disadvantaged by surprise, encumbered by the necessity of applauding many of the policy initiatives, and possibly even nonplussed by our own noisy charivari.
It is clear that the targets of the campaign include members of the House of Commons. It is obvious that the period being referred to here is the present time leading up to and following the unveiling of the government's energy package. In these two

October 21, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Beatty
regards the government's advertising campaign clearly meets some of the criteria Your Elonour outlined for a question of privilege.
Elowever, it is fair to ask what the government proposes to do with its control of the energy debate once it has seized it. Well, Mr. Hanright gives us the answer to that question under the heading "The Energy Issue Take-out".
Despite some expected difficulty in the early going with regard to the impact of the energy package on the constitutional talks, it should be possible-given the general cast of the strategy thus far-to make substantial gains towards the removal of "energy" from the pantheon of major national issues.
This is regarded as the essence of the strategy, recognizing that it may take several years to achieve such a goal.
"Simply stated", Mr. Hanright continues further on in the statement, "the objective should be to reduce the level of public concern about energy".
There are few issues which are more important to Canadians than the implementation of a sound energy policy. It would be hard to think of any area where Parliament's attention is more urgently required or which has taken more of Parliament's attention in recent years. That the government's actions in the field of energy are highly controversial is not disputed by Mr. Hanright. Indeed, it is that fact which causes him to propose this major advertising campaign, and we have an indication in a further government document that the measures to be disclosed next week will be still more divisive.
In the infamous August 30 report to cabinet marked "For minister's eyes only" which was prepared under the direction of officials in the Privy Council office and the Department of Justice, the authors warned on page 43 that, and I quote:
The political climate in Canada is likely to be poisoned by a major energy conflict throughout the fall of this year and at least the early months of next year.
This is a clear warning that the government expects the controversy over its energy policies to worsen dramatically this fall once its policies are made public. In the words of the document, "The political climate in Canada is likely to be poisoned by a major energy conflict".
Far from being lessened by the disclosure of the government's energy package, the need for constructive parliamentary debate on the government's actions is going to be increased. The purpose of the government's advertising campaign, however, is to "remove 'energy' from the list of high-ranking national concerns". I will bring this again to the attention of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources before he interrupts: "To remove 'energy' from the list of high-ranking national concerns". This is according to the document on which the campaign was based.
I think I have presented sufficient evidence to meet the criteria set out by Your Honour when you ruled last Friday that, and I quote:
When a person or a government attempts to interfere with our deliberations through spending public money, or otherwise, directly or indirectly, or acts in contempt of the House, such action would constitute a prima facie case.
Let the government not claim that no question of privilege exists because the Hanright memorandum was simply the
opinion of a single public servant, or because the advertising campaign currently under way is on a smaller scale than initially proposed by Mr. Hanright. The incontestable fact is that a campaign along the lines suggested by Mr. Hanright is currently under way and, according to a letter I received yesterday from the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Fleming), who is responsible for government propaganda, three contracts totalling $5,850,000 have been let, making this the largest advertising campaign of its kind in the history of Canada.
The minister says he disavows Mr. Hanright's memorandum and that it has no validity, but I would then call upon the minister, first of all, to table the strategy documents which outline the purpose of the current advertising campaign because those are not available to Parliament. They are not available to the public. They are not available to Your Honour in order to rule on this question of privilege.
If the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) says that Mr. Hanright's document proposing that this attack on Parliament be made is invalid, then let the minister table the strategy documents which exist for the current campaign. However, even if it were the case, and I do not accept it, that Mr. Hanright's memorandum has no validity to the present advertising campaign, the mere fact that a public servant would propose a massive advertising campaign for the expenditure of, I believe, some $11 million which was originally proposed, the mere fact of its being proposed would constitute an attack on the privileges of members of Parliament in that what is being proposed in the document is that the role of Parliament be systematically undermined through the use of this device.
The minister may want to deny parentage of the document, but he cannot deny its validity and its relevance to the issue before the House today, and that is whether or not an attempt is being made, or was proposed to have been made, for the government to use the resources available to it and to it alone to undermine the role of members of Parliament, and to prevent members of Parliament from discharging their historic responsibilities.
Madam Speaker, your responsibility, as has been seen by you and by your predecessors, is to defend the rights and privileges of members of Parliament whenever they come under attack, including when that attack is planned and is executed by the government of the day. No majority in Parliament, no matter how large or how acquiescent it may be, can give the government the right or the ability to seek to impede even a single member of Parliament in discharging his responsibility to the people who sent him here, because the Speaker of the House of Commons remains in the chair to defend the House from such abuses.
In eight years as a member of Parliament, Madam Speaker, I have never seen a more clear instance where the government of the day has used the instruments available to it, and to it alone, in order to impede Parliament in its attempt to discharge its responsibility. You alone, Madam Speaker, have the
October 21, 1980

ability to ensure that Parliament's rights and responsibilities remain undiminished, and I am confident that you will use that power on the basis of the evidence I have presented this afternoon.
If you find, Madam Speaker, that I have a prima facie question of privilege, I will move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the question of the government's energy advertising campaign and all relevant documents relating to the campaign be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for examination and report.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I will leave to the Canadian public the decision to judge the frivolous points which have been raised by the opposition during the debate on the resolution of the constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Day after day, unable to debate the substance of the important constitutional points which are before this House, divided as they are, the Conservative opposition have tried to raise phony questions of privilege and phony points of order. They have wasted a great many hours of this House in raising points which have all been rejected as ill founded.
I suggest that the particular point raised by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) is in exactly the same category. In effect, if he had listened to the debate and to the question periods in this House over the last few weeks, he would not have dared or bothered to rise in his seat and occupy 20 minutes of the time of the House with the point he has raised because, as I said on a point of order during his intervention-and I should like to repeat it now quite clearly-the senior official in question had recognized that he had prepared the memo to which the hon. member had referred. When interviewed about it some weeks ago, he indicated that indeed his minister had rejected the memo he had prepared. I stated, standing in my seat in this very House-


An hon. Member:: You did exactly what he said.


Marc Lalonde: -I stated quite categorically that I had rejected the proposal put forward by the senior official in question, and that I did not agree with the objective or with the way in which he was proposing to go about it.
I think I heard my hon. friend state that he did not believe me. I do not want to misquote him, but if he said that I would suggest that he knows the rules of the House and, if he does not believe a statement made by an hon. member in the House, there are rules in the House to deal with such cases. Otherwise, I suggest he should take my statement for what it is, as a statement of facts as they had developed.


Mr. Andre:: Ironclad as it is.


Marc Lalonde: The old argument of my hon. friend is based on a memo which had been rejected. I could go even further,
Privilege-Mr. Beatty
but I will not go into the substance of this memo because, as I said, it is completely irrelevant to this issue.
As to the advertising which is going on currently and has gone on for several weeks, if my hon. friend had taken the trouble to study it-and I note that in his argument he has not referred to a single word used in any of those advertisements-
I submit he would find that the advertising campaign, which has been in existence for several weeks or months now, is exactly in line with the advertising campaign which was carried out by his government when they were in office, and by the previous Liberal government. As a matter of fact, if my hon. friend would look at the amount of advertising done by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources last year he would find that it cost about $5 million, which is certainly not very different from the figure which he has mentioned in his intervention.
Therefore, not wanting to waste any more time of the House, let me point out that I think there are issues of great importance and significance before the House now and I would not want to prevent hon. members from participating in the debate on the constitutional issue. However, so far as the question of privilege raised by my hon. friend is concerned, I submit to the House, and to you, Madam Speaker, that it is completely without foundation, that it is completely irrelevant, and as such should be rejected.


Mr. McGrath:: Madam Speaker-


Mr. Neil:: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Do both hon. members wish to intervene on the same question of privilege?
Tomorrow I shall rule on the question of privilege which was put forward by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) which pertains to the same area of argument which has been made by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty). Although it is not on the same subject matter, I feel the two points are very close. After the 20 minute intervention on the part of the hon. member, I honestly feel that the Chair is sufficiently informed, having also heard from the minister, and I should like the House to return to the other business before it. Tomorrow after the question period I shall rule on these two questions of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, you indicated the other day in response to the member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that, should there be other points to be raised in debates on privilege such as this, you would hear them, and I do have points to be raised. The member who raised the matter today was kind enough to give me a copy of his written transcript where, for instance, he omitted one of the more forceful points of his submission to you today, which arguments, I submit with respect to the Chair, are quite different from those which have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), and should be, in my submission to you, considered quite separately from the arguments presented by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition the other day-

October 21, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Beatty


An hon. Member:: Have you no respect for the Chair? Madam Speaker said she had enough.


Erik Nielsen: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is trying to gag me and to stop me from raising points which he has not even heard. He has already spoken, so naturally no one else need speak.


An hon. Member:: Typical arrogance.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I hate to intervene, but it seems to me that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is reflecting upon the decision you have just made to hear no further interventions on this subject. I should like to have a clarification from you, Madam Speaker, as to whether or not he or other members are indeed permitted to continue this shameful waste of time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I was listening to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) because I thought he was making a point of order, but obviously he was pleading with me to hear him and saying he had further arguments to make in favour of this question of privilege.
What I did say was that the hon. member had spoken for 20 minutes. I believe it is the right of a member who feels he has a privilege to expose as completely as possible why he feels he has a question of privilege. I have allowed him 20 minutes in which to do that. I feel the two questions of privilege raised are close; the one raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, and another one today. They will be considered separately. I can give the hon. member for Yukon the assurance that they will be considered separately. What I said and feel is true is that, having listened to both of them, they are quite close and based on arguments which have been drawn from my rulings, but in some of the cases some of the things I said in my rulings were left out. Therefore I feel sufficiently informed and I will not hear any more speakers on this particular question of privilege.


Mr. Dick:: You cannot pre-judge on that.


Erik Nielsen: This matter affects my privileges too as a member of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I have submitted to you, Madam Speaker, the fact that I have additional points to make. How in the world can the Chair judge whether or not there are legitimate additional points until they are heard? Surely I am entitled to be heard on a question affecting so deeply the rights of members.


An hon. Member:: Shame on you.


Erik Nielsen: I do not accept interventions such as the lowly one that was raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacLaren).


David Michael Collenette: Obey the rules of this House. You are arguing with the Chair.


Madam Speaker:: I offer to hon. members that I will look at length at the arguments submitted today.


Erik Nielsen: But I have not submitted mine.


Madam Speaker:: If, after having looked at those arguments, 1 feel 1 should hear supplementary information, I will do that tomorrow before I rule.


Paul Wyatt Dick: No, no.


Madam Speaker:: I will not hear any more today on this particular question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair asks the co-operation of members on a matter like this one, where I feel 1 have given members a lot of occasion to express themselves on different questions of privilege that are brought up. This one being so similar-and I think we have discussed this matter in the House quite at length-I ask the co-operation of members in this particular instance to allow me to look at the intervention of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty). I feel now that I have been sufficiently informed, but I will offer to some members the opportunity to speak again tomorrow if, having looked at the arguments put forward, I feel I need to be more informed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the second time you reiterated that you would hear members tomorrow before ruling, there was a qualifier attached to it. I know I have points to present to the Chair that have not been put in this argument. I know that.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Erik Nielsen: You do not, because you have not heard them. If what the Chair is saying to me is that I will have the right to put those points to you tomorrow before your ruling is made, then I will be happy and sit down. But I do not want any qualifications attached to it, because I know I have points the Chair has not yet heard from either this side or that side.


Madam Speaker:: I have put the qualifications, and I am afraid I must maintain them. I will hear the hon. member tomorrow if I feel-


An hon. Member:: Before, not "if'.


Madam Speaker:: -that on its face this question might be a question of privilege. If I am absolutely sure by looking at the arguments put forward by the hon. member that there could in
October 21, 1980

no way be a question of privilege involved, then I will not allow a new speaker, having looked at the arguments more carefully, reading them rather than just listening to them. Having done that today, I feel 1 am sufficiently informed to render a decision, but 1 have put that reservation and I hope the hon. member will accept it.


Erik Nielsen: With great respect-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Erik Nielsen: 1 know I have points-


An hon. Member:: Sit down, you have not got the floor.


David Michael Collenette: Obey the rules of the House.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: I know I have points bearing on this question to raise which the Chair has not received.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid the hon. member is appealing what I just said.


Erik Nielsen: Not at all.


Madam Speaker:: I heard the hon. member when he said that he thought he had further points. I said that 1 would want to see whether I need to have further points. Therefore I would ask the hon. member please not to ask for the floor again because 1 will not be able to give it to him on this particular question.


Erik Nielsen: Then I rise on a question of personal privilege to give you notice today that, should the course of events take the direction that I am gagged on this question of privilege, 1 will raise a personal question of privilege followed by a substantive motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: That is the right of the hon. member and 1 take notice of it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 795, 806, 821, 1,276 and 1,454.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. de Jong: 1.	Has the IJC participated in the hearings regarding the proposal by SCA Services of New York to dump 2,000,000 gallons of effluent daily into the Niagara river and, if not, for what reasons?
2.	Will the government instruct Canada's representatives on the IJC to initiate an investigation into this threat to the environment and, if so, on what date will the investigation be made public?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. The IJC has not participated directly in these hearings. Rather it has followed their progress closely, in keeping with its usual practices and procedures.
2. The government cannot instruct the Canadian members of the commission to initiate an investigation as the commission is a binational body whose members receive their instructions from both governments. Moreover, the IJC already is taking an interest in the SCA proposal in the context of its role in assisting both governments to implement the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. If the commission had any concerns it could be expected to raise these with the government.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-CROWN PROPERTIES OUTSIDE CANADA
Mr. Clarke: 1.	Did the Department of External Affairs have market value appraisals taken of property owned by the Crown outside Canada for the Department and, if so (a) in which cities (b) what was the appraised value of the (i) land (ii) buildings?
2.	What percentage of the property, in each case (a) is used for (i) residential accommodation (ii) office accommodation (b) is held for other purposes and what are such purposes?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. The Department of External Affairs had market value appraisals taken of the following properties owned by the Crown outside Canada:
(a) Jakarta	-Two staff quarters duplex
Paris	-Parly II Apartments (11 units), 4
rue Ventadour-office accommodation
Hong Kong -Viewpoint Apartments (5 units);
(b)	The appraised values were as follows:
Jakarta -Appraised $124,378-land and buildings-no separate values obtained.
Purchased 1967 $54,000
Sold $132,000
Paris	-Parly II Apartments (11 units).
Appraised $1,438,268-units only, no land.
Purchased $591,000 (1972)
Sold $1,339,745 -4 rue Ventadour
Appraised $373,200 (1980)-office only, no land
Combination land component and constructed value

October 21, 1980
Order Paper Questions
Hong Kong -Viewpoint Apartments (5 units). Appraised $2,330,000-units only, no land.
The above properties were appraised for purpose of sale as surplus to use, except for the Hong Kong apartments which were appraised to establish their value in anticipation of a redevelopment proposal in partnership with other co-owners of the apartment building.
2. The above properties are identified for the following uses:
Jakarta -residential (2 staff quarters duplex).
Paris -(a) Parly II Apartments (11 units)-residential; staff accommodation
(b) 4 rue Ventadour-office accommodation
Hong Kong -Viewpoint Apartments (5 units) - residential; staff accommodation, (b) None.


HEALTH AND WELFARE-STUDIES ON MARIJUANA
Mr. Howie: Since April 1, 1975, what amount was spent on studies related to marijuana by the Department of National Health and Welfare?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The amount spent on studies related to marijuana since April 1, 1975 is as follows:
1975-76	$ 197,341
1976-77	83,432
1977-78	31,632
1978-79	89,627
1979-80	6,000


CR DEMONSTRATION ON PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Were employees of the Departments of National Revenue, National Health and Welfare and Industry, Trade and Commerce granted an additional hour at lunch time to participate in the CR demonstration on Parliament Hill on Monday, May 28, 1980, at 12.00 noon and were employees of the Department of Supply and Services refused additional time and, if so, for what reason were different policies adopted?


David Michael Collenette: I am advised by the Ministers of National Revenue, National Health and Welfare, Industry, Trade and Commerce and Supply and Services that employees of their departments were not granted additional lunch time on Monday, May 28, 1980.


POST OFFICE-EXCESS OVERAGE
Mr. Riis: Is there a tabulated account of the accumulated money that occurs from the excess overage of individual postal wicket clerks in the Post Office Department and, if so, to what purpose is such money put to use?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Yes. Overages of $20 or less are credited to the postal wicket clerk's surplus cash fund to a maximum balance of $75. The surplus cash fund is used to cover shortages up to $20 that may occur in the clerk's credit.
Overages of more than $20 as well as amounts of $20 or less when the clerk's surplus cash fund has attained its $75 maximum balance are credited to postal revenue if the reason for the overage cannot be established in a current or subsequent monthly accounting period. If the reason for the overage is found, the overage would be returned to the clerk.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, October 20, 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
October 21, 1980
[Stage Direction]
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it to be advisable, members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.
Mr. George Henderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I have listened intently and with a very open mind and heart to the speeches made by hon. members on both sides of the House in reference to the resolution pertaining to the constitution, and I believe there is no question that most hon. members attempted to speak with sincerity. We are all aware that constitutional proposals of historic importance are involved.
I must say that on a number of occasions I have been somewhat disturbed by the personal attacks launched by some members of this chamber. We find ourselves engaged in a debate over the constitution of our country, a debate which, in the final analysis, overflows from these chambers and touches the hearts and souls of each and every Canadian. It is my contention that there is no place for personal attacks and attempts to make political hay in this historic debate.
Hon. members of the House must understand that, above all else, we must be cognizant of the fact that our performance in this House determines to a very large degree the level of respectability afforded this House of Commons. I personally have no intention of launching a personal attack on any member of the House concerning remarks already made in the debate, although there are some points of view upon which I would like to comment. Instead, I would like to speak on this resolution with simplicity and sincerity. As members of this Thirty-second Parliament we have the opportunity now to accomplish what other Parliaments had been unable to accomplish for the last 53 years. Parliament has the opportunity of bringing our constitution home, and after 113 years we will finally have a constitution which is completely our own.
When we were in the embryonic stages as a nation the Fathers of Confederation could have freely decided to sever the ties with Britain, but instead they unanimously chose to bring the resolutions into effect by an act of the British parliament. Now we have grown from that embryonic stage, we are a mature adult nation, and what may have been appropriate in 1867 is no longer appropriate in 1980.
The constitution of 1867 no longer meets the needs and aspirations of Canadians because many of our needs and aspirations have changed. It therefore must be rethought, remodelled, and rewritten to reflect these changes. And it must be done in Canada by Canadians. The constitution of 1867 contains a number of good points that can be modernized and complemented with new elements and incorporated into a truly Canadian document tailored to meet the needs of all Canadians. It is now the time to patriate the constitution, provide for an amending formula, and to entrench a Canadian charter of rights and freedoms and the principle of equalization in that constitution.
I would like to speak very briefly on the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. At one time it was believed that these
The Constitution
rights and freedoms could be adequately protected simply by the ordinary process of parliamentary democracy. But it has been increasingly recognized that more protection is required. The international community has expressed this need through such instruments as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1966. The Canadian government, after consultation with the provinces, joined many other nations in subscribing to these international commitments, which were commitments to foster and protect the basic rights of people.
In Canada there has also been a growing recognition that legislatures should provide more positive protection for basic human rights. In 1960 Parliament adopted the Canadian Bill of Rights. Saskatchewan, Alberta and Quebec have provincial bills of rights. In addition there are federal and provincial laws which prohibit discriminatory practices in a broad range of social and economic activities. While these various statutes afford some measure of protection, it is by its very nature limited and sometimes inconsistent. For instance, the legislature which passed a law yesterday could decide to repeal or restrict it tomorrow. An individual's only immediate redress would be to try to convince the same government which had restricted the rights to reinstate them. In a country as large and diverse as Canada, with its two official languages and many cultural and ethnic groups, basic rights and freedoms require more protection than this.
Rights, by their very nature, pertain to individuals and minorities and their protection should not be left simply to the good will of the majority or of the government of the day. Those rights must be guaranteed in the constitution so as to protect them from change by any single government, parliament or legislature. I believe entrenchment in the constitution is the only way of ensuring Canadians their basic rights and freedoms for all time.
I would like to single out just one of the basic rights and freedoms which concerns me greatly as a Canadian and a member of this Parliament. I refer to the right of mobility, the right to work and live in my part of this great country. We have heard overtures from at least one provincial premier in the last short while to enact provincial legislation which would prohibit Canadians from working in his province. I submit this is the kind of legislation which is extremely dangerous to every Canadian. I bring this point up because I may be the only member of the House of Commons who has had an opportunity to work in every province in this great country.
I know what it is like to hitchhike from coast to coast. I know what it is like to pawn my watch in Edmonton in order to buy breakfast. I know what it is like to sleep in a culvert in northern New Brunswick in November. I know what it is like to drive railway spikes for the northern Alberta railway. So I have some general idea of Canada. And I know what it is like, as a Prince Edward Islander, to work in Toronto and shuffle my way onto tramcars at 7.30 in the morning to make my way to an assembly line. But, if I had my life to live over again, I would want to do the same thing because that was how I came

