1980-10-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, whereas the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox), in an address to a meeting of the Broadcast Executive Society yesterday, is reported to have said that he would be taking immediate action to put a halt to the unauthorized earth stations used to pirate television signals and that unauthorized operators would be charged by the Department of Justice and their equipment seized, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That no action be taken which would revoke the rights of residents in northern and remote areas of Canada to enjoy television programming to which they have become accustomed, thereby sending them back to the dark ages of CBC monopoly.


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.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, since political patronage lists of businesses permitted to tender on government contracts are now available to Liberal members of Parliament but not to others, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt):
That these political patronage lists held by the Department of Supply and Services be made available immediately to all members of Parliament and to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business in order that we might determine if small businesses are receiving their fair share of this government's patronage pork-barrel.


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.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity. Yesterday U.S. Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island reaffirmed the U.S. Senate position that it will never pass the Canada-U.S. east coast fisheries treaty in its present form. In view of the experience Canada has gained in dealing with the U.S. on joint management procedures for east coast fisheries and in view of the importance of negotiations presently occurring in Seattle, Washington, to achieve a treaty on Pacific salmon, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House requests the government to provide an opportunity for parliamentary debate before Canada ratifies a west coast salmon treaty; and, furthermore, before any ratification or final agreement is made on the west coast salmon treaty Canada wait until final U.S. Senate approval has been obtained, thus assuring west coast fishermen that Canada's final position will not be further weakened by the U.S. Senate's second bite at the fish which has occurred in the east coast fishing treaty.


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.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas it is the policy of this government to force western Canadian farmers to sell barley to eastern farmers at $40 per tonne less than the foreign market price while simultaneously allowing Ontario farmers to sell 30,000 tonnes of barley at the full price to foreign markets, and in view of the fact that this has resulted in the loss to

October 22, 1980
western farmers of some $1,200,000, thus further demonstrating this government's complete disregard for western Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright):
That this House take steps to prevent further discrimination to western farmers and instruct the minister responsible to allow the free flow of barley to world markets from western Canada.


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.
* * #


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the printing industry is the fourth largest employer in Canada and that a personnel and services directory for Canadian Forces Base Borden is printed by the National Publishing Company of Scottsdale, Arizona, and Canadian dollars are going to the United States, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty):
That in the future all printing of such directories and any other graphic arts material for Canadian Forces bases be provided by Canadian companies.


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.


PENITENTIARIES
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the letter signed by 38 inmates from Dorchester penitentiary and read last night on CBC radio, alleging beatings, cruelty and harassment prior to the recent tragic hostage incident at that penitentiary, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia):
That the Solicitor General include those allegations in the investigation which he has ordered and that he add more non-departmental personnel to the investigating team, including some members of Parliament, in order to ensure a more complete objective assessment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX
Mr.   Len. Gustafson@Assiniboia: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on an urgent and pressing matter. In view of the pressure on farms and small business, problems relating to production and the importance of the continuation of the same, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this House remove the capital gains tax on farms and small business.


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.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
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. The 1979-80 annual report of the National Museums of Canada has once again emphasized the deteriorating conditions of our national, regional and community museums and galleries. Considering the importance of building a strong cultural foundation for Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House instruct the Secretary of State to take the necessary steps to ensure our irreplaceable collections are adequately accommodated, preserved and displayed in such a way that all Canadians may have the opportunity to appreciate our culture and our heritage.


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.
October 22, 1980


CALL FOR RESIGNATION OF MINISTER-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a motion of urgent and pressing importance under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the hon. Liberal member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), who is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Trade (Mr. Lumley), has condemned the government's proposal to impose a federal excise tax on the export of natural gas and hydroelectric power from Canada, and has also, in a recent statement, given his full support to many aspects of the sensible energy policy which was put forward by the Progressive Conservative government in the ill-fated budget of December, 1979, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):
That the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources be directed to resign immediately so that he might be replaced by the hon. member for Rosemont who has proposed wise, Conservative ideas which would put Canada on the road to energy self-sufficiency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell), I move:
That this House urges the government, in view of its stated recognition of the role of spouses working in the home, to bring before the House legislation to provide pensions for all homemaker spouses, in their own right, equivalent to those earned by contributors to the Canada Pension Plan, thus recognizing in full, for pension purposes, the contribution to our society made by those who work in the home.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions SMALL BUSINESS