October 21, 1980
The Constitution
to know Canada, and that is why I love Canada and the people of all ethnic backgrounds who make up this great country. That is why we should not allow provincial barriers in any part of this country.
When I travel back to my constituency at the weekends and return to Ottawa on Monday, hardly a week goes by without my meeting on the plane five or six young Prince Edward Islanders who are on their way to Calgary or Toronto seeking jobs, a plane ticket in their pocket and a few dollars. That is quite an experience. I can relate to it because I went through that myself 26 years ago. The only thing different was that I did not have the money for the plane ticket-I used my thumb to get me across this great country. I do not believe we in this Parliament can deny young people from all corners of this great country that privilege and that opportunity if they so desire.
I believe the third main objective of this resolution is to entrench the principle of equalization into the constitution. It is an absolute necessity for the very survival of my province, the province of Prince Edward Island. I was looking over the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) and he quite correctly pointed out what the federal government means to Prince Edward Island. He pointed out that of the $505 million expenditures in 1978 $426 million was in the form of transfer payments or other payments from Ottawa. That is why it is very essential to my province that equalization be written into the new constitution.
When the Fathers of Confederation convened in Charlottetown in 1864, Prince Edward Island was in a very favourable economic position-a "have" area, if you will. I am quite sad to say that since confederation the fair isle of Prince Edward Island has eroded, not only has the sea eroded our beaches but there has also been economic erosion over the last 113 years. Without guaranteed equalization payments, a sharing of the almost limitless wealth of this great country, Prince Edward Island, along with other provinces, would find itself in very difficult circumstances.
A feeling of concern and willingness to share is nothing new to Canadians. The desire to share and help others less well blessed than ourselves has always been an ingredient to be admired in the over-all character of Canadians. But there are many millions of people in underdeveloped countries around the world who would readily admit that their lot is a better one because of Canada's willingness to share. It is that willingness to share in this country which draws us closer together as Canadians.
I believe it is absolutely essential to settle the question of the amending formula. The provinces and the federal government will be involved in studying all constitutional revisions or changes which will affect all Canadians. But the prospect of gaining unanimity on an amending formula is very dim. This being the case, and I believe that hon. members would agree, in order for my province of Prince Edward Island to be afforded meaningful input, I will be suggesting an amendment to section 42 to the committee. I hope that the Premier of Prince Edward Island will join forces with me in submitting
that amendment and, indeed, that the two hon. members for the ridings of Malpeque (Mr. Gass) and Hillsborough in P.E.I. will join with us.
I believe that it is necessary to have an amendment because the population of the Atlantic provinces as of July, 1980, if my figures are correct, was 2,265,600 people. Prince Edward Island comprises only 124,000 of this total, or 5.4 per cent of the population of the Atlantic region. Therefore it would be impossible for Prince Edward Island in concert with any other singular province of the Atlantic region to be representative of 50 per cent of the population of that region.
My suggested amendment would be that at least two of the Atlantic provinces be in agreement with no reference made to specific percentages of the population of the Atlantic region. The hon. member for Hillsborough brought up this point yesterday, but I was surprised that he did not suggest an alternative, and I am very surprised that the Premier of Prince Edward Island, Mr. MacLean, whom I admire and who sat in these chambers for many years, did not approach the situation in a little different light.
The hon. member for Hillsborough mentioned that this government was taking the matter on in a partisan fashion. I do not believe that. He also went on to say that he believed that this government could learn a lesson from history, in particular from the Fathers of Confederation who, over a century ago, set aside their often bitter partisanship for a greater cause which was the union of the British North American colonies. He went on to say that at the Charlottetown conference the P.E.I, delegation was comprised of three government members and two opposition members. I would suggest to the premier of the province that rather than take the matter to the courts, perhaps he could learn that same lesson from history. Perhaps, instead of going back to his ten colleagues and making the decision that they would go to the courts, the premier could do something which is more representative of the people.
If the premier were interested in what the hon. member for Hillsborough suggested should be our interest, then he should have used another alternative. The premier could have called the House of Assembly in Prince Edward Island into session to obtain the views of the opposition. Or, indeed, in a province as small as Prince Edward Island, he could have called an election-and I think that it would have been welcomed-to let the people decide. But he has not done that. The premier has not even called a byelection in my old riding of Second Prince. Perhaps this would have given him an indication as to how the people of Prince Edward Island feel about this amendment to the constitution.
These are a number of points which I wanted to bring up because I believe that there are all kinds of room to make specific points in this debate. I do not believe that this government or, indeed, this Parliament, is out to shaft any one area or province of this country. I believe that every one of us sitting here today loves our country too much to do such a thing.
October 21, 1980

Although Prince Edward Island is small geographically and is limited in population, it is the very cradle of confederation and it must be afforded equal opportunity in determining its destiny and, indeed, the destiny of its nation. I believe that the over-all majority of Canadians are desirous of constitutional renewal. Without an amending formula this desired constitutional renewal will be impossible. As I say, I have listened to the speeches of most of the hon. members, and they all seem to bring out one point, that we need to bring our constitution home, we agree with patriation, and that we should not have to go to a foreign country, even though it is the mother country, to have our constitution amended.
However, I fail to see what good it would do to bring the constitution back to Canada if we did not have an amending formula. That formula, in my opinion, would have to be dealt with in the British Parliament. If we brought the constitution back without such a formula it would be totally useless because we would be left in a strait-jacket. If we were unable to reach agreement in the last 53 years, I see little prospect in the next 53 years.
When I consider some of the items which I have brought up, particularly with regard to mobility and the things which are taking place in this country through the actions of the provinces, I believe it is imperative that we get on with the job and bring the constitution home. If this great country of ours called Canada is to prosper from sea to sea, I humbly submit that the Thirty-second Parliament should act with all dispatch to accomplish what all members of Parliament before us have been unable to accomplish. I say, bring the constitution home.


Mr. Epp:: Mr. Speaker, would the parliamentary secretary, in view of the statements that he just made, accept a question at this time?


George Roland Henderson: Yes.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the parliamentary secretary is the sole government member of Parliament from Prince Edward Island, and in view of the fact that he mentioned that he was planning to propose an amendment to the amending formula as it would affect his province, has he discussed that amending formula either with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), or both, and has he received from them approval for that amendment?


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I have not discussed such an amendment with the Prime Minister. What I said is that I would be presenting an amendment to the parliamentary committee. I asked, and I challenge once again, the Premier of Prince Edward Island and the two hon. members from the island, in the House to join with me so that our province will have that meaningful role within confederation.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary. How does the parliamentary secretary plan to proceed with that action if, as parliamentary secretary having taken an oath he
The Constitution
speaks at the present time in terms of government policy, and he has not received that approval earlier?


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that I am a member of cabinet.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Hope springs eternal.


George Roland Henderson: Perhaps the hon. member across the floor knows something which I do not know. I must say, though, that it is within my privilege as a member of Parliament representing at least one quarter of the people of Prince Edward Island-


James Aloysius McGrath: Not as a parliamentary secretary.


George Roland Henderson: -to make such an amendment.


Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that it is always a little lonely for me to stand up in this place, although I am with colleagues whom I believe to be most sensitive to native issues in this House.
I am also not a little disappointed on entering this debate on the constitution because in the resolution that proposes four classifications of province I find that, as a territorial resident, I am left completely out of the picture, both in the pre-patria-tion and post-patriation stages.
I am also reminded somewhat of the Beothuks of Newfoundland-I do not mean this as a reflection on present day Newfoundland-who died off in a rather disdained manner. I think this resolution might be the trigger that shoots off a more contemptuous bullet.
Let me state this premise before I make further comments about what we believe-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) on a point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, because I have already participated in the debate and hence I have no alternative but to interrupt the hon. member. He is historically inaccurate and I am sure he does not mean to deliberately cast a slur on the province of Newfoundland-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is failing to outline privilege in the sense that I have accepted it. I think the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) should be permitted to continue his speech and then the hon. member for St. John's East may respond.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East, but I caution him that questions of privilege should be legitimate.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, you did not even hear me. Consequently I will not delay the hon. member

October 21, 1980
The Constitution
any longer but will reserve the right to get up at the end of his speech.


Peter Ittinuar: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the usual case, I believe. I stated an historical fact and said that I did not mean it as a reflection on the province of Newfoundland nor on its residents. I have the utmost respect for the current issues on which they fight because some of those are analogous to ours in the north. Maybe the hon. member for St. John's East will accept my apology.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You do not owe him any.


Peter Ittinuar: As I said, 1 draw that as an analogy to this resolution because I believe it may be the trigger that fires the final bullet for us as a people. I believe that.
Let me state this premise before I start-that the resolution on the constitution now before the House ignores native people and their rightful place in Canadian society.


Erik Nielsen: It ignores the north.


Peter Ittinuar: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) interjects saying the north as well, and I shall come to that in a few moments. It perpetuates the view that they are inconsequential in a larger national context. I am as proud as anyone else in this House and 1 appreciate as fully the fact that I am Canadian but I must attempt to impress upon members that native people are not romantic relics from the past, to be forgotten and ignored in the process of creating a new Canada. We have been involved in the building of Canada from its infancy and long before that.
A few moments ago the hon. member for the Yukon said the resolution ignores the north. In the near future the north will be contributing to the economy of Canada through its resource development and yet, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said to me last year, the Northwest Territories has no standing whatsoever in making the Constitution of Canada. I am sure the hon. member for Yukon would echo those sentiments.


Erik Nielsen: Echoed.


Peter Ittinuar: As far as we are concerned, Inuit are not a conquered people nor have they ever been. In most cases native people accepted immigrants from Europe and assisted them in exploring this country and adjusting to its harsh and unknown environment. That may not be the case so much in the south as it is in the north. I could tell stories about explorers and their sentiments about discovering the north. They were inclined to say, "This Eskimo guided me and I discovered this island." So much for that.
In the early years of the European presence in Canada, aboriginal rights were recognized as valid, even though they were not always respected. In the royal proclamation of 1763 the King of England forbade settlement on Indian lands and declared that Indian lands could only be obtained by the Crown through treaties. Native people formed alliances and
entered into treaties with Europeans, and even fought beside them in defending Canada in the revolutionary war and the war of 1812. I dare say that native people were also involved in World War II. Unfortunately, by the time of the drafting of the British North America Act, native people were already being taken for granted by those in power. Again, I do not mean any reflection on the Fathers of Confederation. Section 91(24) of the act proves that they were taken for granted, however.
In section 91(24) of the British North America Act native people, or, as we are called, aboriginals, were reduced to the status of an administrative problem. We are still regarded in this way to some extent today. Thus, the federal government was granted jurisdiction over Indians and lands reserved for Indians. The BNA Act did not impose any constitutional obligation upon the federal government to pass any legislation at all concerning native people. Nevertheless, the government passed the Indian Act which does not confer any legal rights or special status upon the native people. It is simply a statute for the administration of Indian affairs. That is the case today.
I want to emphasize this point since I believe it is often misunderstood, even by those who are well-intentioned toward the administration of Indian affairs. The Indian Act provides no constitutional guarantee of aboriginal rights and there is nothing in the BNA Act which recognizes, let alone protects, aboriginal rights. The BNA Act gives Parliament paramount-cy, and an act of Parliament could extinguish aboriginal rights at any time. At the moment 1 do not believe that Parliament has paramountcy over this resolution because it is being railroaded through this House by the party opposite. That is unfortunate. Hon. members opposite would have a far bigger and greater victory if they would listen to people on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Ittinuar: I believe the Indian Act is a somewhat paternalistic statute in that it gives the federal government trusteeship over Indians and Indian lands. No special legislation has been enacted, and therefore no special legislation exists. It is interesting that some two or three decades ago the federal government moved Inuit-or Eskimos as some people refer to us-from the province of Quebec and parts of the territories to places like Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay in order to declare its sovereignty over those Arctic islands. We declared sovereignty for Canada, but there has never been a mutual respect of that sovereignty as we are not allowed to participate in any consultation on constitutional amendments.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Peter Ittinuar: That is something that the government should amend. No matter how well intentioned, the government trusteeship has failed dismally and has led to a continuation of poverty, disease, and unemployment in many native communities.
I would challenge anyone in this House to go to places where I know there is disease, where I know there is unem-
October 21, 1980

ployment, where I know there is poverty, where I know there are inequalities that are not present in any other part of Canada. I would challenge any member to come to those places with me, and I hope some members will take up that challenge. There are reserves in the ridings of some hon. members in which there are unequal opportunities for native people. I hope that these hon. members will take the time to state such cases, as I have done.
No one is happy with the present situation of the native population in Canada. The native people in particular want to see changes, and believe that recognition of their aboriginal rights would begin a new era of optimism and building for a secure future within confederation.
Why do I emphasize aboriginal rights, Mr. Speaker? One of the most crucial factors in preserving cultures, as everyone in this country is well aware, is language. I wish with all my heart and soul that I could make this speech in my own language. Since we are not allowed to do so, 1 will continue in the only other language that I know.
While everyone else is talking about preserving minority language rights, I want to remind members that in my constituency of Nunatsiaq the language rights of the majority are not protected. In the proposed resolution there is no protection of Inuit rights to speak Inuktitut and no guarantee of their right to educate their children in their native tongue. This is further complicated by the fact there is not enough control over broadcasting in northern communities. The native language rights in the area of health, social services, and criminal justice are also missing from the pages of the proposed document, education being particularly important since it is the crucial element in the preservation of native culture.
Preservation of native lifestyles depend upon their source of livelihood and a sane development policy regarding renewable resources. Unlimited mobility rights would seriously threaten a process of careful and controlled development. Furthermore, native people must be fully involved in the resource development process on their lands, including access to revenue sharing as a means of establishing a stable economic base. In this case the territories are passed by.
Every party in this House has, at one time or another, called for the recognition of aboriginal rights. As recently as last July the Liberal party passed a resolution to:
Work toward the entrenching of original and native people's rights by:
(a)	enacting legislation with the consent of the original and native peoples, that clearly provides for Canada's obligations by virtue of aboriginal and treaty rights,
(b)	implementing a modern settlement policy that provides for orderly developments by enhancing, not extinguishing aboriginal, treaty and native people's rights and,
(c)	include the original and native people's representatives at all levels of constitutional reform.
These people have not carried out any of the commitments of their party. These are all laudable sentiments. I am sure we in the House would express them at one time or another with varying degrees of truth. We on this side certainly express
The Constitution
them with truth. We have not seen anything from the other side yet to confirm that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Ittinuar: If there is anything to be achieved, now is the time for members to act on their principles and good will.
On Friday before last the Prime Minister said that he would be willing to put the question of native rights on the agenda for discussions toward further constitutional change, after patria-tion. Last June the Prime Minister agreed to bring up the matter of representation of native people and territorial governments in constitutional talks with the provincial premiers.
In July the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) told an all-chiefs' conference of the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood that native people across Canada may be invited to appear before the continuing committee of ministers to give their views on patriation and the constitution. Statements of good intent have so far lasted as long as one of our summers in the far north. We are looking for constitutional guarantees which are perennial as the permafrost in Grise Fiord, which I believe will last longer than this country.
The aim of the charter of rights and freedoms is to give individuals and minorities recourse to the courts if these rights and freedoms are violated. This I do not argue with. However, the proposed constitutional resolution omits any reference to the collective rights of aboriginal peoples. Canada's native peoples have a unique and historic relationship with the federal government, based on their aboriginal rights as the original inhabitants of Canada. Section 24 of the constitutional resolution provides that existing rights and freedoms of native people will not be affected by the rights and freedoms in the charter. I wonder what kind of guarantee this is when native people have been exerting considerable time and effort on the task of changing and improving the status quo. Are we now to be content with the same unsatisfactory status quo?
Section 24 protects native rights. There are no rights at present for native people. I wish to read the section and then re-read it in a manner which, had it been written that way, might have meant something to the native people. I quote section 24 of the resolution:
The guarantee in this charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada, including any rights or freedoms that pertain to the native peoples of Canada.
What does that mean? I dare anyone on that side to interpret that for me so that it gives me a feeling of security. Had it been written in a manner such as this, it would have some meaning.
The guarantee in this charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada, including the aboriginal rights and freedoms that pertain to the native people of Canada and which ensure their distinct cultural, economic and linguistic identities.
That would have had some meaning for us.

October 21, 1980
The Constitution
The situation is further complicated by the fact that an explicit charter of individual rights and freedoms may be used in the courts to argue against the collective rights of native people. A constitution which does not include a clear reference to the aboriginal rights of native people may, in fact, lead to an erosion of existing rights and freedoms.
I do not suggest that the government is conspiring to erode the few existing rights which we have. Northerners sometimes fear that the government is plotting to assimilate us into the existing southern model. Again, I do not believe that there is a plot. It should be noted, however, that such things sometimes occur as the indirect result of actions which may have been well intended. For example, the Baker Lake court case established that aboriginal rights can be extinguished by Parliament, even as a side effect of another law. However, in the Baker Lake court case, the judge was a previous Liberal cabinet minister of industry, and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had a Liberal cabinet minister at that time. The outcome was pretty predictable.
Native people and northerners do not constitute a majority of Canada's population. We all understand that. That is the basis for the argument which the Prime Minister often gives the native people. They argue that we are a mere municipality. The territories have not been included in any constitutional debate of any meaning because their population constitutes hardly more than a municipality in the southern section of Canada.
Those are not all the factors that are involved. We are under-represented in positions of power and influence and, consequently, decisions are sometimes made that affect us, but of which the consequences were not fully considered. I do not expect other members of this House to think like native people or northerners, sometimes not even my hon. friend from Yukon. I do ask them, however, to listen to what native leaders across Canada, and the elected representatives of territorial governments, are saying. The homecoming of the Canadian Constitution will be an historic event. It could turn out to be an historic disaster for native Canadians and northerners. The omission of any reference to aboriginal and treaty rights of native Canadians may not be a sinister attempt to wipe out special status and assimilate us into an American melting pot version of Canadian society. However, the results may lead to the same thing.
I urge all members of this House to insist that patriation not take place until adequate provisions have been made for native participation in the constitutional revision process. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I am more than a little despondent about this wish.
This spring the Inuit Committee on National Issues, the National Indian Brotherhood and Native Council of Canada were given funds to conduct research into constitutional issues and present the results of this research to the government. The government is now proposing to patriate a constitution which does not provide mechanisms for receiving native input and
which does not even attempt to cover many well-known positions which these organizations have articulated.
Furthermore, the amending formula leaves us little hope that changes beneficial to native people will have any chance of being included after patriation. Perhaps the money which these organizations received was intended to buy time for a government which has no intention of seriously addressing the legitimate concerns of native people with regard to the constitution. No timetable has been set to discuss native participation, and no formal procedure is in place for receiving submissions from the Inuit Committee on National Issues and the other native organizations.
I think this government should make its intentions clear with regard to native participation in constitutional renewal and that these intentions should be communicated to the Inuit Committee on National Issues, the Native Council of Canada and the National Indian Brotherhood, at the earliest possible date because we are rapidly running out of time.
The constitutional resolution as it is written falls short of recognizing the aboriginal rights of native people and offering guarantees which would preserve and enhance native cultures, of which I have spoken. The urgency of having these rights guaranteed in the constitution is enhanced by the fact that the amending formula offers us little hope of having changes made after patriation. Until part V of the resolution comes into force, the unanimous consent of the provinces is required before an amendment can be made. No one here today would argue that unanimous consent is an easily attainable goal. Part V comes into force when the consent of a majority of provinces is required. This is at least two years down the road and it still does not provide native people with any real assurances.
Instead of negotiating directly with the federal government, efforts will be dispersed to include lobbying for provincial support as well. The prospects of successfully amending the constitution to include a direct reference to aboriginal rights, as well as other guarantees which native people feel are essential, are greatly diminished after patriation takes place.
A couple of weeks ago the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada had their annual general assembly, during which they formed a resolution concerning the constitution of Canada. This resolution predictably had to do with making a submission and representation to the Government of Canada about what the Inuit of northern Canada believe should be included in the constitution. I have not yet seen any mechanisms for receiving those submissions or representations, and there is not likely to be. As I said, I am fairly despondent about the constitutional debate as far as the native perspective and as far as the Inuit of northern Canada are concerned. Although we have a word in our language for the constitution "piquyaryuak", I do not believe there is any chance that the Inuit of Canada will ever be given the opportunity to make amendments to benefit them in the context of the nation Canada.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to suggest to the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) that he provide Hansard with the Salabik spelling of

the Inuit word for the constitution so that it will appear on our records for the first time.
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to deal with three aspects of the resolution now under consideration. First, I note the great number of views expressed by experts, members of Parliament, other people and the public at large on the elements of the constitutional reform generally and more especially on this resolution. I conclude that I and others have to take a relativistic attitude devoid of doctrinairism and absolutism.
In addition, since it is unfortunately impossible to conclude an early constitutional agreement at the federal and provincial levels, it is unavoidable, in my view, that Parliament has to take limited action at the request of government. Moreover, such a unilateral measure is adequately warranted from a philosophical, legal, conventional and political point of view. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the contents of this resolution do not disturb the present balance of powers between the two levels of government in Canada and consequently it is acceptable and can be approved.
I will conclude my remarks by wishing, of course, that the present resolution be adopted after having been polished in committee in the sense Boileau gave to this word and that the effort of constitutional reform be maintained beginning by the search for an amending formula agreed to by the two levels of governments, which is precisely what this resolution calls for.
Mr. Speaker, last weekend I read most of the speeches made in this House since October 6 by my hon. colleagues. All of them were made by learned, passionate and obviously sincere persons. Yet what a wide range of opinions! For some Progressive Conservative members, if adopted this resolution would signal the end of Canadian federalism and that of Canada itself. On the other hand, the same text meets the expectations of many other members and their electors, so they think. Some among the first group, namely, those who oppose the resolution, still approve part of its content thereby often contradicting the arguments they use to reject the other part, the acceptable elements being different from one member to the other. Some would like to add to it, others would rather delete from it according to their own preferences and the degree of public consensus they believe exists. Certainly there is a lesson in that for us to learn. As it should, politics plays a major role in this debate, and I will come back to that later.
Mr. Speaker, I have witnessed in the past the phenomenon of diversified opinions. It was in 1978 and 1979 when, as a member of the Task Force on Canadian Unity, I had the opportunity to hear personally the views of hundreds of Canadians from all walks of life and from all regions of Canada as well as of dozens of experts, all very knowledgeable, including several federal and provincial politicians of yesterday, of today as well as of tomorrow. Most of their contribu-
The Constitution
tions have been gathered in the third report of the task force entitled "A Time to Speak," a document which anybody seeking the absolute in politics should read, but which those who do not wish to change orientation should keep away from.
It was then to be expected, Mr. Speaker, that it might be impossible to accommodate all these various and indeed contradictory positions, and that some day or other, if we were to get out of the strait-jacket, the constitutional garment would have to be pulled somewhat at the seams! After the fascinating if overwhelming experience of the Task Force on Canadian Unity, I went to see other federations at work, the Federal Republic of Germany, Switzerland and Yugoslavia. I even had an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to discuss in Sarajevo the dangers of balkanization! Once more, I was looking at the diversity of federal concepts and their practical implementations. May I add that during ten years of my life, as a student and later a professor, I met the finest brains of federal political thought, and during ten years also as a member of Parliament and minister of the Crown, I strived to translate into actions the spirit of federalism, in practical situations such as that referred to by the hon. member for Sarnia, (Mr. Cullen), namely, regional sharing in the development of the petrochemical industry. What did I learn from all that? First, that there is no doubt a spirit of federalism made up of balance and tolerance, but that the means to express that spirit may vary quite significantly from one country to the other, one period to the other, one government to the other, one member of Parliament to the other and one citizen to the other, without anyone's good will being in doubt.
In other words, I learned there is no single and perfect model of the federal state, one that could be imitated by all. All there is is more or less successful variations on famous themes, namely, the two orders of government, the formal distribution of powers, one adjudicator or a number of them if the referendum is to be accepted, institutions promoting interaction, and so on. The principle is understood by all, but there is no single formula to success. As it was in the beginning, as it is now and as it shall not be for centuries and centuries, such is the phrase that could be applied to our Canadian federalism.
I have learned also that if each one of us individual Canadians, members of Parliament and of legislatures, and heads and members of executives, stand unbending on all our first and favourite choices, nothing will happen. The constitution will not adapt to change, and we might very well die as a country, each of us with his or her constitutional boots on. As Mae West used to say, "Something's got to give".
So, we must compromise, obviously. This has often been said. Such an attitude was probably the best accomplishment of the Task Force on Canadian Unity when eight of us, commissioners, so different in so many ways, agreed on a single set of recommendations. We agreed on something

October 21, 1980
The Constitution
worth while which was generally acceptable, or not unacceptable, to each one of us individually. We never had the pretension of writing a political bible. We hoped only that others would follow the example we tried to set.
Compromise, said the late Hon. Guy Favreau, is "the meeting point between the thoughts of two intelligent beings." As John Kennedy wrote in "Profiles in Courage":
Compromise is not mean cowardice. Indeed it is frequently the compromisers and conciliators who are faced with the severest tests of political courage as they oppose the extremist views.
The content of the resolution before us is a compromise between those who wanted more and those who wanted less and those who wanted both more and less. It may not fully satisfy every one of us-or any one of us for that matter-but it should be accepted, in my view, by the greatest number of people as a first step.
I have learned throughout the years that to compromise with others, one must first compromise with himself. I cannot ask others to give if I remain ungiving in my own first choices of means toward an end which I share with others. So, I am compromising, as I should.
[ Translation]
Is the kind of unilateral action stemming from this resolution justified? Like everybody here-I am sure-from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki) who was recently elected to the House, 1 would have wished that government heads would have come to an agreement on four, six, twelve, twenty reform issues before patriation. Unfortunately that satisfaction has been denied to us.
History will doubtless seek to determine who was responsible for the failure of those negotiations, of those which have been going on for so long since 1969, of those which lasted throughout the summer of 1980. Due to the complexity of events, history will fail. I suggest history will consider the list of proposals that the premiers made on that September Friday and will maybe rule that they had worked out marvellous compromises among themselves by adding their first respective choice and disregarding the position of the central government. This is a well-known fact. Be that as it may, two facts remain, the first being that we failed to agree. I deplore the fact we did not, I am sorry we did not, it grieves me that we did not, 1 could cry about it!
We did not agree, Mr. Speaker, that is one fact. The other is that we do not seem, to my mind, to be about to agree either. So things being what they are, can and must Parliament sanction the present resolution? I ask myself a first question: does that resolution reflect the spirit of Canadian federalism? At first glance, surely for some it does not because it imposes its will upon the constituting governments. But, Mr. Speaker, and I must insist on that point, there is not only one conception of federalism in Canada. Professor Mallory, for instance, after having observed that federalism in Canada-
-is different things to different people-
-writes that Canada has known five forms of federalism since 1867: the quasi-federalism of its early days, the more classical federalism which followed, the federalism of emergency of the war, the co-operative federalism which followed the war, and the mixed federalism of dualism, which he calls the double image federalism of today. And he adds: those forms overlap. Professor Edwin Black, in "Divided Loyalties," speaks of the five concepts of federalism in Canada: the centralist federalism, the administrative federalism, the co-ordinated federalism, the contract theory federalism, and the dualist federalism. He concludes:

A combination of the concepts is required to characterize Canadian confederation at this time. The federation is chiefly co-ordinate in its political essentials, largely collaborative at the senior levels of the public bureaucracies, and tending to adopt linguistic cultural aspects of the dualist concept. Traces of the compact theory were represented in the constitutional amendment movement, but little evidence was to be found of the centralist concept in any influential circles.
[ Translation]
There, to my mind, is an important idea. Before passing judgment on events and men, as in the case, for instance, of the resolution before the House, one must perforce realize that the concept each one of us has of federalism need not necessarily be that of all the others. And, as a consequence, I feel one must try to reconcile his own interpretation with that of the others.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it can still more simply be classified into two schools of thoughts, namely federalism of juridical equality between the two levels of government, to which the Task Force on Canadian Unity generally adhered, and a federalism of juridical seniority of the central government, which this resolution moderately reflects to a certain extent since it claims to be founded on present, previous, former and past agreements with the provinces. This second school of thought, which I call federalism of juridical seniority, emphasizes, because of its wider, more ultimate and final responsibilities, that the federal government has obligations to Canada as a whole which it alone can meet, in the interest of the common good, especially in cases where there exist apparent deadlocks such as the one we are faced with now on the constitutional issue. That is a highly defensible position which I can appreciate for what it is worth, that is to say, a lot. By the way, people would be wrong to think that the rule of unanimity is an essential corollary of federalism of juridical equality. As a matter of fact, several supporters will accept that it may be limited by the will of the majority or for the sake of political expediency.
In any event, I for one refuse to become the prisoner of either one of these two schools, though psychologically I prefer the first one. It seems to me that there are circumstances when the second school is right and this happens to be one of them. Second question: is the unilateral action on the part of the government, on the part of Parliament under this resolution
October 21, 1980

acceptable under constitutional law and convention? Nothing in law prevents the Parliament of Canada from adopting the present resolution, nothing prevents the British parliament from giving its assent. Yet is it the case when it comes to convention? First what do we mean by convention? It is a government practice which does not carry the weight of law, which cannot be referred to in a court of law, but which politicians consider as politically necessary and mandatory. I think it is actually based upon the assent of public opinion, the ultimate recourse in this area. In "The Law and the Constitution", Jennings says, and I quote:

Conventions keep the constitution in touch with the growth of ideas.
And that is very important, 1 might add, not only-

-in touch with the growth of ideas but also, one might add, with the growth of sentiments.

Mr. Speaker, such a convention is an instrument of government which has great flexibility but which is also very imprecise. The convention, in Canada, as far as constitutional amendment is concerned, is that the British parliament must accept a resolution put to it by the Canadian Parliament asking for an amendment to the Canadian Constitution. Even a legal expert like Brossard states that:
In theory, nothing prevents it from amending the BNA Act by itself or even at the request of a province, but the British parliament feels bound by constitutional conventions. It considers itself merely a recording mechanism.
That is convention. Therefore, the problem is not there, at least I hope so. The problem is here in Canada. So we must ask ourselves: what does convention say as far as the provinces' power to amend is concerned? Can Parliament seek to amend the constitution without the consent of the provinces, especially in matters which affect the division of power, especially in the matters reserved in the 1949 amendment which concerned in part the division of power, the right to education and the institutional use of languages?
But, Mr. Speaker, this is a question I have been considering for quite a while and I have noted that opinions vary, and convention is unspecified and it is well known that in only five out of 18 cases provincial consent was deemed necessary. Even those who believe that such convention exists express their views differently and always very cautiously. For instance, in the dictionary of the Task Force on Canadian Unity, volume 2, we can read the following, and I quote:
Legally speaking, Parliament is not absolutely forced to obtain the prior consent of the provinces. However it did so when in its view the provinces were directly concerned.
Then any dissertation on the state of convention in Canada should insist on sentences such as "according to the judgment
The Constitution
of federal authorities", "directly affects the power of the provinces". Some people will certainly state that such convention does not make unanimous consent compulsory. This is where the uncertainty of convention lies in this matter.
Mr. Speaker, there is something much more important, namely, the very nature of convention as it is being discussed. Brossard states the following. I chose my authors carefully to avoid being accused of partisanship. Brossard states the following: "The federal Parliament could even, if it dared do so, amend some constitutional conventions." You see the imprecision surrounding convention. And in a key part of his book Jennings states the following:

-the real question which is presented to a government is not whether a rule is law or convention, but what the House of Commons will think about it if a certain action is proposed.

Of course, it amounts to stating very clearly and forcefully the supremacy of policies over "what is conventional and over law itself'. And Jennings states further:
[English |
Conventions are political decisions. Political antecedents and political consequences prescribe their creation, existence and dissolution.

So, Mr. Speaker, we can see that in the end political circumstances are what justifies unilateral action and convention itself. It is therefore a political problem. That is where the problem lies; I repeat that however important philosophy, laws and convention may be, what is at issue is practical politics, the art of governing which is the art of doing what is possible and also the obligation to choose according to a conception of the common good. At this point I refer to what was said by my colleagues who spoke about political necessity, particularly the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien) who has made some very important statements on that subject. They said that the federal Parliament must act for all kinds of reasons; efforts have been made over a long period of time to get the consent of the provinces without success; the party that now forms the government has been defending the ideas contained in the resolution for years and its leader, for 12 years at least; on the other hand, some provincial leaders agree with some parts and even the form of the present resolution; some who were in agreement in the past, some who reject it do so for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the amendments asked for, and finally some others would like to give their consent but dare not do so. Other points have been argued since October 6, promises were made, there was soon to be action, a breakthrough, a way out of the deadlock. Commitments were made that must be fulfilled at the reasonable moment. The benefits have been stated. The Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development says that patriation and the amending formula

October 21, 1980
The Constitution
will allow what I call an "a la carte" amending process where revision in large blocks has proved to be impossible.
Besides, the other means of breaking the deadlock that have been referred to in the House do not really exist.
For instance, it is very obvious that calling a constituent assembly now would not solve the problems facing Canada. We would spend an enormous amount of time just in determining the rules that would then regulate the process, to establish who would be represented where and on what basis, how decisions would be made, how the vote would be taken. We should then have a lot of problems to solve. It has also been suggested that resolutions be passed in all provinces and in Parliament. The proposals were to be identical. Obviously, it would take decades to be done. On the other hand, it is quite obvious that there is a sufficient consensus among the population on the content of that legislation. As co-chairman of the Task Force on Canadian Unity I had the Hon. John Robarts who was constantly raising this issue and asking us how could anyone reach finality.

"How to reach finality in this matter."
[ Translation]
Well, I see-at least in the press-that Mr. Robarts has also decided to support the government action on that issue. Indeed the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development has quoted the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) himself who in other circumstances has propounded views similar to those we are expressing today.
Mr. Speaker, will this resolution change the balance of power between the two levels of government? Does it diminish the powers of the provinces for the benefit of the central government and, if so, does it do it unacceptably, without their expressed or implied consent? Let us consider the situation more in detail. Does patriation in itself upset the balance of power between the two levels of government? I think that the protection of provinces by London has long since been a myth used by some provinces as a simple bargaining lever. And who is still opposed to patriation? Not too many people as far as 1 know. Some people, including myself, regret that it should come about this way. Others would have preferred, and so would I, that certain important and meaningful amendments be made either before the constitution was patriated or at the same time. But everyone agrees about this. Others suggest, at least according to what I have read, that patriation should occur after a review of all the components of the Constitution. This is obviously unrealistic since we would already have to review some elements which had already been reviewed before the patriation formula was developed. It is obviously unrealistic.
Third, is the formal amendment procedure proposed in this resolution acceptable? Mr. Speaker, 1 would have to spend
several minutes on this subject to dissect what the resolution contains in this regard. Moreover, I have the impression when I look at the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) that the last word has not been said on this matter and that there will be further exchanges. I hope for my part that we shall be able in the next two years to develop a formula which can be accepted by the central government and the provinces, which will be respectful of both orders of government and which will not include the concept of unanimity, of vetoes and opting-outs. I believe we can do this. The report of the Task Force on Canadian Unity, to which I have already referred two or three times, included, in my opinion, a formula which met this objective while granting power of agreement to the people. However, I must admit that this formula required the existence of a chamber of provinces which would vote on the resolution on a simple majority. But since some people still defend this type of an upper chamber, we might be able to apply this formula one day.
What about the entrenchment of basic rights? Here again, Mr. Speaker, there are two opposing views, the one which maintains that the basic rights, which are fundamentally evolutionary, are best guaranteed by the federal and provincial legislatures which are more conscious of the subtleties of social evolution. There is also a view which maintains that the basic rights are inalienable rights which are best protected by the Constitution itself, to which must submit both the legislatures when they legislate and the judges when they interpret the statutes. Both of these positions can be defended. For my part, the choice is simply one of wisdom and political caution, one of, and I quote:
-prevailing philosophy-
-as Jennings, who, as everyone knows, is a highly recommended author, says.
One thing for sure, the prevailing philosophy today leans toward entrenchment and several speakers have referred to this trend in Canada, in countries governed by common law or civil law, within international bodies. It has been said that the Task Force on Canadian Unity stood as an exception to this trend. This interpretation is wrong. In fact we were going much further than the present resolution in the way of enshrining and institutionalizing bilingualism at the federal and provincial levels. Our report may have recommended a slower process than the present resolution does on rights relating to education in both official languages, merely as a matter of prudence. However it recommended-I suggest my friends read it if they feel it was the opposite-that entrenchment be effected as soon as a provincial consensus would be expressed. And in fact, one could think it had already been expressed in the meetings held in Montreal and St. Andrew's in 1978. One can also think it is now being expressed, at least in Englishspeaking Canada, and I would think also in French-speaking Canada-maybe not at the government level, on this subject.
October 21, 1980

In the present resolution, I think there is a consensus, however I noted the matter was hardly discussed.
Relating to the freedom of movement and of settlement I hope, Mr. Speaker, that all provinces will eventually agree to entrench all prerequisites of the economic union, even if it means qualifying them by some GATT regulations on the obligation to justify exceptions and to terminate them as soon as social and economic conditions improve, possibly with an arbitrator to decide on them.
While inclusion of the equalization principle does not seem to raise any problems, I noticed that some people are not logical in that they oppose some aspects of this resolution when they do not raise any objection when they seek recognition. They use those arguments when they do not agree but drop them the moment they do.
Mr. Speaker, on balance, having taken into account philosophy, law, convention, the art of the possible which is the government of the people, I think that this resolution is justified. But on balance is it not always how hard decisions are taken? Last resort measures are often the only workable solutions.
I hope we will resume within a short time the constitutional reform discussions concerning the political institutions and distribution of powers where we have so much to do. Meanwhile, I will keep on being interested in the constitutional change and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I will live up to the spirit of federalism in the transport area.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy)- Canadian Pacific Railway-Abandonment of certain daily supplementary service; the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)-Air Safety-Enforcement of regulations respecting aircraft and pilots; the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-Human rights-Inquiry as to date of implementation of commission's recommendations.
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, public bills, private bills, and notices of motions.
Renewable Energy


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order No. 6, the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Shall the order stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


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


RENEWABLE ENERGY ACT
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: that Bill C-210, to promote the use of renewable energy, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before recognizing the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger), it may come as no surprise to him that the Chair thought it necessary to examine the terms of Bill C-210 before the House, because the bill proposes in clause 3 to create a Crown corporation to be known as the Renewable Energy Corporation.
There have been previous instances in which it has been the duty of the Chair to bring to the attention of members of the House that in some circumstances there may be a claim upon the public purse and such bills ought to be presented only in the name of a minister of the Crown. With the assistance of the Table officers I have reviewed the bill, and for those members who may seek to make reference to it, I find that in clauses 3 and 7, matters related to the financing of the corporation appear to be wholly outside the Crown's interests. For that reason the Chair is initially inclined to accept Bill C-210 as being in order. However, there is a tradition related to decisions on such bills whereby the Chair does enter a caveat so that, as debate continues, some hon. member may want to bring to the attention of the Chair some manner in which such a corporation might, in fact, be responsible for the expenditure of public funds. Accordingly, the Chair has taken the position it may have to intervene at some later stage in the proceedings if public funds were found to be involved. Subject to that caveat it is my view that the debate on Bill C-210 should proceed.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I accept your guidance and wisdom with regard to the bill. I am aware of the restrictions under which private members are placed in not having the ability to spend the moneys of the public purse and I attempted, when drafting this bill, to be very cautious in this respect.