CALL FOR LEGISLATION RESPECTING DEVELOPMENT BONDS- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to point out to the House that a great number of small businessmen have been applying to banks and lending institutions to take advantage of small business development bonds. The bonds were confirmed in the "Crosbie" budget and in the mini budget of April, but the legislation has never been introduced and the lending institutions will not make loans without the legislation being introduced and passed. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean):
That this House directs the Minister of Finance to introduce forthwith the legislation allowing small business development bonds; that the legislation be segregated from other tax legislation; that this House do pass the legislation through all readings without debate; in view of the delay in producing the legislation, that the legislation provide that the program be extended until December 31, 1981.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. It concerns the indication last night that the government is prepared to entertain certain amendments to the draft constitutional resolution presently before the House. So that Parliament will know exactly what we are dealing with, will the minister undertake to have tabled in the House today or tomorrow any draft amendments to the draft resolution on the constitution?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I would be willing to table the exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the New Democratic Party. Of course, we have not yet reached committee stage; I hope we will get there very quickly. I know the Leader of the NDP will present an amendment, and we said that if it is in conformity with the exchange of letters we will accept it. In fact, it is entrenching in the constitution the proposition we made to the provinces last summer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 22, 1980
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, it is precisely because we have had some experience of dealing with the differences which can occur between letters and the language of resolutions and amendments that we are asking the "Liberal democratic government" to table it now-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -so that the House will understand exactly what is being proposed and not be misled by letters or any draft amendments.
But let me turn to another matter. In the Prime Minister's letter to the leader of the New Democratic Party, he specifically failed to deal with a number of issues which are controversial. For example, there was no reference to section 42 respecting a federal referendum. The hon. member for York-ton-Melville, speaking as the federal-provincial spokesman for his party, described section 42 as "dangerous", "repugnant" and "highly unacceptable", and these views were shared by the Premier of Saskatchewan who stated that this section "would threaten to undermine the federal-provincial partnership upon which Canada rests". Given those strongly-held views, can the Minister of Justice tell the House whether section 42 will be removed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, we said many times that the intention of the resolution was very clear. We wanted to make it very clear that section 41 will have to be used before we use section 42. We wanted the deadlock-breaking mechanism to apply only after the formula under section 41 had been followed.
If the language of the resolution is not clear, I will be willing to discuss it with members in committee. What amazes me the most is the fact that the opposition does not want to discuss it in committee where we can have exchanges, and if there is some room for improvements, we will accept them.
At the same time, we said very clearly that we need that deadlock-breaking mechanism. In a speech made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, he said the policy of his party is to have a constitution in Canada and that to have a deadlock-breaking mechanism is an absolute necessity.


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 remind the Minister of Justice that so far in the debate on the motion more Liberals have spoken than members of the official opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I take it that, despite any deals which may have been made, the government intends to keep the essential nature of section 42, which the member for Yorkton-Melville has described as "dangerous", "repugnant" and "highly unacceptable".
My supplementary is directed again to the Minister of Justice and concerns another matter which was not raised in
yesterday's letter from the Prime Minister to the Leader of the NDP, namely, the question of provincial concurrent jurisdiction over international trade. When speaking on behalf of the NDP, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, their spokesman on federal-provincial relations, stated that it was absolutely necessary to achieve provincial concurrence with federal para-mountcy when it comes to international resource trade. Given that in the case of Saskatchewan, for example, such trade accounts for 95 per cent of potash sales and 50 per cent of heavy oil sales-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Charles Joseph Clark: I understand this is embarrassing to members of the "Liberal democratic party", but I would like to ask the minister whether he or one of his seatmates-or soulmates- can tell the House whether, as part of yesterday's agreement, the government is prepared to accept concurrent provincial jurisdiction relating to international resource trade?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the letters exchanged between the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the Prime Minister of Canada are very clear, and we do not intend now any more than we did this summer to entrench into the constitution transfer of the federal jurisdiction in international trade. We believe this matter must remain under federal jurisdiction, if we really have a country. However, if problems occur in the administration, of course we could always find the administrative solutions required.