October 21, 1980
Renewable Energy
The object of the corporation and its directors was to find finances outside of government for the operations of the corporation and, in addition, that they not be reimbursed in their capacity as acting directors. I suspect there would be many people available in Canada to serve on such a corporation because of the interest which exists in renewable energy. As you are aware, there is a great need for this bill, which was pointed out in the debate which took place last week on the opposition motion dealing with energy.
As governments argue as to who will take what part of the energy dollar, we are finding Canadians are being faced with the reality that they are and will be depending more on foreign sources of oil and other forms of energy. I believe very strongly that we, as Canadians, must establish, as a national goal, energy self-sufficiency. Part of that goal must come from renewable energy because we have the ability and the technology to move much faster than we are at the present time toward more renewable energy, forming part of our heating plan, our movement of vehicles, transportation and so on. We are not moving quickly enough to that end.
Most of the encouragement we have received from government has come in the form of research and not enough in the area of practical application of that research. I will not spend a great deal of time on the reasoning and the need for rapid expansion in renewable energy because we have discussed these reasons repeatedly in this Elouse. But Alberta, the province with most of the conventional oil in Canada, has only five billion barrels of conventional oil left and we are pumping approximately 450 million barrels out of that pool per year. Even though we have in our province the second largest pool of hydrocarbons in the world, we need new technology and rapid development with the present technology to meet our needs in the next ten years.
Even if the oil sands and the Cold Lake plant get off the ground-and I sincerely hope they do-we will still need an additional five plants of the same magnitude just to meet our needs to 1985. That has nothing to do with the expansion of demand which Canadians may seek. Some hon. members may say that we have Northern Natural Gas and Oil, Hibernia, Sable Island gas, and tremendous pools of natural gas in Alberta and British Columbia and if we put them in the marketplace we can reach that self-sufficiency goal. That may be true, but at the rate we are going now it could take a good many years before we can get those pools of resources into use by Canadians. So, in light of that background, I believe the national government must encourage Canadians to accept renewable energy at every opportunity because it is lasting, exciting, and something which will catch on quickly in the Canadian sphere. I believe the adoption of Bill C-210 would constitute a start in that area.
I am averse to the creation of another Crown corporation, but we need some way of gathering information and making it available to the Canadian people immediately. We also need protection for consumers because most of the hardware which is now available is imported.
One might ask why we should move quickly with renewables. One of the particular advantages of renewable energy is the fact it is not handicapped by geography. We can use the potatoes in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick to produce alcohol, we can use poplar trees in Quebec and northern Ontario to produce alcohol for vehicles. Solar heat is available in all provinces. Wind is available in most areas and we in the southern part of the prairies know how much energy it can produce for us. This is also true for the islands off Quebec. Heat pumps are another area of technology which is just getting started. Then there is geothermal energy under the foothills of Alberta and parts of British Columbia which can produce hydroelectric power at rates much lower than we can produce at the present time from our rivers, which have been our principal source of electricity in the past.
What I am saying is that natural renewable energy resources are everywhere in Canada and they are capable of being used by all Canadians if they receive the encouragement and information which should be at hand.
What steps should be taken in Canada? There is at present a complete lack of co-ordination between scientists, governments and others interested in obtaining information. There is no central source of information available other than the department, which is just getting started as an information disseminator. There is no agency responsible for testing new devices and inventions. Standards have not been established at the present time, so how are consumers to know when they buy a technology that it will be capable of performing under our winter conditions? Therefore no production, design or construction technologies are available immediately to people who ask for them.
As I say, there is no agency established to co-ordinate further research and development which will assure consumers that what they are buying will work. What I am seeking to do in Bill C-210 is to have Parliament give a commitment to gather this information and work out the standards which are so necessary.
What I would also like to see in the bill are incentives, particularly in the form of tax incentives so that the people of Canada will move toward the use of this technology. When the cost of renewable technology is placed against the cost of natural gas and oil at its present value, the oil and natural gas win out in terms of price. They will not for much longer, and with a minor tax credit to Canadians we could quickly get a certain portion of them involved in renewable energies and increase the percentage of homes and buildings heated by this source.
Another key feature of Bill C-210 is outlined in clause 4(a). That section states that an object of the corporation is to propose design, production and construction standards for renewable energy. Because we are not sponsoring sufficient encouragement to small businesses in Canada so that they will get involved in the production of hardware for solar plants or wind technology, even though the National Research Council
October 21, 1980

has produced one of the best windmills in the world, heat pumps or even digesters in the biomass industry, most of the technology which is now available comes from either the United States or Europe.
As I stated before, there is a need for a group of Canadian people, hopefully a group such as 1 outlined in this bill, to set out the design standards, production standards and construction standards for the technologies which we now import to prove to our consumers that such devices will work and do have a long life. Most renewable energy forms should have a lifespan of some 20 years in order for them to be placed in an operation. Consumer protection in the field of renewable technologies would be ensured by this bill. Not only would the consumer have greater confidence in his product, but he would also be able to instal and utilize such devices without a great deal of technical or mechanical expertise.
I have also envisioned that this corporation could make use of engineers across Canada. For example, in the budget of last December reference was first made to the use of agricultural stills. We were amazed to learn that an entrepreneur from Montana had come up into the southern portions of the prairie provinces to market a device which he said would work. By putting small advertisements in local newspapers this man attracted crowds of 300 to 500 farmers in small communities as he explained the operation of the still and how it would create, from wheat and straw and other products normally grown on the farm, alcohol which could be used in tractors, cars and homes. This shows that there is an interest. Surely, if the interest is there, our government, through a corporation such as the one I described, could use a group of engineering experts versed in the operation of such technologies to move from community to community across Canada explaining the technologies which are now available and how individuals with very little engineering expertise could, in fact, put these devices to work for themselves if they are given the proper guidance and information.
For example, there are many engineers in the PFRA who are not being fully utilized in their areas throughout western Canada. These people could be used to disseminate this kind of information. If the government would see in their wisdom the advantages of offering a tax credit in the upcoming budget to individuals for the placement of renewable technologies in their homes, this group of engineers could also, while spreading this information, check on the claimants who have installed renewable technology devices in their homes or places of business and give them advice on whether the engineering requirements have been met.
The United States, which is ahead of us in this field by far, is using a toll-free Zenith number in each state. Persons who have an interest in placing, for example, solar heating hardware in their homes can phone this toll-free number and be immediately provided by experts with information, bibliographies of books which are available in local libraries, and any other advice that is available on the particular form of renewable energy about which they are asking. The United States has moved quickly to provide the kinds of information which
Renewable Energy
are not available at the present time in Canada. Through this corporation such a system could be set up under clause 4(d) of the bill because it authorizes the renewable energy corporation to publish information relating to the uses and applications of renewable energy technologies. This clause was designed to ensure that the need for public information is met.
The last function of the corporation would be to co-ordinate further research in the areas of renewable energy-producing devices and inventions. Many Canadians are putting their minds to work and are trying to come up with new ways of using the energy in the sun, the ground, in water, and with machines. Such people are always coming to their members of Parliament and to government with new devices that are capable of doing such and such, but in many cases they are not given an ear and are turned away. As a result, we lose the value of that particular piece of technology. I can see this corporation playing a very important role in this area. It could look at new inventions and, as well, co-ordinate the research dollars which are made available by governments, foundations and large companies. I believe that a central body such as this corporation is necessary to co-ordinate all this information.
Those are my explanations as to why I placed each of the clauses in the bill. I would like to end this portion of my speech with a quote from the book "The Challenge of Man's Future", which was written by Harrison Brown:
Consumption of the earth's stores of fossil fuels has barely started, yet already we can see the end. In a length of time which is extremely short when compared with the length of time during which man has inhabited the earth, fossil fuels will have been discovered, utilized, and completely consumed.
That is very likely true, but the sun, wind, and waste materials from agricultural products and trees will be with us into perpetuity. It shows how important it is for us to move quickly toward the use of renewable energy forms.
I would like to end my speech by saying that, for the first time in history, the government in its budget of last December recognized that individuals, not just corporations, should have a tax break if they place in their businesses or their homes a heat exchanger or heat exchanger material. It was the first time in history that this type of offer had been made to Canadian citizens. The budget papers and the notices of ways and means motions stated very clearly under energy conservation equipment that there would be a write-off for district heating systems, solar heating systems on the new buildings, small-scale hydroelectric projects, heat recovery systems including heat exchange material and equipment and auxiliary components which are used to conserve energy. That opens up to all Canadians the use of this device of a tax write-off in order to place these in their homes and certainly in businesses. I have checked with the department and it seems that the regulations have finally been written after this long time, because in the budget that he sneaked into the Speech from the Throne, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) said he would continue with that initiative.


Mr. Paproski:: They listened to you.
3898

October 21, 1980
Renewable Energy


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: I hope so. The department has indicated that the regulations should be available to us soon. I sincerely hope that Canadians take advantage of them. In a policy paper published three years ago this party announced a policy which we were then very glad to see incorporated into the budget. It allowed personal tax credits to people, who use renewable technologies. It would have also offered accelerated five year write-offs for the cost of solar equipment, wind technologies, and biomass technologies, used in industrial and commercial buildings and in multiple residences.
We stated many other things that should be done. For instance, we should encourage municipalities not to tax people who use these new technologies in buildings. We should encourage mortgage and insurance companies to incorporate provisions for the use of these technologies into their mortgage contracts and insurance policies. We can think of many other areas where rapid use of renewable energies could be encouraged in the country.
In my bill I have outlined this as much as possible and as far as I can, having regard to the legal requirements of a private member's bill. I offer it to the House and hope it will be accepted so that the committee can use the bill as a basis on which to build a corporation and information disseminating device within government. I hope this will be done as rapidly as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, while regarding the hon. member's bill as being in some way redundant, as I shall explain in a moment, I should like to assure the House that we on this side welcome the occasion that he has provided to discuss an important and pressing topic, the use of renewable energies in Canada.
The hon. member has proposed a corporation which in some respects is similar to that to which the government already committed itself in the Speech from the Throne. I am sure the hon. member is aware that such a commitment has more recently been given substance. A corporation embodying some of the responsibilities envisaged in this bill is already in being. I nevertheless welcome his remarks about the various alternate forms of energy that can be developed in Canada and which can play a very real part in our energy future.
Perhaps it would be appropriate if I were to inform the House of some of the current policies and programs of the federal government in the development of renewable energy before turning to specific aspects of the hon. member's bill. I should say at once that the federal government considers the development of alternate forms of energy as a high priority. Indeed, I anticipate that in the new energy policy to be presented to the House next week, the hon. member will see further substantiation of that commitment.
Over the last seven years, the federal government has substantially increased its research and development efforts in renewable energy, from less than $1 million in 1974 to just over $20 million in fiscal year 1979-80. Since 1976, the
National Research Council has been the federal government's lead agent in its renewable energy activities. In this role it will continue to be an important actor in the federal government's renewable energy program, as the new alternate energy corporation comes into being. The research and development activities I refer to, as the hon. member noted, include solar energy, biomass, wind energy, geothermal energy, hydraulic energy and so on. Policy responsibility for research and development in these important resources resides, of course, with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. In 1977 the renewable energy resources branch was formed in the department, to begin the development of programs in renewable energy. Later, in 1978 a conservation and renewable energy branch was formed to deal with policy questions. This latter group has the leading role in the federal government for policies regarding the research, development, demonstration and commercialization of renewable sources of energy.
In July, 1978, the federal government announced a major new $380 million initiative to develop renewable sources of energy. These programs related primarily to solar heating, forest biomass use, research and development in renewable energy, and federal-provincial demonstration agreements. These programs are now in place and I am pleased to say, are operating satisfactorily. As an example, the forest industry renewable energy program committed $104 million for the period through 1985, to provide capital assistance to approved projects in the forest industry to displace fossil fuels with wood wastes. Projects which have been approved in many parts of Canada will displace fossil fuels equivalent to about three million barrels of oil per year. Some projects will displace imported oil at an estimated saving to the federal government at the current level of compensation of $53 million in the first year after the approved projects are completed. Related spending by the private sector in Canada will be about $105 million. This is just the beginning. The government has already stated a strong commitment to renewable energy. And the benefits, particularly in displacing imported oil, are now beginning to emerge.
Let me give you a specific example of how the government has committed itself to the development of renewable energy technology. I have in mind the example of solar heating. I should like to quote from an address given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to the Canadian Solar Industries Association on September 30, when he said:
We need a strong, growing and healthy solar industry, a solar industry that can produce a Canadian product for Canadian conditions. That was, and remains, the purpose of the federal government's purchase and use of solar heating program. I want to assure you this will continue to be an important mainstay in developing a short-term market for solar equipment.
The minister, of course, was referring to the federal government's $125 million solar purchase program.
To demonstrate further the commitment of the federal government to develop solar heating technology and a Canadian solar industry, the minister announced, on September 30, a new federal government initiative. To accelerate the development of solar hot water technology, a new demonstration program involving a thousand units at an estimated cost of $5
October 21, 1980

million will be undertaken. The objectives of the program will be to demonstrate large-scale deployment of solar domestic water heating systems, to establish the preliminary economies of scale, to identify more precisely the reliability and durability of solar heating systems. The minister also amplified the April announcement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen), to which the hon. member opposite referred, of changes in income tax regulations which will make solar energy equipment a more attractive investment for industry by allowing fast write-offs for a wide range of active solar heating equipment. These two measures will further promote the demonstration and commercialization of solar heating. Additional measures will be announced on October 28 or shortly thereafter as part of the national energy program. Hence there is indeed a co-ordinated federal strategy for the development of solar energy, and the government plans to publish this strategy once the consultative process has been completed. We believe there is a great opportunity to build a Canadian solar industry, partly so that Canadians do not need to buy foreign-designed solar equipment from foreign-control led corporations.
We realize we cannot look for dramatic immediate pay-offs from our investment in an emerging technology such as solar heating or in the demonstration programs sponsored under the federal-provincial agreements on conservation and renewable energy. It would be wrong to embark on such pioneering programs without a realistic sense of the time required to see the results or the difficulties they are likely to experience. But it would be equally wrong to under-estimate the specific contribution they can make over time to our efforts to substitute away from oil.
We believe there may well be good opportunities to make early use of renewable energy forms in remote locations. The urgency of the national effort to substitute away from oil is such that we do not believe any opportunity should be neglected. Some renewable energy forms will be particularly attractive in areas not now serviced by natural gas or hydro electricity.
These are important developments. However, before solar can be commercialized it must be shown to be credible. The public must be convinced that the systems we are developing are reliable. We must remember that solar projects must compete with other technologies such as wind, biomass, energy conservation technologies, geothermal and so on. Before solar heating can be acceptable to the public, there needs to be adequate consumer confidence, a subject the hon. member touched upon. The government is continuing to work with the Canadian Standards Association to develop a standard for domestic water packages. But the public will require tangible evidence when they are in the market for solar heating products. That is why a warranty program is so important, and that is why the government is encouraging the Canadian Solar Industries Association to play the lead role in formulating an industry-wide warranty program.
Renewable Energy
The government is determined to ensure that the solar industry remains a Canadian industry. In the case of solar, there is rapid technological change. Today's technologies may be superseded by second and by third generation technologies. It will be up to Canadian industry to adapt to change and to seek new ideas and new markets in the face of this world-wide search for ways to capture efficiently the sun's energy.
The bill before us proposes to establish a new institution. One of the objectives is to publish information relating to renewable energy. However, there are already a variety of publications readily available which describe these policies and programs of the federal government. One is called "Energy Update". It provides an overview of the energy situation and government activity in renewable energy. Another, called "New Energy, New Opportunities", describes new government programs in renewable energy in considerable detail.
1 would like to touch upon some of the objectives of the new corporation which the hon. member opposite has proposed in his bill. On standards, objective (a) in his bill, the proposal is made for increased standards development. As I have already noted, energy, mines and resources is already working very closely with the Canadian Standards Association and the National Research Council on the development of standards for solar heating equipment. Energy, mines and resources is already collaborating with Canadian Solar Industries Association on the development of warranties for solar heaters.
On testing of new energy technologies, objective (b), energy, mines and resources is sponsoring work by a number of agencies, for example, the Ontario Research Foundation on the use of alcohol fuels in diesel engines, and research work by CAN MET, the Canadian Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology, on the testing of wood appliances. Also, the National Research Council has recently funded a new solar test facility at the Ontario Research Foundation.
There are a number of other points in the hon. member's bill which either duplicate activities already being conducted by the federal government or anticipate tasks which will be undertaken by the new alternate energy corporation. I remind the hon. member that in the Speech from the Throne he will find a clear commitment to the creation of an alternate energy corporation. He is probably aware that since the Speech from the Throne, some $20 million has been allocated for the start-up of the new corporation. In the initial period, support for its activites will be provided by Petro-Canada, pending the stage at which the new alternate energy corporation will be able to stand on its own feet.
This new corporation will have a mandate to provide the essential support needed to move renewable energy technologies beyond the demonstration stage into wider commercial use. It will reinforce private sector purchase activity by joint ventures, share purchase and by offering other assistance in the commercialization and marketing of renewable energy technologies.
Of course, there will be some scope for a direct role in research and development and production of renewable energy, but the main emphasis will be on support and encouragement

October 21, 1980
Renewable Energy
for young Canadian firms in the private sector. Such firms will then have a partner of substance with much needed financial and general business strength. So as firms exploiting renewable energy move toward commercialization of solar, wind and biomass energy technologies, we foresee the corporation playing a strongly supportive role.
In conclusion, the National Research Council, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the new alternate energy corporation will all be important and aggressive actors in the development of renewable sources of energy. Their efforts will be carefully and strongly co-ordinated with other new energy policies to be announced next week. With a strong and coherent energy policy, therefore, the additional corporation proposed in Bill C-210 is unnecessary. I again thank the hon. member for this opportunity to discuss what is an important issue for all Canadians.


Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak to this bill promoting renewable energy sources and technology by the establishment of a renewable energy corporation. I congratulate the hon. member for Wetaskawin (Mr. Schellenberger) for presenting this bill, despite the fact that it calls for another Crown corporation. I understand his party has some strong feelings regarding more Crown corporations, but he has gone ahead anyway. I congratulate him for his courage.
We in the New Democratic Party have no difficulty supporting the bill in principle. We feel, as the preamble says, that there is no doubt that conventional sources of energy are dwindling at an alarming rate in Canada and throughout the world. To back that up, we have witnessed far fewer oil discoveries both in traditional areas in Canada and in our more remote regions. There is no doubt that our petroleum resources are declining even though we have great riches in other forms of energy.
At the moment Canada has no real, substantial energy policy. In spite of what the parliamentary secretary mentioned in terms of what may come about, at the moment, it is fair to say, we do not have any energy policy other than the traditional one of exporting all our cheap energy resources to the United States as quickly as we can. First it was oil, now it is natural gas. Some agency of government, whether it is the member's proposed corporation or some other secretariat or commission has to be charged with the job of co-ordinating the development of new sources, especially in renewable energy fields. The parliamentary secretary says that a corporation of this type will be filling the gap. All of us will be pleased about that, and we look forward to the announcement. My party and I certainly can support the bill in principle, if not every comma or last detail. Indeed, we support enthusiastically the basic principle behind it.
Continued growth in energy consumption seems to be linked inextricably with growth in the economy. The hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) still believes this is true, I think. The minister knows there is growing opinion
that the link between continued growth in energy and growth in the economy need not be made.
Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom and the United States have all produced studies to this effect, even within the nuclear establishment which is generally opposed to renewable energy. These studies have come to be regarded as milestones. I will mention a couple of them. For example, I speak of "A Low Energy Strategy for the United Kingdom" by Gerald Leach and the study on energy future prepared by the Elar-vard Business School in the United States. Those are only two which show that we probably do not always need to think of growth in energy use running parallel with growth in the economy. There are newer ways to look at it.
The thought that we cannot easily reduce our energy requirements by as much as 40 per cent without economic disruption is a mistaken belief. 1 think we can.
While ministers have made certain noises, tokenistic ones in my view, about the need for energy conservation-and I will outline and document this later on-the government is ignoring the real potential of an off-oil policy or an energy saving policy.
It seems to me the government is constantly preoccupied with the supply side, with punching more holes in the Beaufort Sea bed when there are many more gains to be made without risking our environment. We could put substantial sums into conservation. For instance, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Switzerland and West Germany, all highly industrialized nations, with economies working reasonably well, consume 50 per cent less energy per capita than we Canadians do. Japan and France consume two thirds of what we do. Japan and France too are highly industrialized countries but they make greater use of conservation measures than we do. These countries have developed sensible energy policies years ahead of Canada. No one can dispute that. While we may be very rich in energy resources, Canadians continue to be the energy gluttons of the world. I think the party is over now. We cannot continue on this wasteful path for much longer.
People do not want energy, Mr. Speaker. They want what energy provides, namely, heat, light, transportation and communication. Perhaps these ends can be met better by an over-all decrease in energy consumption or simply by increasing the productivity of each thermal unit of energy consumed.
The notion of self-sufficiency in oil is unrealistic unless we improve our energy efficiency. Indeed, Canada was self-sufficient in oil until 1975. But because of increased consumption and only one recent substantial oil find, we are no longer self-sufficient.
The process of improved energy utilization begins with very simple measures. We can improve the thermal design and locations of new houses, offices and factories. We can increase the insulation and employ heat recovery methods, such as heat exchangers in existing dwellings. We can increase the efficiency of appliances and furnaces-something which manufacturers and oil companies are loath to do. We can further improve gasoline mileage by building lighter vehicles and using more
October 21, 1980

efficient engines. We can generate electricity through industrial waste heat. And, as Iceland does, we might do a lot more with district heating. For example, why have one furnace in every home, or apartment building-when one large furnace could heat whole districts? Whole districts can be heated. While we do not have the sources of geothermal heat that Iceland does, a cheap source of energy for them, certainly, we have other sources of heat supply which we could use and spread around throughout districts. In Canada only universities and large institutions have district heating.
About 50 per cent of the housing which will be used in the year 2000 has not yet been built. If Canada is really serious about energy conservation and efficiency, we have to investigate other methods, such as district heating. We need not be confined to oil or geothermal. Other countries are developing different thermal fuels, but in my view Canada is not.
The Gulf Tower in Calgary, a highrise office building, has a tremendously efficient system. It probably uses one fifth of the energy needed for other Calgary office buildings. Methods can be found. If you can decrease by 80 per cent the energy needed for space heating and replicate that over and over as new buildings are built, that is a much more sensible approach than continue the energy binges we have been on for years and years.
We have not encouraged efficiency, but we should. The cost of improving energy productivity and efficiency is relatively modest, while the benefits in increased savings in energy, not to mention the jobs that could be created in alternative energy industries, are immense. It has been said many times that the cheapest barrel of oil is the barrel that we can save. One hears that statement day in and day out whenever one talks to people involved in energy, even government people or people from NRC or EMR. However, we do not see this theme translated into positive programs. There are the pilot programs, certainly, but there is no real push or a battle to try to build more efficient buildings through changes in the building code, for instance. We should be looking at approaches of the kind I have just outlined. If the energy corporation that is contemplated in the bill can help do this and get us moving faster, then I think we can support the bill.
Biomass, solar, low-head hydro and wind all have futures as possible energy sources. We have not yet scratched the surface on the supply side. We are told that with appropriate design, passive solar coupled with insulation can save 85 per cent of the space heating costs and hot water costs in homes. I believe there is only one place in Canada-I believe it is the city of Brantford although I am not certain-which has a solar subdivision where the locations of houses are so arranged that each one has light and an opportunity to absorb as much of the solar heat as possible. That sort of project is not yet in full swing, and it will take a long time, I agree.
However, biomass already supplies 3 per cent of Canada's energy needs. That is about as much as what nuclear does. Of course, in Ontario the mute proportion is much larger, since few other sources are available and nuclear has been overbuilt.
Renewable Energy
As I see it, the major impediment to the more widespread use of renewables is attitude that we tend to subsidize certain kinds of energy components and not others. We subsidize the nuclear industry tremendously.


Mr. Crosby:: There are others to be heard!


Mark Willson Rose: The hon. member should not worry about it; I will give him plenty of time. I am going to talk until one minute to six because I do not want to talk the bill out. I will give the hon. member one minute to make his remarks.
I think there is probably a good deal more we can do here, but renewables do need support. The alternative energy industry needs a great deal more support than it has been getting in the past. The parliamentary secretary mentioned what has been done in the last five years. When was the energy crisis, anyway? It was more than six or seven years ago, and what we have done in the last five years is extremely modest and nothing to shout about in my opinion. We have, however, made a start.
I have just returned from a tour with the alternative energy committee task force. We toured western Canada and central Canada and took some trips abroad as well. We also went to northern Europe. We are able to see a great many things. I would like to mention some developments which are occurring in such places as Sweden, Ireland and Iceland. The hon. member should certainly be interested in hearing about that in some detail, even though it might take a little time. I would be very pleased to relate some of my experiences in those exotic, out-of-the-way and non-Canadian places.
Let us first deal with the situation in Canada. The committee found that the provincial governments are showing little or no interest in alternative energy. We visited the capitals of Quebec and Ontario and the four western provinces. Not one of those provinces expects renewables, except hydroelectricity, to provide much more than 2 per cent, 4 per cent or maybe 5 per cent of its total energy needs by the year 2000. That does not sound to me like any great enthusiasm or push on the part of the provinces for much more emphasis on renewables. Provinces could use more renewables and still use more total energy, in which case the percentage dependence on renewables would not change very much. I understand that. We could still be employing a good deal more effort, but I do not think those provinces seriously feel that renewables are viable at the moment. And they may not be; I do not know, but I can give some figures from Ontario. In its book called "Energy Security for the Eighties, a Policy for Ontario" the province of Ontario says it expects that the renewables, including energy from waste, forest, industrial by-product heat, solar, wind, wood, direct burning, liquefaction of coal to gas and that sort of thing, will amount to only 5 per cent of the total energy budget needs of the province by 1995.
If we take that 5 per cent and apply it to a year, it amounts to ten days, so Ontario does not expect renewables to amount to much. Looking at investment figures, it appears that

October 21, 1980
Renewable Energy
Ontario plans to expend some $16 billion on renewable energy by 1995. This is on page 14 of the same publication. When asked where Ontario will get the money and whether it is a budgeted amount, the officials we spoke to said that they expect those funds to come mainly from private sources, so there is no push on the part of the Ontario government. Neither is there on the part of the other governments much enthusiasm for a big start, a big bite into renewables. Enthusiasm for renewables just does not exist, and anyone who thinks it does is kidding himself. It is not happening here in Canada at all. I do not care what kinds of noises are made. I do not care how many big million-dollar ad campaigns are floated. It is not happening, and I do not think it will happen unless people start becoming alarmed and are made aware of the fact that Canada has no strong program to develop and implement large projects based on renewable sources.
I will give some comparisons. The same is modest expectation true in all the other provinces. We wondered why there was so little interest. The committee really wondered. It looked around and visited various places, and all the officials were very co-operative. But why was there no interest? What is the matter? Why is there so little interest in biomass, wind, water, sun, ethanol or forest waste utilization? Does no one believe there is an energy crisis? That is a possibility because we have been fooled so often. Is there no leadership from Ottawa? That is another possibility. There is probably a bit of cynicism on both those points because we have been fooled so often. My constituents believed there is no energy crisis at all, and all there was was a scare campaign on the part of oil companies in an effort to get prices up. I do not believe that, but I think it is the prevailing view out there, and it seems to me this attitude is what is holding back the development and acceptance of renewables by the general public.
Look at what Ottawa is spending this year on energy research and development. The parliamentary secretary made reference to what Ottawa is spending. The total spending for conservation measures and research and development in this country by EMR this year amounts to $12 million. The total spent on all renewables in this country by EMR is $20 million. The same publication lists total spending on nuclear of $104 million. We can see where the priorities lie. They are where they have always been. Money is being spent on fossil fuels. It is also spent on subsidizing oil wells and gas drilling and tar sands developments, but it is not being spent on renewables. I am not suggesting research could absorb it all anyway, but a pitiful $12 million is spent for conservation R and D, $20 million is spent for renewables, when $104 million, if not more, has been spent in each of the last ten years on nukes. That is where Canada's energy priorities lie. They do not lie with the renewables at all.
The Financial Post says we need to spend much more on research and development. On October 18, there was a whole editorial headed "Ignore Research and Development at our Peril". The editorial says that in 1967 we were spending 1.4 per cent of our gross national product on research and development, and now we are spending less than 1 per cent. Is that
progress? We are going backwards in this regard. Where do we need the research and development? We need money spent on research and development into energy sources and especially renewables.
We might compare-


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the hon. member opposite for interrupting, but I would be interested if he would care to cite his authority for the numbers which he just gave. In fact, total federal expenditures on energy conservation during fiscal year 1978-79 exceeded $82 million. In addition, provincial governments spent an estimated $13.5 million, bringing the total for the year to something close to $100 million.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Hon. members should recognize that the clock moves on. I know the parliamentary secretary is aware that technically speaking that is not a point of order, but I will recognize it for what it is, a question, and I encourage the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) to deal with it as he sees fit, but to recognize the clock as well.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be delighted to do that. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary chose three years and added them all up. I took EMR 1980-81 budget for R and D, and my source was the brief to the parliamentary task force for alternative energy and oil substitution by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. I recommend that to the parliamentary secretary for his long winter bedtime reading.
I cannot go on too much longer with this, but there is a great deal more that needs to be said. Let us say that compared with other countries such as Sweden, Canada is spending about one-fortieth as much on conservation and research and development. We have not looked into all alternatives. We have not developed the procedures we need, and we had better start doing so because, as I said earlier, the party is over. Let us get this business of renewables on the rails and start moving on it. Let us stop kidding the public that we are doing a lot more than we are.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, let me say that I support Bill C-210, to promote the use of renewable energy. I congratulate the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) for bringing this very important matter to the attention of the House.
I wanted to take a little time to explain to the House our situation in Nova Scotia. I wanted to explain our developments in tidal power. I am sure the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) wanted to tell us about the development of fossil fuels.
We lost that opportunity because the time in the private members' hour has been occupied. But the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) gave us one important lesson in the matter of renewable energy in his intervention: that he has a solution. The hon. member and the NDP have a solution
October 21, 1980

for the renewable energy problem in Canada. It is hot air, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is full of hot air, his party is full of hot air, and if we could harness that hot air, we would solve the renewable energy problem in Canada. So I will not have an opportunity to talk about tidal power and we will not have an opportunity to talk about the fossil fuel development in Nova Scotia. What we can say is that we support the bill and we hope it will soon come to a vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien):
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report upon the document entitled "Proposed Resolution for a Joint Address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada" published by the government on October 2, 1980, and to recommend in their report whether or not such an address, with such amendments as the committee considers necessary, should be presented by both Houses of Parliament to her Majesty the Queen;
That 15 members of the House of Commons to be designated no later than three sitting days after the adoption of this motion be members on the part of the 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 Constitution
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When the debate was interrupted at five o'clock the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) had the floor. The Chair will now recognize the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall).


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: It was a very enlightening experience for me, this October 21, to sit in my place and listen to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), the very distinguished co-chairman of the committee which in the initial stage looked at the events which led up to the-I think, sometimes, innocuous-procedure which is being followed by the present government with respect to our constitution.
I say at the very outset to the minister, through you, sir, that having followed the hearings and events which surrounded the Pepin-Robarts commission, and as one who was somewhat involved in previous measures, movements and studies by government of some significance to this country, together with others, I was not alone-not alone in this chamber, not alone in the other place, not alone in this country-waiting to hear the minister tell us how in hell he was going to swallow what it was that Trudeau was trying to stuff down his throat.
With some respect, I say that the minister did a remarkable job, first of all, of swallowing himself, of telling us what we already know, what we already accept in all corners of this House, which is that the content of what we are talking about is generally acceptable. He told not only those of us who sit in the opposition; he told the people in his own back benches as well. I watched the 12 of them who were gathered around behind him, in line with the cameras, applauding loudly. I also noticed several of his colleagues not bothering to applaud.
I have a lot of respect and a lot of time for the contribution the Minister of Transport has made to this country in a variety of responsibilities. He has a good intellect, one which Canadians should pay attention to, and if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is a Canadian he, too, should listen to him. I wonder whether he will bother to read the message left by the minister, who is a very distinguished scholar and Canadian, on this particular question. I disagree with the minister when he said, by way of excuse, that it was political prudence that would lead him to support the proposals that are in front of us. I wonder what his colleague, Mr. Robarts, would think of that, Mr. Speaker.
As was the case with other hon. members, I enter this debate with considerable concern, a concern which arises from what I understand to be the implications to the Canadian partnership which are inherent in the proposal that is before us. The subject matter that is raised in this motion to establish a joint committee to discuss the content of a joint address to Her Majesty the Queen concerns not only myself, but I am sure, many other Canadians.
One of the first points I want to make is that this government and its supporting bureaucracy in dealing with this matter are fully aware, as are all of us here, that the vast

October 21, 1980
The Constitution
majority of Canadians will not closely follow this debate. They have other things to do. They have families to raise, other business, social, human and personal commitments, and they will not closely follow the details of these discussions. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us in dealing with this aspect of the measure which is before us to try to indicate to Canadians-in my case to the people of Dartmouth on the eastern shore of Nova Scotia-as it is our responsibility, some of the dangers which are inherent in what is proposed.
In the next few minutes I hope I can in orderly fashion deal, albeit superficially, with some of these matters. It is important to patriate the constitution; there is no question about that. Along with all who have spoken, I too express very sincerely my support for a strong central government. There is nothing new about that; it was expressed in 1867, 1864 and even prior to that. I support this notion in some kind of spirit of true partnership, a true partnership with strong provincial governments.
These concepts are not in conflict. Indeed, there cannot be such a conflict in our system and under our structure. The conflict arises only when one, the predominant partner-and I say to the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) that that is not chauvinistic-attempts to impose upon the other, as the Minister of Transport put it this afternoon. His concern is that we are imposing. This concern is not with the content but with the procedure and that is what I am saying. There can only be conflict when the senior partner in this historic and traditional partnership deliberately and unilaterally imposes its strength and its will on the junior partner.
We have conducted our affairs in this country, not for 113 years, but for virtually 200 years under the British Crown. Is Canada such a bad place? Are we not well off?


Mrs. Erola:: We could be better off.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that we are a good country, we are well off but we could be better off. They were saying that in 1854, in 1858, in 1864 and we are better off. There is nothing wrong with what we are now, and we have done it all under the British Crown. My objection to the position and the process which we are now forced to follow and probably will be forced to bow to because of the weight of the government majority, is simply to the procedure, not the content. The government is wrong. It will destroy this country and it will destroy it knowingly and willingly with no regrets whatsoever. If the hon. members opposite want my conclusion now, I can tell them what it is and sit down.


An hon. Member:: Don't keep us in suspense.


J. Michael Forrestall: That would be the typical retort or response of a backbencher, supporter or trained seal. The Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) this afternoon in one of the most scurrilous attacks on the opposition I have heard for a long time in this chamber suggested we were wasting the time of the House in this debate. It is rather interesting that the government backbenchers themselves, out of a sense of attempting to achieve some
vague level of glory, have spoken more frequently than the opposition parties put together. Why is that? Who is delaying the debate? In any event, nobody can delay this debate.
If every member in this chamber wants to get on his or her feet and speak to his or her country then, by God, it is their right, and no Speaker sitting in that chair, no prime minister of this country and no government, no matter what their intent or their end purpose, will ever change that. The moment it is changed, we will not have a Canada. I suggest to my colleagues from Quebec that they sit up and listen and turn around because I might just be what they would like to attack, but I am not. I have spent 25 years in public life. I can say that Quebeckers have not had the courage to travel to western Canada, to northern Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mrs. Hervieux-Payette:: We have been there more often than you have been to Quebec.


J. Michael Forrestall: I gather that is a rejection of what I had to say, and I apologize, obviously, they all have, and they will not have a question of privilege or a point of order.
[ Translation]


Céline Hervieux-Payette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to remind my hon. colleague that as MP for Mercier I visited the west four times this year. I went to Edmonton, three weeks ago, I went to Calgary, I went to Vancouver; I would ask the hon. member to kindly retract his remark.


Erik Nielsen: Come up and see me in the Yukon sometime.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am not sure whether that constitutes a valid point of order or whether it is a point of debate, but in either case the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) had already retracted the comment. So I think we might recognize again the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, unless the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) has a point of order.


Judith A. Erola: Since the hon. member has retracted his statement, I should really withdraw mine as well, but I would like to bring to his attention the fact that I too have on a number of occasions this summer been out west, from Yellowknife to British Columbia to Calgary. I have enjoyed each visit and I am looking forward to further visits.


Mr. Chretien:: I suppose I should make the same point.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued by the indignation of the members opposite, because if they have travelled so much in Canada why do they not understand what they are doing to this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 21, 1980


J. Michael Forrestall: If they have been west, north and to Atlantic Canada, then they should know that they are tearing this country apart. They are trying to impose upon us something which we do not want. They are trying to impose upon us a procedure which is abhorrent to us.
I am not one of those in this country who is a great defender of the Crown but I am one of its greatest exponents when it comes to the system of central government that we enjoy. I will not stand idly by and watch the Prime Minister, with the blind support of hon. members opposite, impose unilaterally measures which the people as a whole will accept only if they are debated and agreed upon in this country.
How can anyone say that they want to end this era of colonialism that has been referred to-it has been referred to in different tongues in different parts of the country-how can anyone say they want to bring an end to things as they are, that they want the constitution in Canada while at the same time bootlegging by way of the back door significant and substantive proposals and measures which are not the subject matter of wide dialogue and widespread requests from the people of the country? On what basis do hon. members opposite feel they can toy with the sentiments of western Canada or the sentiments of Newfoundland? I am sure all hon. members who are interested in this debate watched the premier of the province of Newfoundland on television.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: Hon. members opposite laugh at him.


An hon. Member:: Yes.


J. Michael Forrestall: Where is the hon. member for Gander-Twil-lingate (Mr. Baker)? Where is the minister from Newfoundland? It is a good thing those two gentlemen are not in the chamber because that is who members opposite are laughing at. They are laughing at Canadians.


An hon. Member:: Sit down!


An hon. Member:: Resign!


J. Michael Forrestall: Resign? Me? Ha! Long before I resign, sir-


An hon. Member:: You accept?


J. Michael Forrestall: Long before I resign you will know that you are going to fight this to the death, because I will not permit you to act unilaterally.


An hon. Member:: That is beautiful!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is your motion tomorrow.


J. Michael Forrestall: Bring home the constitution. Bring home the agreed-upon formula. But do not shove down the throats of Canadians amendments made to their constitution in the British House of Commons. If the Prime Minister believes that
The Constitution
the British House of Commons will look only at the title of the joint address, then I suggest those who support him in this belief are blind and have not researched the matter. They are acting only in blind support of the Prime Minister.
Some hon. members opposite have spoken with compassion for this country and with some understanding of it. Those of you who know me, know what my roots in Quebec are and I am proud of them-a little more proud than might be suggested by some of the laughter and jests from the other side of the chamber. But I expect that and accept it, Mr. Speaker.
I implore hon. members opposite not to let this country fall apart as a result of their acting unilaterally. We are close to agreement among the provinces on an amending formula-we are very close. We are not far apart, as the government's damnable, inexcusable advertising program would suggest. This country is not divided, although the government is trying to tell us that it is. They have shoved this view down our throats for years. But we are not divided, Mr. Speaker. This is a good, close-knit, close-working country. No one seriously objects to the principles that are embedded in this resolution but they can certainly object to the procedure. It is being done illegally, by way of the back door. I agree with some of the proposals and with some of the positions taken with respect to various premiers. If anyone wants my frank opinion, I think they were fools to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. This is a political argument.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: After some hon. members opposite have spent 25 years in public life they can then come to me and talk about it. I wonder if they know what it means to struggle. I listened to the distinguished new member from Prince Edward Island, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Henderson) speak of his early years in this country and his love and dedication to it. It was a good speech for a new member. I invite him to look around and get to know other hon. members who represent all the people of this country. Listen to them, please.


George Roland Henderson: I have.


J. Michael Forrestall: No, you have not.


An hon. Member:: You have turned a deaf ear.