PROVINCIAL OWNERSHIP OF RESOURCES
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Justice and I speak in part as a member of Parliament from Ontario, which is the second largest mineral producer in this country. I ask the Minister of Justice to refer to item 1 in the Prime Minister's letter to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, which states that an amendment would be considered which would confirm the jurisdiction of the provinces with respect to exploration, development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources.
Would the Minister of Justice indicate if that section or reference, if passed, limits the present ownership that Ontario has in its own resources, as are so clearly set out in section 109 of the BNA Act, which states that all lands, mines, minerals and royalties shall belong to the several provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick? Has the minister a legal opinion which would indicate that he has not, in fact, narrowed our rights in Ontario to our own resources, including the right to sell those resources?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, he is asking for a legal opinion and I am not willing to give one at this time. I would like to tell the House we are very eager on this
October 22, 1980

side to go into committee, which would give us the opportunity to reply to those kinds of questions. I have listened to the debate and the opposition is running around looking for someone to make a speech and passing around the same speech to each member who gets up. It would be more convenient for all members of the House and for the level of debate if we were to go into committee and reply to that point. Of course, it is provided in the Canadian constitution that resources belong to the provinces and we intend to respect that. I hope that we can get the matter into committee so that we may define and solve the problems in the resolution and do what the Leader of the Opposition will be asking for later this afternoon, that we unilaterally patriate the constitution.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, again to the Minister of Justice. If in fact it is the government's desire to ensure that the ownership of natural resources remain with the provinces, why did it not simply state that in the letter which the Prime Minister wrote to the Leader of the NDP?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, we shall have answers to all those questions whenever the opposition will allow us to discuss them in committee.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the ever ready Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and I see that he is getting prepared. Last night in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs the minister refused to confirm any plans to refinance Massey-Ferguson. As the minister spoke in committee, a member of my party actually revealed to the minister the details of such a plan. Would the minister confirm that there is a proposal whereby the federal government will guarantee some $200 million worth of investment shares and, if so, will he now tell the House whether the government has agreed to the refinancing package announced by Massey-Ferguson yesterday? Is the minister willing to make a statement in the House explaining in clear terms the details of this proposal?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, I will not be able to confirm that the amount the hon. member mentioned is the amount which the government of Ontario and the Government of Canada are willing to guarantee as part of an equity refinancing program for Massey-Ferguson. We have not yet agreed to the proposal set out by Massey-Ferguson in its statement of late yesterday afternoon. Our participation will depend on the working out of satisfactory terms and conditions, such as the terms and conditions from lenders involving the postponement of repay-
Oral Questions
ment of principal and interest and maintenance of lines of credit, as well as the agreement by Massey-Ferguson on conditions involving the maintenance of jobs and an increase in production, investment and research and development.
What I said in my press release on Monday is that the government of Ontario and the Government of Canada are:
-prepared to guarantee the capital risk of a portion of the new equity investment in Massey-Ferguson, providing various conditions are met, including a satisfactory degree of co-operation from the existing lenders.
I think that is pretty clear.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, indeed it is very clear. The minister has just said that he will guarantee the new investors.
I would like him to clarify the point even further, because the principal investors or largest shareholders in Massey-Ferguson are in fact the employees through their pension fund. Is the minister telling the House, then, that the Government of Canada will provide guarantees to the new free enterprise investors on their money so that they will not be taking any risk, but that the workers at Massey-Ferguson who have their pension funds tied up will not get any backing at all from the Government of Canada?