J. Michael Forrestall: The hon. member has turned a deaf ear. He has denied everything he said this afternoon by his blind support of unilateral action. This is a country of partnerships and I should like to speak about that for a minute or two. I will deal with two areas.
The other day I listened to-or, perhaps more correctly, I should say read, because sometimes reading is more important than listening-the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), a distinguished Nova Scotian, and I have one or two comments to make about his intervention in the House. I want to touch briefly on the question of equalization as the parliamentary secretary did this afternoon. I am not yet
3906

October 21, 1980
The Constitution
convinced, and probably never will be, of the sincerity of the minister's argument because I do not believe he fully subscribes to the principle. During his intervention he reiterated his support, and presumably that of his cabinet colleagues, for the principle of equalization. No one can really question that, of course. The action of governments from those of Mr. Diefenbaker to Mr. Pearson, to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the Prime Minister, have demonstrated the protections that we need. Their actions regarding equalization have been what the country wanted. There is no question about that. What I do question, however, is how the Minister of Finance could conceivably support the wording of the proposed reference to a joint committee of the two Houses of Parliament. I do not understand how he can allow such a worth-while practice to be broken down in a manner that would allow the government to use the principle of govern-ment-to-people, direct transfers, to satisfy the principle of equalization. I do not know how he can accept wording that would lead to the kind of conflict and abuse that is possible. That wording is unacceptable and is wrong.
The Minister of Finance has a long history of great contributions to this chamber and to the country but his acceptance of what is going on now defies the wildest imagination of Nova Scotians or Atlantic Canadians or, indeed, any Canadian who bothers to examine the situation. Yet he has accepted it. Why he would not prefer wording that would require the purpose and intent to be effected through appropriate provincial legislation instead of around them or over their heads, I just do not understand. In public and in private, its integrity should be defended by such a proposal. With respect to the minister's second point, he directed his comments to the question of offshore resources. Along the same lines, the argument or the debate centres on ownership. In this regard, I not only find myself in continuing disagreement with the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), but as well with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) and other members of the government.
While the prospects of short-term financial gains under the proposals of this government are attractive, it is the long-term prospects and concerns which attract my attention. Implicit in the Minister of Finance's intervention in this debate-and I cannot imagine why he did not refer to it-is the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the so-called British Columbia reference case. By his silence on the matter last week, the minister left me with the clear impression that he was extending a decision based on one set of facts to cover another situation in another part of the country surrounded by a different set of facts.
For the minister to rely on this ploy is out of character. At worst, he implied that the decision extends to the waters adjacent to Atlantic Canada, referring to the process which led to the court decision respecting the B.C. reference. He knows the language of the British North America Act. He knows what section 7 says, namely:
The provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall have the same limits as at the passing of this act.
That is a very simple but meaningful statement. The British Columbia reference led the court to a conclusion based on the historical facts leading up to British Columbia joining confederation. These historical facts do not reveal, in any research that I and others have done on the subject, any conferring by the British Crown of rights with respect to the sea, the seabed and the resource, that is the sea and the seabed, which under international law at that time and subsequently it was the clear right of the British Crown to extend.
With regard to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, the record is very different. In our case, the British Crown did extend rights which were clearly theirs to extend to governments or administrations of the day. Perhaps it would serve the minister and, in turn, Nova Scotians and others well if the minister were to re-read our history, although I am sure he does not have to do that. He might do worse than begin with the intervention of the Hon. G. I. Smith of the other place on this question as recently as July 10 of this year. My purpose is to express to this House a determined belief that the resources offshore in eastern Canada belong to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Quebec certainly holds the same view and Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick are entitled to that view. From every quarter we hear of growing involvement between Quebec and Ottawa and the producing provinces of natural gas.
I raise this final point to try to impress upon hon. members some of the concerns we have over unilateral action. I raise it in the context of resources offshore. In my opinion, there is little doubt that officials in the two capitals have already decided that Gros Cacouna will be the location of a new petro-chemical industry using eastern Arctic gas and oil as well as the gas and oil of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. We in Atlantic Canada will become nothing other than pipeline caretakers if we do not own the resources affected. Federal ownership will dictate the form and location of an industrial base arising out of these resources.
We had hoped this could have been done in a spirit of co-operation. Obviously it can no longer be done that way. However, for Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders, one of our great tasks will be to protect this resource. It is clear that our Atlantic ministers-the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc), the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey), the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour-have lost their argument in cabinet. They have let us down.
Talks have taken place between officials of the province of Quebec and the producing provinces which indicate that east of Quebec gas would not be included for energy security, backing up oil. Rather, it will be to create the initial base for an industrial complex based upon gas and oil. That industrial base, if allowed to go ahead the way it is, will characterize this government's attitude with regard to the four Atlantic provinces.
This is a good country. The subject matter of this resolution gives me very little difficulty though I disagree wholeheartedly with the unilateral way in which the government is acting. Since we are so close to unanimity among the provinces and

the federal government on the amending formula, why deny us the time? Some members opposite say it is not a question of time, but that it is about time. Watch them all applaud. Silence. I caught them in their own act. Why can we not have a little more time?
I said earlier that it was wrong for the provinces to go to the courts, but the Prime Minister has forced them to do that. I wish they would have said: let us have patriation with an agreed-upon amending formula. Then we could have had a debate we could all understand instead of muddying the waters with detail.
We are asking the British Parliament to deal with matters we will not deal with ourselves. That is wrong and I object to it. As an Atlantic Canadian and as a Nova Scotian, I say the government is going about this the wrong way. They are sowing the seeds which will tear this country apart. Do you not know Newfoundland? If you did not listen to the premier of that province last night, I suggest you obtain a transcript and read it, because he was serious. The premier of the province of Alberta did not just put through the matter of a referendum just willy-nilly, and if you think you can fight that, you are wrong. You are addressing yourselves to a break-up of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: What would you know about it? Why do you not go there and find out? What the hell would you know about it? Go out there and find out. Go out to Fort McMurray and into Tyvan, Saskatchewan and ask the wheat growers. Go to Ecum Secum. Stand on the wharf and see what the people think of what you are doing. Go to Lloydminster. Go to Vegreville. Go into the valleys of British Columbia. Go into those magnificent mountains. Go and find out. Hon. members over there are supporting a leader who is sowing the seeds of destruction of a way of life in this country. The British Crown that you fellows so deride has not served us badly for 200 years-not 53 years, but 200 years.
Let us get agreement and let us proceed by way of agreement, not by way of confrontation or fighting or argument. Why divide and conquer a country that wants to get on with living and working, providing for its families and providing for national and international security?
This matter before us is important. It is important to all of us. Our blind following of the dictates of a man who wants to be prime minister of a unitary state, a man who wants to be president of his own republic, will lead only to dissension and division. As I mentioned earlier-and this is especially for the Minister of Transport, the distinguished co-chairman from our committee-to suggest to those who know him that he has decided, to support this measure because it is politically prudent, is a position that is not acceptable to me. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the longer this debate goes on, the more often and the more frequent hon. members opposite will hear
The Constitution
their constituents voicing their objections to the unilateral action they are so blindly supporting.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I could say, along with most members who have participated in this debate, that I am happy to be taking part in it. But I am not going to say that. I am not going to say that for much the same reasons as the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) expressed earlier this evening.
I come from a region which has been denied a voice, denied a voice at the table and, until now, denied a voice in the debate. The spokesman for our party, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) when opening this debate was the first to speak of Canadians above the 60th parallel. I want to add that voice to this debate in addition to the hon. member for Nunatsiaq.
It has been the intention of our party to approach the issue of constitutional change in a comprehensive and open-minded manner. That has always been our intention. It has been rendered extremely difficult by the Prime Minister's arbitrary and capricious method of imposing change through the medium of the British Parliament against the strongly voiced opposition of the majority of the premiers of this country. It has been rendered difficult also by his refusal to accept the fact that the premiers have exactly the same rights and privileges in matters under their jurisdiction as he, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), has in federal matters. They have the same right and responsibility to put forward their views on matters affecting their provinces. It has been rendered difficult, too, by his insistence upon regarding the constitutional issue as a very personal one, one that he is peculiarly qualified to solve-so he thinks-to the point where all those who dare disagree are stigmatized as anti-Canadian. And that has been the tack over there. It has been rendered difficult, too, by the Prime Minister's insistence on creating straw men-putting the premiers in a false position, by setting out the issues in his terms, and in his terms only. It has been rendered difficult, too, by the deliberate attempt of the Liberal government party to mould, to shape and to manipulate public opinion in this country under the guise of legitimate advertising, and embarking on a new era of mind control, the Orwellian 1984 concept.
Since it is my intention to move an amendment this evening, rather than run out of time before doing so, I intend to put it to the House now and then carry on with my remarks. I put this amendment to the House in the hope that it will be accepted in the sense of parliamentary fair play, in keeping with the rules as they used to be before they were altered by the present Prime Minister thus rendering less effective the meaningfulness of this place. I hope it will gain the support of those to my left who appear not to be listening. They might as well be across the aisle for all it matters. From what I hear on the news tonight, they believe they are there. I think, Mr. Speaker, the fix is in and that there will be some kind of perception, some attempt to create the kind of conciliatory process which will allow the public to come away with the belief that the Prime Minister has graciously conceded to the adjurations of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
October 21, 1980
The Constitution
Broadbent). That is a sham and it will come back to haunt them.


An hon. Member:: That is democracy.


Erik Nielsen: That is democratic? Hon. members over there would not know what democratic is or what it means.
The motion 1 wish to move for your consideration, Mr. Speaker-and you may want to take it under advisement until tomorrow-is:
That the motion now before the House be amended by adding thereto after the sixth paragraph the following:
Notwithstanding any Standing Orders or practices of either House, the
committee shall have the power to table a minority report with its main report,
and any such report shall be tabled by the committee if signed by three or
more members of the committee.
Quite apart from the numerical qualifications in that motion, that used to be our practice in this place. But a few years ago, under the changes in the rules-would the gentleman bring back the copy of my speech please? It is caught under the copy of the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Table your speech.


Erik Nielsen: Notwithstanding that the present Prime Minister had those rules changed, the fact remains that it used to be the practice in this place that a dissenting voice in committee could be heard. However, under the changes he brought about, they cannot be heard at all, a matter of such importance as this is an occasion when, if there is a minority voice to be heard, it should be heard, and that is the purpose of the resolution.
If they are not out to gag us and if they are not out to preclude another point of view being heard, there will be no difficulty over there and certainly no difficulty on my left. I see that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is in his seat now. He remembers this procedure very well.


Mr. Knowles:: No, I have never heard of it.


Erik Nielsen: You have never heard of a minority report?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Never heard of it.


Erik Nielsen: Well, I am surprised.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Erik Nielsen: Certainly. That used to be a custom which seems to have been forgotten in this place, but we always permit questions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Erik Nielsen: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is he not confusing the fact that minority members in committee have made statements outside the House and reports to the press, with what he is now proposing? I do not recall a committee ever having a minority report tabled in the House.


Erik Nielsen: The committee itself never had the power to file a minority report, but members on the committee had the opportunity to file a minority report.


Mr. Chenier:: Now you are confused.


Erik Nielsen: I am not the one who is confused. It is that hon. member over there who keeps hopping from seat to seat and interjecting and never taking part in debates who I always hear.
In the instrument that is now before Parliament the Prime Minister and his Liberal government are attempting to do something which has never been attempted in this country before and perhaps not in any country at all with a constitutional and parliamentary democracy.
They are attempting unilaterally to rewrite and revise the constitution in a manner decided upon by the Prime Minister and his advisers in the bowels of the Langevin Block in areas- and there certainly can be no argument on the opposite side or to my left-which are definitely as well under provincial jurisdiction as they are under federal. They are attempting not simply to patriate but unilaterally to rewrite and deeply revise the constitution in a manner decided upon by the Prime Minister and his advisers. They are attempting to impose upon all Canadians, regardless of their political belief, a Liberal party constitution created in the smoke-filled backrooms in the bowels of TEdifice Langevin. I know. I have been there, and I know how they operate over there.


An hon. Member:: For how long?


Erik Nielsen: I know where all this nonsense came from.


Mr. Harquail:: How long were you there?


Erik Nielsen: We may not have been there long, and perhaps the people of this country will very soon have cause to regret that we were not there a little bit longer. However, that is where this kind of leaked cabinet document for-ministers'-eyes-only comes from.
When I read this document and studied it, I went back to my copy of "Machiavelli the Prince". I read it and re-read it and compared it. I had two copies of "Machiavelli the Prince". I burned my other one because this cabinet document is the update. "Machiavelli the Prince" is now irrelevant. It has no more meaning because this cabinet document is the update on how to manoeuvre, manipulate and shape public opinion to conform with Liberal policy while it is being made. This is a very, very dangerous direction for the political life of this country to be taking.
Knowing that what they are doing cannot be done constitutionally in Canada, they are going over to ask the British
October 21, 1980

Parliament to change the constitution for them. They do not have the courage to do it here. They do not have the courage to submit what they are attempting to the scrutiny of public debate here. They are going to the British parliament to do it for them. That is a strange performance for a government which, though constantly reiterating its desire to remove the vestiges of colonialism, places us in the north, as my colleague, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq said today, in a strait-jacket of colonialism where Liberal policy will keep us forever and a day.
The constitution is more than a document. It is more than a scrap of paper. It is the backbone of a nation. Canadians in general have a vision of what this country is and ought to be, and I am convinced that it is not the view put forward by the Prime Minister and the present government. In his discussions with the premiers the Prime Minister spoke of two versions of Canada-his, and that upheld by the premiers. The Prime Minister's version is now embodied in the document placed before the House, and it is a version which enables the federal government to impose its views on all Canadians. We on this side and, indeed, across the country have reiterated the position that no one is opposed to patriation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: We think the constitution should come back, but we think it should be brought back unaltered and unchanged, and it should be brought back, the British North America Act, exactly as it has been since 1867.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: We think that whatever changes are made should be made in Canada by Canadians and certainly through a process of consensus involving the premiers rather than by arbitrary imposition, which is the direction this government is taking.
We are told now that it was only because of a last minute cooling off among the Prime Minister's advisers that there is not included in this document before us a device for the assumption by the federal government of equally arbitrary economic powers. Anyone who witnessed the Prime Minister's performance at the federal-provincial first ministers' conference will not feel any surprise at this information. Nothing could be more disruptive of the state of unity of this nation than the attitude of the Prime Minister, and attitude which has done more to sow the seeds of disunity in this country since he took office in 1968 than any other single force in our history. His idea is to bulldoze-and that is the word for it, bulldoze-his version of confederation into place regardless of those elected to represent the people and the views of the people of the provinces. Mark my words, sir, I fully expect hon. members opposite, led by the present Prime Minister, to impose closure on us in this very important debate.


Maurice James Harquail: It won't be necessary.
The Constitution


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for whatever says it will not be necessary. I have travelled a few times with him. I have a hard enough time remembering the ridings of my own area.


Maurice James Harquail: Tell us what Joe told you to say.


Erik Nielsen: The member for nowhere. I am speaking about the democratic process in this country, which is something the hon. member should study. If he does so, he might understand it.
What the Prime Minister is doing now in bulldozing his version of his confederation into place is nothing short of an invitation to anarchy. Those are my views and the views which are being expressed by Canadians in the north who, up until this afternoon, have been denied any voice in this debate. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) likens us to municipalities, but he and others like him, including the hon. member who is interjecting now, have their own premiers to speak for them. We do not.


Maurice James Harquail: Our premier is with us.


Erik Nielsen: Regardless of where a premier is at, yea or nay, he at least speaks for the people of his province. Canadians above the 60th parallel were denied that basic fundamental right. Hon. members talk about entrenchment of a charter of human rights to speak, feel and think as we please. We, as Canadians above the 60th, cannot even be heard, and that is what we object to. To be heard is fundamental to any democratic process. We have been denied even that right.


An hon. Member:: You are being heard right now.


Erik Nielsen: I hear an interjection from my left, probably from someone from Saskatchewan. I do not know. It came from over there.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Behind you.


Erik Nielsen: All right. I will let you go this time.


Mr. Althouse:: We were listening.


Erik Nielsen: Nothing could be more disruptive of the state of unity in this country. That goes without saying. The Prime Minister used the constitutional issue to catapult himself to the leadership of his party in the first instance, and he has been flogging the same horse ever since. At the Victoria conference, the Prime Minister would have been delighted to acquire from the premiers present an assurance of constitutional change guaranteeing the right of both languages from coast to coast. He was unable to get their consensus, partly because of resistance in the west but more because of the objections of the Liberal Premier of Quebec who had his own ideas about language rights embodied in Bill 22 of that province. Later it was further elaborated in Bill 101 under the separatist government of Premier Levesque and had the effect of removing from parents the right to choose the language of education.

October 21, 1980
The Constitution
I want to say immediately to members from that province, most of whom are opposite, that I have been an advocate of constitutional recognition of language rights since entering this House. I am on record more than once to that effect. The Prime Minister bit off half the apple in the Official Languages Act, which was, as you will recall, sir, the constitutional amendment slipped in under the table but which did not give constitutional authority to the sweeping recognition of languages which he was seeking.
So now he is back with the declaration of rights, through which he seeks to smuggle into the constitution language recognition which he could not achieve in any other way because at this stage it is unacceptable to quite a number of the provinces, including the province of Quebec.
Again 1 would emphasize that in my own personal view the question of educational and language rights is fundamental. It relates directly to the freedom of the individual and should be recognized in any constitution of this country. At the same time, it cannot be forced down the throats of the provinces without grave danger to national unity. We are discovering it in this debate, we are discovering it in the editorials of the leading newspapers throughout the country, including all of them in the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. lady wishes to ask a question, I would be very happy to respond. No? I would point out, sir, that the constitution of 1867 provided certain recognition by the Fathers of Confederation, who were signatories of that document as well as of those thereafter, of language and educational rights in the provinces.
As pointed out recently by Premier Buchanan, the Prime Minister and his government have no mandate to make changes in the constitution over the objections of the provinces.
To make changes, as Mr. St. Laurent did in 1949, following consultation and consensus is one thing. To attempt to do so over the objections of the majority of provincial premiers, nullifies, of course, the Prime Minister's own amending formula and, in effect, strikes at the fabric of Canada.
If the Prime Minister has abrogated his sense of responsibility in an unreasoning insistence on creating a place in history for himself regardless of the consequences to Canada, surely there must be some people on the government side who recognize and realize what Canada is all about.
This nation was built on compromise, not revolution; on mutual agreement, not constitutional activism; on consensus, not the arbitrary imposition of one person's ideas. It is time for the Prime Minister and the government to stop treating the constitution as a scrap of paper. Over and over we have heard it referred to as a British document. In fact it is a Canadian document, created by Canadians and drafted by Canadians long before it went to London.
We have all agreed that there must be change. As far as the Prime Minister is concerned, the necessity to consult and the
need for unanimity or near unanimity simply represents what he calls a strait-jacket. It is understandable that he would feel that way, but this is the kind of federal-provincial balance the Canadian people want. At one time or another, the rule of consultation and consensus, which has never insisted on unanimity, has been called forth by every premier, of Quebec as well as of the other provinces. In fact, no province today is complaining more loudly than Quebec, from all political quarters in that province.


An hon. Member:: Do you want Levesque?


Erik Nielsen: I do not know the hon. member's riding but he asks whether I want Levesque. I will not join issue with him.
Even the material made available by the Prime Minister's office to Liberal party members-and I have it all-outlining and commenting on the highlights of the proposed resolution makes it clear that what we are talking about is more than simple patriation. What we are talking about, in effect, deals with far-reaching and major constitutional amendments smuggled in under the guise of patriation. That material says in part:
In addition to patriation, the resolution contains several important constitutional provisions:
Then it goes on to list them. We have already heard from members on this side with respect to our objections to section 42, one of the most invidious sections in the whole of the constitutional proposal.
I repeat, sir, that there is no quarrel whatever with simple patriation. There is no quarrel, so far as I and members on this side are concerned, with recognizing equal language rights from coast to coast. But what we have before us is infinitely more than that. This is a hastily thrown together attempt to produce what is now in effect a new and revised constitution, using the device of patriation. It is an unprincipled attempt, I suggest, to use the British Parliament to bring about amendments which the government does not have the constitutional authority or the moral fortitude to bring about by itself. Furthermore, it has all been brought about in the context of an almost unanimous rejection by the premiers of the provinces of the pretension of this government to go it alone in major and substantial constitutional changes.
We have the right to ask whether the government's emissaries, those extraordinary envoys who have apprised the British parliament of these facts, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) and the minister for government propaganda-I cannot remember the proper name of his portfolio-


An hon. Member:: The Minister of Communications.


Erik Nielsen: That is it, that is the nice term. They went over there to see the Queen. One is irresistibly reminded of the nursery rhyme:
Pussy cat, pussy cat, where have you been?
I have been to London to see the Queen.
Pussy cat, pussy cat, what did you do there?
1 caught a little mouse under the chair.
October 21, 1980

Mr. Speaker, methinks it was a rat they caught under the chair. That is what is hidden in this document. If the Prime Minister and the government are permitted to carry this resolution through to a conclusion, we will be dealing with a new and different constitution imposed hastily and against the wishes of the majority of the provinces. All the checks and balances which have grown up over 100 years will be destroyed.
Coming to the performance of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien)-who was here earlier tonight and I am sorry is not here now-I want to make as many allowances for him as possible because, through the years, he has been a good friend of mine. We all understand his commitment to constitutional revision, which is second only to that of the Prime Minister. He has talked about promises made during the referendum campaign. We have no way of knowing, of course, what promises the minister may have made within the purlieus of his own riding. For all we know, he may have promised the moon. But he cannot expect Parliament to make good on all the promises he may have made in the referendum campaign. He may have been guilty of overselling, but that is between himself and his electors. We are dealing with an attempt by the government to do away in one fell swoop with a system we have enjoyed for over 100 years. We are dealing with an attempt to replace a system we have enjoyed for over a century with one devised by the Prime Minister. We are faced with a situation which is absolutely unique in our history when the Government of Canada decides to revise and amend, in effect to rewrite, the Canadian Constitution through the instrumentality of the British parliament, in spite of the fact that the majority of the provinces are against it.
What are the principles embodied in the Prime Minister's amending formula? How easily he and his government toss them aside when it is a question of replacing the constitution with one that they want. How easily we can understand the socialist government of Saskatchewan and the position of the socialist party in this House. They believe in the absolute right of the state to control everything. That is their overriding principle and the mere matter of the constitution does not change that position, despite the remarks of the critic for the NDP. There have been criticisms, too, from the government side, of the proposal, by the premiers to take the government to court to block the proposed action. I can see nothing wrong with that. An implication that this action is undemocratic or indefensible is not quite understandable when that party themselves referred Bill 60 to the Supreme Court.
I put it this way, sir. If it is not unconstitutional for the federal government to rewrite and revise the Constitution of Canada unilaterally, then what could possibly be unconstitutional? I do not see how any of these proposals can have any effect at the provincial level unless the provincial legislatures ratify and agree with them. Certainly the proposed bill of rights, which falls squarely within the property and civil rights section of provincial jurisdiction, can end any legal standing in
The Constitution
any province until and unless adopted by the legislature of that province.
It made me sick to hear the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and others opposite refer to the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker's proposals. Mr. Diefenbaker would not be pursuing the course that is being pursued here today. He would have sent his Bill of Rights to London and he would have had it incorporated into the constitution. He would not have gone even that far without the consensus of the provincial premiers, because if any man in this country knew what the constitutional bounds rested upon, it was that right hon. gentleman who is no longer with us. The first ones to cry loudly to Heaven against such an action would have been those who sit opposite. Mr. Diefenbaker was too good a Canadian and too good a constitutionalist to engage in this kind of constitutional sleight of hand.
I say to the Liberal majority over there-those who won an election by telling the people of Canada that they would not increase the price of oil and who are now riding roughshod over provincial rights-that there is a great deal more to the constitutional arrangement than a scrap of paper, which is how they seem to regard it. The constitution can only be honoured if it is respected by those it is intended to serve. It cannot be imposed and forced upon people by a government majority in Parliament. 1 repeat, we are for patriation; bring it back and we will support it. But bring it back unchanged. When it is in Canadian hands then we will go about amending the constitution in a constitutional way, in Canada.
What the government is doing is illegal by the criteria of their own formula. We want language rights; we will put them in the constitution when each province ratifies that proposal within its own jurisdiction. That is what Quebec wants and that is what the majority of the provinces want. This, sir, is an amendment by force, an amendment by compulsion. This is nothing more or less than the rape of the constitution by the Liberal party. Speaker after speaker over there has risen to say agreement cannot be reached. That is their excuse for going this route. They say the provinces are too slow in consenting, that they do not move quickly enough for this Liberal majority. It used to be the socialists who were Liberals in a hurry and now it is the Liberals who are republicans in a hurry. They cannot wait for the exercise of provincial rights so they wipe them out, wipe them right out of the book. If you can do this you can do anything.
The Prime Minister has already promised to make further changes satisfactory and appealing to his friends, allies and bedmates in the NDP. Apparently that has happened tonight. I do not know what the details are, but it is all part and parcel of their tactics. The Prime Minister's attitude is that the constitution belongs to him and to the Liberal party. He will make the changes. He will write in whatever they want. He has absolute power. What is a constitution worth under those circumstances? It is simply a Liberal document put together in the back rooms of the Liberal party and shoved down the throats of an unwilling nation. Can anyone blame the premiers for going to court? Perhaps in the courts of this country they

October 21, 1980
The Constitution
will find some last vestige of constitutional consciousness, some recognition that the constitution is not the personal property of the Liberal party and the Prime Minister. How often have we heard the cry: "They are moving too slowly for us, so we will shove it down their throats; they are impeding our course, so out they must go"? We have heard it over and over again in the procedural arguments, particularly after the House leader spoke the other day. All of a sudden the clamps came down; everybody was supposed to stop talking, stop debating and away we go, in the face of the Prime Minister's assurance that every single member of this House, from all parts of the country, would have freedom to express his views.
When this matter goes to committee, sir, that committee rule of the guillotine after five minutes is going to be imposed by the Liberal majority. Make no mistake about it, there will be no opportunity for any meaningful participation in debate. Even if it were possible somehow to avoid the tricky process which the government has adopted in putting this matter before the House, we cannot touch the substance of the matter at all. All we can debate is the resolution, as was pointed out by the opposition House leader. We dare to oppose so down we go. We are dead. We are emasculated by the process which has been designed by the government in Machiavellian terms to bring this about. We cannot even ask for time to make suggestions. Not even that. The new absolutism does not tolerate criticism. The new might, the manipulation of the public mind to suit the policies to be shaped by the government in power, does not tolerate criticism. It crushes it beneath the boots of the hobnailed Liberal majority just as it crushed the life out any attempt by Canadians who live above the 60th parallel to be heard at that table. We were not important enough. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) says we only number 25,000 people. But we have 15,000 voters, which is more than the combined total of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia when they came into confederation, and we have been fighting for 25 years-a quarter of a century-to get into confederation on the basis of contributing to the constitutional and federated fabric of this country. But as long as that party sits over there, sir, we will never realize our legitimate aspiration, the aspiration of Canadians who are just as equal as any Canadian in southern Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise briefly on a point of order, as we sometimes say, to set the record straight. During the course of his speech, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) said that in the old days the tabling of minority reports by committees was always the practice. I questioned this comment and he challenged by memory when I said that in the years that I have been here I have never known a committee of the House to be permitted to table a minority report.
It would take a great deal of time if I sought to read everything that is written on the issue, but I draw the attention of my hon. friend to Beauchesne, fifth edition, citations 640,
641 and so on. If the hon. member thinks that the fifth edition is a recent edition published since certain rule changes were made, I would refer him back to the fourth edition of Beauchesne which was published in 1958 and draw to his attention citations 318 and 319. In both these volumes it is made clear that the only report that can be tabled by a committee is the report passed by the majority. The citations even go so far as to say that the chairman of the committee must sign that report even if he was against it. Beauchesne clearly says that no minority report can be tabled. If that is not enough, I would refer the hon. member to May's, nineteenth edition, pages 658 and 659 where the same practice is outlined.
I am not rising at this point to enter into any discussion on the procedural admissibility of the hon. member's motion; I am merely confirming my memory and questioning his. He really cannot get away with the statement that in the old days minority reports were tabled. They were released outside the House, but not in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair thanks the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for his intervention and reserves judgment on the admissibility of the proposed amendment. If any hon. members would care to offer argument at this point concerning admissibility of the amendment, the Chair would entertain them.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay debate on the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Why are members opposite laughing? They have been jeering throughout this whole debate, so I guess it is not surprising. I do not want to delay the House by speaking to the admissibility of the motion, but I do want to say that there is a difference between what I am saying and what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is saying. Minority reports were not accepted as separate reports at the table, nor were they accepted as reports coming from the committee, but in those days there was the kind of approach to procedure in committee by which, if there were numbers favouring a minority view-and I forget the numbers-or even a sense by the committee chairman and members on the committee that there was a minority point of view, then that point of view came forward under the signature of the chairman.
I am not trying to sell the House the idea that there used to be a right to table minority reports, not at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not what you said earlier.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member may have misunderstood what I was saying. He knows as well as I do that minority viewpoints were included in the report when it came back before the House and they were debated. That, in essence, is what is being proposed by this motion-a right, because of changes in the practices here, for the minority voice in that committee to go forward with the report notwithstanding any rules and practices that may exist now.
October 21, 1980

If that amendment is not accepted we know what will happen. I appeal to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who has been around through the changes, because a minority report will not see the light of day in any report which comes back to this House. My sole objective in moving this amendment is to ensure that if there is a minority voice which emerges in our committee considerations it will be heard and debated in this House.


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, you invited hon. members to comment, if they wish, on whether or not the amendment is receivable. I should like to say a few words in that regard. My colleagues spoke of the good old days. 1 can go back no further than 1972 for obvious reasons, but I could perhaps draw your attention to the Journals for March 16, 1972, page 194, where it is stipulated that:
Though, in its report, a committee can mention the opinion of those of its members who do not share the views of the majority of their colleagues, it may not table a minority report in the House.
Obviously, it is pointless for me to add anything more. That, then, is the extent of my participation to the debate in answer to your invitation to comment on whether or not the amendment is receivable; once again, that amendment is nothing but another dilatory measure proposed by a Progressive Conservative member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the minister.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, 1 would like to say that the proposal we are debating is, as members opposite tell us, concerned with the protection of minorities. Perhaps we should start protecting the minorities of this House. This House is its own master, irrespective of what it says in Beauchesne. The Alberta legislature, which is more democratic, has been accepting minority reports-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: If you throw a stone at a bunch of dogs and three or four of them start howling, you know what happens. 1 myself have signed a minority report on a legislative committee in Alberta. Surely this House will not deny the rights of the minority when the whole matter about which we are talking is for the protection of those rights.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest with respect to our process tonight that the Chair take the amendment under advisement and hear argument tomorrow as to its admissibility or inadmissibility so that we may proceed with the debate tonight. I understand that the hon. parliamentary secretary opposite intends to follow me in the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has indicated its reservations cohcerning the admissibility of the amendment and has invited comments at this stage. If there is no
The Constitution
further comment, the Chair will recognize speakers in the debate.


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the admissibility of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), it seems to me that it is not only a matter for your consideration but also for the consideration of the government. If it does in fact wish to present this matter in good faith as good Canadians, I submit that it should support the presentation of this amendment by the hon. member for Yukon. If, on the other hand, they wish and intend to frustrate the process which has been practised in this House and in this nation since 1867, then they will certainly impose their influence upon you to rule this motion out of order. You, sir, as the Speaker, have acknowledged your responsibility. I hope that the native responsibilities which are incumbent upon a broadminded government will cause it to pursue a favourable consideration of this motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would call to the attention of the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) that it will rule within its own capacity on the admissibility of the amendment. If there are any further comments on the admissibility of the proposed amendment, the Chair would like to hear them now and, if not, the Chair will defer its decision until tomorrow.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because l have suggested in a spirit of reasonableness that we suspend the argument on the amendment until tomorrow rather than interrupting the progress of the debate tonight. If I am going to be precluded from speaking to the matter tomorrow, I would point out-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thursday, tomorrow, is an opposition day.


Erik Nielsen: I am sorry, it is Thursday. The hon. member has correctly pointed out that tomorrow is an opposition day. The intervention by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), who is very skilful at throwing sand in these debates on procedural matters, has nothing to do with the existing rules simply because of the opening words of the motion. There may have been a flaw and, indeed, one must go along with the Chair's ruling pursuant to the practices of this House with respect to the amendment presented by the opposition House leader the other day. That amendment was not prefaced by the words "notwithstanding the Standing Orders and practices of either House", as those words prefaced the amendment we are discussing now.
What this amendment is requesting the House to do is to suspend the very Standing Order which the government House leader asks the Chair to invoke against it. It is asking the House to suspend the Standing Orders and practices of the House for the purpose of ensuring that a gag will not be placed on the voice of the minority on that committee. Any member who has been around here for any time at all, knows what happens in committee. We are gagged by a five-minute rule.

October 21, 1980
The Constitution
We are gagged by a Liberal majority which, if it does not stay there, walks out when something happens that does not please it. This amendment ensures that there will be carried into practice the very thing that the government is asking us to enshrine in its bill of rights in this constitution amendment, namely, the voice of the minority.
That is what this amendment is asking the government to do. They can adopt the course of trying to stonewall it by procedural argument-asking the Chair to rule it out of order on procedural grounds, but if they did the right thing and were not afraid of the minority voice they would allow it to be heard when that report comes back to the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has heard the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) three times on the point of order. One aspect, however, has not been touched on by anyone who has spoken to date and that is the references to the practices of either House. The Chair has some concern about a resolution of this House apparently giving an instruction concerning the practices of the other place. That is a matter which, 1 am sure, the Chair will take under advisement.
As I indicated earlier, at this stage the Chair would like to reserve judgment. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer).


Mr. Mayer:: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief observation to make. It seems to me that in the democratic system that is embodied in this chamber, one of the most difficult and most delicate things a democratic system has to deal with is the treatment of minorities once the majority has assumed power. If we, by definition are the minority in this House-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has asked hon. members to defer comment on the point of order unless they have something fundamental to contribute. The Chair would like to recognize speakers in the general debate with the concurrence of the House. This was the suggestion made by hon. members, including the mover of the amendment. With the concurrence of the House the Chair would like to proceed in this way.
Are there other hon. members who wish to speak on the motion before the House?


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen)-


An hon. Member:: Three in a row.


An hon. Member:: Filibuster!


An hon. Member:: Why don't you people on the government side speak?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte has the floor.


Fred Alward McCain: union. If tricked or bullied out of what they highly value, they will never be content.
I suggest that hon. members opposite look at the words of Mr. Howe whom history books identify as one of theirs. If tricked or bullied-I emphasize especially that word "bullied", they will never be content. It seems obvious to me that the government has found itself unable to arrange an honest practicable scheme for bringing home the constitution and has chosen to bully the provinces into accepting those things which they oppose. They will also have the opportunity, some day in the future, by way of their proposed referendum in section 42, to trick the provinces out of what is rightly theirs. To them, 1 say Joseph Howe was absolutely right when he said that this sort of policy would create incurable dissension.
So we see that compromise was the theme of the day and eventually it led to confederation. But the compromise did not stop there, for if it had we would never have survived as a country to see this day. No, this sense of co-operation and willingness to make certain concessions on behalf of many people is the underlying principle that has allowed Canada to become what it is today-the largest country in the world operating within the structures of co-operative federalism. This has come about because leaders of government have, over the last 100 years, chosen to pursue the ideals set out in that original agreement, those of co-operation, concession, reconciliation of differences and a spirit of unity in working toward a common goal-a Canada they love.
I think it might be wise to spend a few minutes examining some of the examples that have occurred over the past 100 years to illustrate the points I have just set forth. Many amendments to the British North America Act have been brought about over the years. I will come to those shortly. First, though, let us examine some of the lines of thought developed over a period of years with respect toward the union of the British North American provinces. In 1888 in an editorial in the Toronto Globe, the following philosophy was extended:
The provinces party to the bargain, were, at the time of the compact, independent nations in the sense that they enjoyed self-government subject to the Imperial veto upon their legislation, to the Imperial appointment of the Governor General and to the Queen's command of the forces. The dominion was the creation of the provinces, or in other words, was created by the British parliament at the request of the provinces. The dominion, being non-existent at the time the bargain was made, was plainly not a party to the bargain. It cannot then be a party to the revision of the bargain.
Bear in mind this was in 1880 when already there were some pressures for changes in the bargaining procedures. Although this idea may be somewhat extreme in its exclusion of the central government from the amending process, it does bear out a valuable thesis, that the provinces were the creators of the federal government and therefore must play a vital role in any revision of the original pact. I submit that that is certainly not the case today. One year later a former prime minister, the Right Hon. Wilfrid Laurier, recognized the vital sense of agreement that must pervade any discussion on the topic of federalism when he said:
The Constitution
The only means of maintaining confederation is to recognize that, within its sphere assigned to it by the constitution, each province is as independent of control by the federal Parliament as the latter is from control by the provincial legislatures.
This perhaps may be the best assessment of that tenuous fine line that defines our system of government. Each of the 11 governments is independent of the other within the framework of the original agreement. What actually lies at the very heart of Mr. Laurier's statement and is most important in any interpretation of that statement, is that no government should act unilaterally to overrule the other. Once again, the spirit of co-operation is emphasized as being essential in this assessment of confederation. Mr. Laurier was much more forceful in his comment on the distribution of powers when he wrote to Lomer Gouin, a member of the Quebec legislative assembly in 1918. In that letter he said:
To give to the central government, which is drawn from the majority race and the majority religion, the authority to interfere in the jurisdiction assigned to the provinces, is to destroy the legislative independence of the provinces and to make of it a snare and a mockery.
Just what is the hon. gentleman saying? He is asserting that any attempt by the central government to move into provincial jurisdiction such as is proposed to this House presently is to make the authority of the provinces a mockery and essentially to destroy them as a voice of government as originally set out in the British North America Act. It would seem to me that there is no better appraisal of the outcome of the passage of this proposed resolution than that delivered by Mr. Laurier over 60 years ago. Let me quote from another authority:
Federalism is by its very essence a compromise and a pact. It is a compromise in the sense that when national consensus on all things is not desirable or cannot readily obtain, the area of consensus is reduced in order that consensus on some things may be reached. It is a pact or quasi-treaty, in the sense that the terms of that compromise cannot be changed unilaterally. This is not to say that the terms are fixed forever, but only that in changing them, every effort must be made not to destroy the consensus on which the federated nation rests.
That was a quote from the great man himself, the Prime Minister. This of course was his philosophy prior to his rise to power and his attempts to lead Canada down the garden path to a unitary state. It was back in 1964 that the right hon. gentleman delivered a paper to a conference of Canadian law teachers and political scientists whom he was no doubt trying to impress with his wise assessment of the Canadian governmental system.
I must say there are very few times that I find myself in agreement with the Prime Minister, but I find it very easy to agree with him on that statement. I believe, though, that every effort has not been made by the present government to preserve the vital consensus upon which the federated nation rests, if I may borrow the words of the right hon. gentleman. It is fine to say all of these things, but unless such sentiments as they convey are put into practice they are of little value.
For the next few minutes, I would like to examine some of the actions of various men throughout history which do, in fact, embody the philosophies I have just cited. First let us look at the example of 1907 when an amendment was proposed with regard to the federal subsidies paid to the provinces. It is of little relevance to this debate to spend any time on the

October 21, 1980
The Constitution
amounts proposed or the amounts that had been paid in the past. It is sufficient to realize that all parties acknowledged the need to update the system under which such subsidies were administered. The issue had been discussed at a federal-provincial conference convened solely for the purpose of that discussion. It was there, with a provincial premier as the chairman of the conference, I might add, that agreement was reached between the federal government and all provinces save British Columbia as to how the provisions for subsidies should be changed. British Columbia's opposition was later taken into consideration and some changes were made to accommodate that province. It was Wilfrid Laurier, who was prime minister of the day, and his wisdom, which I noted earlier, which prevailed. He again reiterated his philosophy in the House of Commons in 1907 by saying:
Confederation is a compact, made originally by four provinces but adhered to by all the nine provinces who have entered it, and I submit to the judgment of this House and to the best consideration of its members, that this compact should not be lightly altered.
That is so true. The compact should not be lightly altered and it was not altered by Mr. Laurier. He managed to reach a consensus with the parties concerned and then and only then did he submit the proposed change to the British Parliament for approval. However, as I mentioned earlier, the government of British Columbia was not completely satisfied with the deal which was proposed so it petitioned the British government asking them to change the wording of the amendment. This was done because, as Winston Churchill put it in a speech to the British Parliament, "I would be very sorry if it were thought that the action which His Majesty's government had decided to take meant that they had decided to establish as a precedent that whenever there is a difference on a constitutional question between the federal government and the provinces, the Imperial government would always be prepared to accept the federal point of view as against the provincial." He did not want it understood in Canada that the Imperial government would let the child of the provinces, the federal government, be the dominant master of the government of the United Kingdom. That was his position. The provinces should prevail, consensus should be reached.
That is an opinion to be highly regarded and a precedent to be taken seriously. And it is in no way one that is buried deep in the volumes of history. The Daily Telegraph of London just a couple of weeks ago made the assertion that Mr. Churchill's view of such a situation should still apply, that is, that the British Parliament is under no obligation to accept the federal view as the final word regardless of threatening statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) and the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Roberts). On the other hand, it is well within their rights to heed the voices of the provincial governments in this current struggle. Also I might add that they are well aware of the differences between the federal and provincial governments as evidenced by statements in the press such as the one I have just noted and the comments made by some members of the British parliament. These men seem to be in no way intimidated by the threats of the dynamic duo.
The second example which I feel deserves mention took place in 1940. It is one that I believe establishes a rather valuable precedent with regard to the matter currently before this House. In 1935 the government of the then prime minister, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, enacted legislation to establish unemployment insurance in Canada. The government of the day believed it to be within its jurisdiction to enact such legislation and they had been advised by their counsel to that effect. The opposition, under Mr. Mackenzie King, had demanded a referral to the Supreme Court for its opinion on the validity of such legislation. However, an election was called before such action could be taken. When the new Parliament took office-and I ask members on the other side to note this-under Mr. Mackenzie King the legislation was indeed referred to the Supreme Court which ruled that it was ultra vires of Parliament. An appeal was then launched before the Privy Council, at that time the highest authority on such matters. The Privy Council handed down its decision in 1936 which read in part as follows:
-Dominion legislation, even though it deals with dominion property-
I ask hon. members to take note of the next phrase-
-may yet be so framed as to invade civil rights within the province, or encroach upon the classes of subjects which are reserved to provincial competence. If on the true view of the legislation it is found that in reality in pith and substance the legislation invades civil rights within the province, or in respect of other classes or subjects otherwise encroaches upon the provincial field, the legislation will be invalid. To hold otherwise would afford the dominion an easy passage into the provincial domain.
This is precisely what is going on. In the manipulative fashion in which this matter has been presented to us, we may have no access to the courts. There may be no recourse for provinces or individuals, and I submit that we are, at least in a democratic country, entitled to access to the courts. If this is denied to provinces and individuals of this country, what value is any entrenched bill of rights for any citizen, any province, any yet unborn Canadian? There is no confidence in this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: This ruling obviously left the Mackenzie King administration only one course if it wished to enact legislation on unemployment insurance. It had to amend the constitution. This was the route that was followed over a period of three years. Beginning in 1937 Mr. King communicated with the provinces to determine their feeling on the proposed amendment to the constitution. In doing so he discovered that not all provinces were in accord with the federal position. Alberta, under a Social Credit government. New Brunswick, under a Liberal government and Quebec, under a Union Nationale government, all declined to agree to the proposal. It was at this point that Mr. Mackenzie King could have adopted the attitude of the present government, but he was a wiser man. He could have gone ahead with the amendment without full provincial consent. However, he chose to wait until he had full provincial approval before proceeding. He elaborated on this attitude in the House on more than one occasion. At one point in 1938 he was asked when the legislation providing for the
October 21, 1980