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Watch out, he's going to jump out of bed, Herb!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, if Massey-Ferguson does not survive, the shares of the employees held in the pension fund will not be worth anything. Our objective is to attract new equity investment to Massey-Ferguson to enable its equity refinancing, so that the company will not only survive but be strengthened. In this way the workers will not only retain their jobs but the value of their shares will be preserved. This is our objective. I am surprised that my hon. friend does not agree with this because the UAW, representing the workers, issued a statement yesterday indicating support for that approach.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. When they are more fully aware of the government's intentions, they may have some qualified opinions following on what the minister says they said yesterday. Will the minister confirm two things to the House. First, with this massive new investment that is going to take place, the inevitable result will be that the shares that are already held by the workers will decline very substantially in value. That is the inevitable result of this infusion of new capital. Therefore, they are not being guaranteed their investment to start with, as the minister is prepared to guarantee to new investors, and their current investment is going to go down in value. Second, if the Government of Canada is going to put up money for this enterprise, does the minister not think it is time that the Canadian public, which will be taking the risk, got some equity in the company?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the governments of Ontario and Canada have not said that they will be putting money into the company. They have said they are willing to guarantee the

October 22, 1980
OraI Questions
value of a portion of new equity refinancing. It is my view that one of the terms and conditions to be attached to such a guarantee should be a way of enabling the governments to participate in the success of the company. I think this is something that should be very much pursued.
With respect to the possible value of shares of existing shareholders, this will depend on the degree of success of the company. If the refinancing is successful and the results are a strengthened and more successful Massey, certainly there will not be, as my hon. friend seems to want to see come about, an ultimate lowering of the value of shares held by existing shareholders. My hon. friend would seem to prefer the absolute failure of the company so that the shares held by the workers would be worth nothing and there would be no jobs for them. No wonder the UAW takes quite a different position from the NDP.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and it relates to the cozy deal worked out by the Prime Minister and the leader of the New Democratic Party to achieve an organic understanding between their two parties. With respect to part of the statement made in the Prime Minister's letter to the hon. member for Oshawa-who is understandably leaving the chamber in embarrassment-could the minister comment on the point made by the Prime Minister that the resource issue is conditional upon and "acceptable to us only on the condition that agreement be reached to entrench in the constitution certain basic principles of the economic union".
In view of the fact that Premier Blakeney for one has rejected the proposals arrived at between his national leader and the Prime Minister, can the minister tell the House whether that is a negotiable item with respect to the committee hearing which the Minister of Justice referred to today, and whether he is prepared to compromise with respect to that aspect of the Prime Minister's letter in committee?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, 1 think when we are in committee we will debate that. In the letter of the Prime Minister yesterday to the Leader of the New Democratic Party he said we are willing to accept an amendment on resources, on indirect taxation and on interprovincial trade and federal paramountcy. This would be the amendment we would accept.
In terms of economic union, as the people know, the mobility of people has been incorporated in the charter of rights and, of course, we have the movement of goods in section 121. In future rounds of negotiations we will want to strengthen the economic union of Canada even more. For the time being, we have the resolution before the House and the only amendment will be this one.
To reply to the question of the hon. member's leader, of course the resources were already confirmed in the constitution and it is a clarification for renewable resources.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I think it is fair to say that the proposal by the Prime Minister is a sellout and a fraud with respect to ownership of resources of this country, and it will be seen to be so when the people have had a chance to examine it.
1 want to ask the minister, in relation to his policy with respect to constitutional amendment, whether yesterday in Edmonton the Minister of the Environment, who has special responsibilities for constitutional matters and who stated that federal-provincial conferences are pernicious and a harmful way to make government policy, and further indicated his support for a constitutional provision abolishing federal-provincial conferences, was speaking on behalf of the government.
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I did not read the statement by the hon. minister. I can say that, obviously, the experience we went through this summer when we made an enormous effort to come to an agreement, was very disappointing for us. However, in his speech the Right Hon. Prime Minister already stated that once the constitution is repatriated, we intend to resume our discussions with the provinces on federal institutions and on the sharing of jurisdiction. This is the commitment we made and we intend to fulfil. The mechanism we shall use will be, of course, federal-provincial conferences. If there is a deadlock, the amending formula provided for in the project will be in place.