amendment would be brought before the Elouse. He answered that it would be done as soon as there was consent-the sooner the better. He had an element of impatience which seems to prevail today but, on the other hand, he had the patience to see it through. He went on to say:
If it cannot be brought in as a result of co-operative effort between the provinces and the dominion, I fail to see how else it can be done. That is the one and only method.
Later in the year, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King commented thus:
We do not want to appear, let alone in reality, to seek in any way to coerce any province of the dominion.
Here was a Liberal prime minister seeking to amend the constitution but clearly unwilling to pursue such an amendment without unanimous support of the provinces.
Eventually, in 1940, full support of the proposed amendment was achieved and a resolution calling on the King to lay before the British parliament the bill containing the proposed amendment was passed by both Houses of Parliament in Canada. The justice minister of the day, Ernest Lapointe, made special note of the support for the resolution which he introduced. He said, "Always we have tried to get the approval of the provinces to an amendment of this kind". Mackenzie King himself said, "The difficult but most necessary part of the whole business was to get the consent of the provinces." I think the words "most necessary" are certainly the important ones in that passage. The right hon. gentleman realized that constitutional amendments required consent of the provinces, that the federal government is in fact the child of the provinces, that the provinces are not the serfs of the central government.
Where is the wisdom of such a man as he today? Besides Mr. Mackenzie King and Mr. Laurier there was also Mr. St. Laurent, Mr. Diefenbaker and Mr. Pearson, all of whom sought constitutional change only after a consensus had been reached with the provinces. Mackenzie King also realized that consent could not be achieved on a broad range of issues. He stated that success had rested on the fact that the provinces had only been asked to agree to an amendment confined to one topic. Again, to quote:
-the circumstances which enabled us to get the approval of all the provinces was the fact that we were asking for only one amendment. May I say that if we had ventured to go beyond we would probably have met with further objections on the part of some, if not all the provinces.
This idea also seemed to prevail with Mr. Laurier in 1907. Only an amendment on subsidies was sought. In 1951, with Mr. St. Laurent, only an amendment on old age pension was sought. In 1960, with Mr. Diefenbaker, only an amendment with regard to the tenure of judges was sought. In 1964, with Mr. Pearson, further amendment was sought to the Old Age Pension Act, once again a single issue amendment with a single subject. In each instance, consensus was achieved. The nation retained its friendly relations, one province with another, and each province with the central government. Here are five clearcut examples, even precedents, of governments seeking constitutional change with, and only with, consent of the provinces.
Adjournment Debate
The present government might ask how it was done. It might also ask a further question of itself: why can we not do it? I believe two elements provide the key: first, the spirit of co-operation, of compromise, and, second, single issue amendment which means going after only one amendment at a time.
I think it is safe to say that if the government had attempted patriation with an amending formula it might not have got into the struggle with the provinces in which it now finds itself. But the sheer enormity of the goal, that is, to reach a unanimous decision on 12 issues, made it impossible to achieve. That is what happened at the last meeting of the first ministers.
What did the government do when this route failed? Did it see the light and try to come to terms on just one issue? No, the government chose to throw aside 100 years of history, history laden with that spirit of compromise and consensus. It chose to throw that aside and act unilaterally, bringing in those amendments which the government most desired. In doing so, it has tried to wrap those elements of the amendment which it knows would be most objectionable to the people in an "academic gloss on real life", if I may be so bold as to borrow the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that is what he calls the British right to listen to the provinces; their right not to accept immediately the position or demands of the federal government. Those are the things he calls the academic gloss on real life, things which in the past have proven crucial to the process of constitutional change. Those are the things that he and his government choose to slough off as mere technicalities.
It is obvious that the government also wishes to avoid the technicalities of this proposed resolution and prefers to wrap them up in the appealing sugar-coated gloss of generalized advertising campaigns and motherhood issues.
I for one, and I believe this is a position much supported on this side of the House, find this whole matter repugnant. It shows a high level of contempt for the lessons of history from which we are supposed to draw our knowledge and on which our basic government and system of justice have long survived to the benefit of all Canadians. It would be unfair, however, to accuse the present administration of being totally ignorant of history. Rather it is aware only of that portion of the past which facilitates its needs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Fred Alward McCain: May I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
October 21, 1980
Adjournment Debate

Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, on September 22 last, CP Rail advised passengers on the Farnham-Montreal, Sainte-Therese, Laval and Montreal line that it will abandon its commuter train service-which has been operated for generations-due to an increased deficit during the past years.
Mr. Speaker, as a result of the decision taken by the board of directors, some people and passengers advised me that CP Rail was going to give up its commuter train service. On October 17 last. 1 pointed out to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) the importance of that service and especially that decision which seemed to be quite unexpected, considering that they gave only a month's notice before dropping that service. I mentioned that I was aware of the fact that it was a commuter train service and that it also rests with the province of Quebec and the municipalities involved to provide service to commuters.
The minister replied that he had met his provincial colleague and as a result of negotiations with a view to assisting in the upgrading of Montreal's rail transport equipment they had come to an agreement in principle. And the minister concluded:
-this agreement should be finalized in the days ahead. However, there is one important thing to remember, although the agreement will provide for a substantial federal contribution to this upgrading program-
It therefore seems quite obvious to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian government is prepared to share the cost of overhauling the equipment, that this is a provincial decision and that, according to the press release issued September 22, CP Rail will abandon two lines, Sainte-Therese, Laval and Montreal, Farnham and Montreal, without this affecting the Lake-shore service between Montreal and Rigaud. Also, at the end of 1979, the Quebec government made public a general plan to merge this service with the metropolitan urban transport system rearranged by the Montreal Urban Community Transit Commision. So as far as the Lakeshore service is concerned, the province agreed to intervene immediately and CP Rail agreed to continue its service. Why is there a double standard? My question is the following: Does CP Rail not have a moral obligation towards the users of these commuter trains, is it possible to abandon in this way a service with less than a month's notice, and if the service is abandoned, does this not mean a lenghty delay before the service is provided again probably by the provincial authorities? But if service is abandoned on October 26, then there is nothing much we can do and nobody knows how long that can last.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that CP Rail should maintain this service in operation and extend the October 26 deadline until such time as the province would agree to integrate this transportation network in the greater Montreal urban network, as it did for the Rigaud-Lakeshore service.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that, as the minister said in reply to my question last Friday, October 17, a substantial amount will be provided to the province to renew commuter train services equipment. If CP Rail still has an accumulated deficit during the integration period of this service, 1 ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to hold back the amount which will be provided to the province to pay the deficit accumulated by CP Rail so that the users of the Sainte-Therese, Laval and Montreal, and of the Farnham and Montreal services may continue to use this public service in view of the high cost of energy and the need to reduce the number of cars in the Montreal area. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as a last resort, I urge the minister to examine these two possibilities, that is, to extend the service after October 26 until the agreement has been signed and implemented by the province of Quebec, or else, to hold back the amounts which will be provided to CP Rail for the deficit accumulated during the period of extension of this service. We cannot accept a double standard in this case, Mr. Speaker. Since the province of Quebec agreed in 1979 to maintain commuter trains to Rigaud and Lakeshore, the same policies and the same principles must apply to the service I have mentioned. I therefore ask the minister to consider these two possibilities, and I believe that the parliamentary secretary has already been informed of my representations in this regard. It is not the first time that I have raised the issue of urban transportation in the Montreal area. There is an integrated transportation network, and this is a concern for me and a priority for the users.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a problem which was discussed a month ago by the federal and provincial transport ministers, that of the daily commuter train services. First of all, it should be noted that passenger service is considered as coming under federal jurisdiction, while commuter trains come under provincial jurisdiction. In the case of Sainte-Therese, the service has never been designated as a passenger service by the Canadian Transport Commission, whose responsibility it is to make such a ruling. In the case of Farnham, the hon. member is certainly aware of the recent decision of the CTC to the effect that the service could no longer be considered a passenger service. As the jurisdiction in this regard is well defined, it is up to the province and the urban municipality to determine the level of daily services in the area. In September, Mr. Speaker, the provinces notified CP Rail that its two services would not be included in the comprehensive regional commuter train network. Because of its substantial losses and the very small number of passengers, CP Rail decided to abandon both services.
To conclude, I must say that the federal-provincial agreement mentioned by the minister in his reply last Friday concerns a contribution to the modernization of the equipment in the over-all federal aid program to urban transport. The
October 21, 1980

minister hopes to make the details of this agreement public within the next few days.
Personally, 1 really sympathize with the people who still depend on that service. I agree that a four-week notice of the permanent interrruption of a service given for many years is too short.
I take note of the request of the hon. member for an extension, or the temporary continuation of that service as suggested by the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy), and shall inform the minister accordingly without delay.


AIR SAFETY-ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS RESPECTING AIRCRAFT AND PILOTS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking tonight about the daily horror stories we are hearing from the Judge Dubin case inquiry. It would appear that flying in Canada today is like playing Russian roulette, and I hope the parliamentary secretary who answers tonight on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) will give a firm commitment on the updating of equipment in control towers at airports across Canada. I also want to hear about a timetable and the amount allotted.
It is very interesting to observe that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) is sitting in the House tonight. I hope we are not having any difficulty obtaining funds from him for updating all the ancient equipment in our control towers across Canada. The public is entitled to a firm commitment from the minister, not a bureaucratic answer. I hope the parliamentary secretary has not brought one with him tonight, prepared by officials in the department that is under investigation.
When I read some of the stories which have been coming out of the Dubin inquiry, Mr. Speaker, it makes my hair stand on end. Here are some of the latest statements:
Inaccurate weather forecasting and stringent landing clearances make it tougher to fly planes in Canada than in the United States, an Air Canada captain said Monday.
Charles Burbank told the Dubin inquiry into aviation safety that weather forecasting in Canada "has gone downhill the last few years," and this has added to the frustration of private and commercial pilots.
Here is a further statement from the Dubin inquiry, as reported in The Citizen on January 15, 1980, under the heading "Air safety setup in 'shambles,' inspectors say." It states:
Canada's air safety monitoring system is "loose, arbitrary, hobbled by precedents and badly needs overhaul," according to Transport Canada's civil aviation inspectors.
The inspectors, whose job it is to enforce air safety, made the comments in a brief presented today to the federal aviation safety inquiry headed by Justice Charles Dubin.
The system is in such a shambles, the brief maintains, that Transport Canada is unable to determine even whether Canadian aircraft are airworthy.
Adjournment Debate
Those are very damaging statements. A further story emanating from the Dubin inquiry, this time coming out of Edmonton, says:
The federal government is to blame for most safety problems at airports without air traffic controllers because it won't spend money on modern equipment-
It is unbelievable that we are not maintaining a proper standard of safety in our control towers in Canada.
In a brief to the inquiry the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association said:
-many problems at small, uncontrolled airports are caused by outdated and unserviceable equipment.
"-the infrastructure required for the efficient, effective and safe operations of commercial aircraft in Canada has not kept pace with the rapid increase in aircraft numbers and aircraft performance," said the association.
I hope the association will keep up their pressure. They will certainly receive my support here in the House of Commons.
Here is a further statement out of Edmonton under the heading "Inquiry told pilots short on training". It says:
New commercial pilots don't get enough training in Canada to be considered safe, a federal inquiry into aviation safety in Canada was told Wednesday.
The Northern Air Transport Association, which represents about 90 per cent of the commercial carriers in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, told the Dubin inquiry major airlines often refuse to hire new pilots.
"It is therefore left to the rest of the commercial aviation industry to hire these new pilots, train them and employ them as they gain experience," the association said.
I wish to point out that the Dubin inquiry has not completed its investigation. It is to be wrapped up very shortly. But there is no way we can wait for it to finish its hearings and for the report to be published and for the minister, months down the road, to take a look at the results. He has to give a commitment now, tonight, that some firm action is forthcoming to update the equipment in the control towers and that moneys will be allotted to update that equipment. We are not looking for general statements and the big happy smile we usually get from the Minister of Transport when we raise these issues in the House of Commons.
Another report, this time from Calgary, said:
Aviation spokesmen have called for better training of private pilots in the face of an increasing number of aircraft accidents in Alberta.
There were 48 aircraft accidents in the province to the end of May-five of them involving fatalities-compared with 42 in the first five months of last year.
This is a disaster situation, Mr. Speaker. Another report today, from the The Globe and Mail, entitled "Downed-air-craft locators called $4.25 million gaffe"-and I hope the department that caused this goof has not prepared the answer which the parliamentary secretary is going to read out here tonight-said:
Six years after being told to do so, and after spending $4.25 million, Canada's general aviation community is using an emergency life-saving device that is nearly useless.
I want a political answer tonight, not a bureaucratic answer prepared by a civil servant. We want a firm commitment from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and the government.

October 21, 1980
Adjournment Debate
An article in the Ottawa Citizen of July 17, 1980, headed "Airlines Ordered to Probe Possible Jet Engine Flaws" reads in part:
Major Canadian airlines are being advised to look for defects in Pratt and Whitney engines in their DC-9, Boeing 727, and Boeing 737 passenger jets after an engine on a Hawaiian Airline plane broke apart on take-off last month.
The situation in Canada is deteriorating. We are far below American standards. I have here a recent letter written by a private pilot to the editor which was published in The Globe and Mail on October 13, 1980. In it he discusses the antiquated equipment used in the control towers. He does not blame the air traffic controllers because it has nothing to do with them. The matter has to do with the Minister of Transport and his department, not his employees. He went into great detail to explain about the outdated equipment in our control towers. He says in part:
The term 'inefficiency' does not refer directly to the air traffic controllers, but to the rules, regulations and equipment they (ATC) have to work with. I can sympathize with a controller who has to work with antiquated equipment, just as I, as a pilot, might have to fly an aircraft without such sophisticated instrumentation-
I hope we will receive a firm commitment from the parliamentary secretary tonight because the Canadian public is entitled to such a statement.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's interest and concern in aviation safety is most welcome. The subject of aviation safety is one that has been prominent in the public's mind during the hearings held by the Dubin commission across the country.
Perhaps I could take this opportunity to mention the progress of these hearings. The commission has completed five of the six phases of its inquiry, namely, airworthiness, accident investigation and reporting, enforcement, navigational aids and uncontrolled airports. The final phase, now in progress, concerns personnel.
The hearings, as members know, have taken place in many cities and have listened to testimony from a large number of groups and individuals. So great was the interest in this inquiry that the minister recently granted Mr. Dubin an extension to his mandate which would otherwise have expired this month.
This raises the question of a report on the commission's findings. It is now our understanding that Mr. Dubin intends to release a series of reports beginning early in 1981, rather than a single final report. This will allow public discussion on each aspect of the inquiry as the findings appear. I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that it will also allow the department to undertake prompt action on Mr. Dubin's recommendations.
The hon. member raises several specific issues on which evidence has been presented to the commission. The minister has stated several times, and I would emphasize again, that it would not be prudent to take hasty action on the basis of separate pieces of evidence alone. It is only reasonable to hear the counter-evidence and the conclusions of the inquiry itself after it has weighed consideration of all the testimony. It is our
hope that the findings of the commission will lead to a safer environment for air travel.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Are you taking the train home this weekend, Bob?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: I take the airplane just as you do.


HUMAN RIGHTS-INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to follow up a question which I asked in this House on May 9, 1980. The question was directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the absence of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). I asked when the government intended to implement the recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission including, specifically, the recommendations regarding the adding of prescribed grounds of discrimination. I outlined the various recommendations of the Human Rights Commission which were made in its most recent annual report, that was tabled in March, 1980.
At that time the Prime Minister indicated that while he had not had an opportunity to examine the report himself, he hoped that the Minister of Justice would reply some time the following week. He also indicated that the government was seriously considering establishing a special committee of the House which would have a mandate to consider the various recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in its most recent annual report.
As we know, to date the Minister of Justice has not indicated in this House what action he intends to take on the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission. Of course, the government has not yet tabled any recommendations for a special committee as I proposed, and as did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to consider these important recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
I would like briefly to summarize the present mandate of the Canadian Human Rights Commission so that we might be aware of it. I am sure most Canadians recognize the importance of the job it is doing on behalf of all Canadian citizens, particularly minority groups within Canada.
As of December 31, 1979, the Canadian Human Rights Commission had had some two years of experience in administering a very new federal Human Rights Act. Under the terms of that act they have a mandate to investigate alleged discrimination pursuant to various proscribed forms of discrimination. Those proscribed forms of discrimination are outlined in section 2 of the act as follows, and I should just like to cite these for the House. They are on grounds of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, conviction for which a pardon has been granted and, in matters related to employment, physical handicap.
October 21, 1980

In the spring of this year, the annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended that these grounds of prohibited discrimination should be extended. They did this after careful research and study and after discussing the subject with many people-witnesses, academic experts and others in Canada. They recommended that the presently proscribed grounds of discrimination be expanded to include the following: previous history of mental illness and previous history of dependence on alcohol and/or all other drugs; mental illness; mental handicap or retardation; sexual orientation and political belief. In addition, they recommended the extension of the presently limited protection for the physically handicapped to include all grounds presently covered in the Human Rights Act. At this point the prohibition of discrimination against the physically handicapped relates merely to employment. As I say, after studying this matter, it was recommended that this be extended.
We fully support this recommendation and urge the government to implement it at the earliest possible time and end these insidious forms of discrimination. We would go further and urge that if the government is serious about its commitment to human rights in 1980, these grounds of discrimination which are presently proscribed in the Canadian Human Rights Act should be included within the proposed charter of rights. Not only the nine grounds which are presently proscribed by the Human Rights Act, but in addition, those grounds which have been recommended after careful study and deliberation by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In other words, section 15 of the proposed charter of rights would be expanded to include the grounds presently proscribed as well as the grounds I outlined earlier which were proposed as additions.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, I hope the federal government will ensure that, at last, all Canadians at all levels of government, whether federal, provincial or municipal, will not be discriminated against on the bases outlined not only in the existing Canadian Human Rights Act but the proposed bases which would be added to it.
I should like to dwell for a moment on the question of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. As members of this House know, for far too long Canadian men and women have been discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. This discrimination has resulted in too many "gay" persons silently suffering humiliation and harassment. As the Canadian Human Rights Commission stated in the most recent report as follows:
Although moral or religious convictions about homosexuality are relevant to the private lives of individuals, when it comes to job performance or access to services sexual orientation is irrelevant. Whatever one's views are on the propriety of certain forms of sexual preference, therefore, it must still be acknowledged that persons who are denied quality of opportunity on the basis of their sexual orientation are being discriminated against.
Surely it is time Canadians recognized that this form of discrimination must come to an end wherever it occurs in Canadian society. It is for this reason that we welcome the recommendation of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in this respect and urge the government not only to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the
Adjournment Debate
basis of sexual orientation but to change other federal laws which presently discriminate on this basis. I would point out that the Quebec government has recently done this.
In conclusion, I urge that the government give serious consideration to the recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission for expanding the proposed grounds of discrimination. I urge also that it establish a special committee, as suggested, as I said earlier, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself. If members of the government are serious in their commitment to human rights in this country-and I hope that they are and I hope that the expressions in the charter of rights are indicative of that, although we have some concerns about the present form of the charter-not only will they implement their recommendations but they will augment the resources which have been presently granted to the Canadian Human Rights Commission in order to educate the Canadian public and carry out the mandate which was given to them by the Parliament of Canada.


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) for his very cogent remarks. It is a reminder to this House that all too often we think the only direction in which this country should go is the direction which the government sets. It is a reminder that there are many directions in which a country can go, all of which are reasonable.
The role of the government vis-a-vis human rights in many forms is to step in and even out the odds to prevent those who cannot help themselves, or who have difficulty helping themselves, from being oppressed by others and by society as a whole. I often hear the question in this House, "Are you serious?", as though the one who asks the quesion is the only one who is serious. I assure the hon. member for Burnaby that we on this side of the House have been serious for many years. We have spent many years protecting individuals who could not help themselves. We have a proud history of protecting individuals who could not help themselves.
In 1940 we brought in unemployment insurance. In the fifties we brought in laws protecting workers from exploitation. In 1961, we brought in schemes for adult occupational training and, in 1945, family allowances, all designed to help people who could not help themselves. In 1966 we brought in the guaranteed income supplement, in 1957 hospital insurance, in 1965 the Canada Pension Plan and, in 1966, medicare.
We have helped the senior citizens and in most cases received no credit. The provinces said that they did it all. We helped those who could not afford their own housing. All these people are handicapped in an economic sense. But for this we receive little credit. I am pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that we have a history of bringing in social legislation and bringing it in with a sense of reasonableness.
My good friend has brought in four or five different items as though they were one recommendation. I think the report is

October 21, 1980
Adjournment Debate
divided into separate categories. That is the way they should be dealt with. I find it ironic that sexual orientation should always be lumped in with the physically handicapped. I often wonder what they think about being in the same category. The report quite properly deals with different problems under different categories.
The physically handicapped are under 1.1.1, sexual orientation under 1.2.1 and political belief under 1.2.2 dealing with
the physically handicapped. I assure my hon. friend that the government is serious. I will jog his memory a bit. The Speech from the Throne said, "There will be amendments to protect the rights of the handicapped". I will rephrase that. It said, "Amendments to protect the right of the handicapped will be made to the Human Rights Act". That is fairly unequivocal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Wednesday, October 22, 1980