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister tell the House whether in the course of discussions between the government and the NDP, the question of the rights of provinces to offshore jurisdiction over oil and gas came up? Can the minister also tell the House why this was not included in the package which was announced yesterday in the exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the leader of the NDP?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, during the summer we made a very generous offer to the maritime provinces in relation to the offshore but it was rejected by the maritime provinces-by the Atlantic provinces. We were offering 100 per cent of the revenues. I think the offer made was a very good one. We are not willing to give away the jurisdiction-


Charles Joseph Clark: You did try.


PROPOSALS RESPECTING OFFSHORE RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
October 22, 1980
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -of the federal government in the matter of offshore resources. We want to make sure that the benefit of those resources accrues to the people of the provinces who could benefit from them.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. In selling their soul for a little potash, the NDP sold what few friends they had left in the Atlantic provinces and that is a sad day. I should like to ask the minister why the question of renewable resources was not included in the-


An hon. Member:: You did a great job.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the truth obviously hurts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I should like to ask the minister why the question of renewable resources was not included in the government's package, knowing full well the importance, for example, of the development and transmission of hydroelectricity to the Atlantic provinces.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I should like to reply to the first part of the question of the hon. member and tell him that our position on offshore resources was well explained to the people of Newfoundland and they gave up one more seat in the last general election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In our negotiations during the summer with Premier Peckford we said that we have some powers in interprovincial trade that could be used if need be. I am amazed to see Premier Peckford always giving us all sorts of problems, but when he needs the federal government he always calls on us to help him get his electricity across Quebec.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is a constitutional right and you know it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In order to get that, we need a strong federal government. If he wants us to help, I think he should stop making the kind of statement that he made yesterday.


Charles Joseph Clark: Roger Simmons just walked out.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is a constitutional right and you know it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please. I have to remind both hon. members that when the Speaker rises in her chair they must resume their seats. We were listening to the hon. Minister of Justice.


An hon. Member:: He is finished.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, in the resolution it is clearly stated that there would be no possibility of changing the borders of any province without the approval of the province.
It was demagogy on the part of the premier to try to create the impression to the contrary.


Mr. Crombie:: This is a deadlock.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The same thing applies to the right to have religious education in the provinces.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, is the Minister of Justice of Canada now telling this House that Newfoundland does not have, under section 95 of the BNA Act, the right to transmit its power through the province of Quebec to Ontario and elsewhere? Is that the position he is taking as Minister of Justice? We are not looking for help; we are just looking for this government to get-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, whenever there is a market for electricity, we will be willing to help the province of Newfoundland-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -with the federal powers that we have. If we were to listen to the opposition and weaken the federal government with a type of community of communities, it would be impossible for us to help Newfoundland under those circumstances.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, following this sort of general hubbub and acrimony, I have a very gentle question for the Minister of Communications.


An hon. Member:: A very gentle minister.


Mark Willson Rose: In view of the simultaneous CRTC and ministerial announcements yesterday that pay TV in Canada is to proceed forthwith, despite the fact that the CRTC's own Therrien report issued in July stated on page 59 that "there is no evidence of widespread demands" and further that "the only people who demand the instant introduction of pay TV are those who expect to make profits out of it", can the minister assure the House that the CRTC, which is an autonomous regulatory body, arrived at this policy U-turn independently and without outside pressure from the minister or his department? Since the minister supports an early introduction of pay TV with no indication of how the objectives of enhanced opportunities for creative people in Canada are to be
3930

October 22, 1980
Oral Questions
fulfilled, could the minister also tell Canadians what caused him to push for this premature major change in policy?


An hon. Member:: More money.


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, as far as I am concerned it is not a major change in policy. The hon. member referred to the Therrien committee report. The Therrien committee is just that, Madam Speaker, it is a committee of the CRTC and it reports to the full CRTC. The announcement which was made yesterday by that body indicated that the CRTC as a whole endorsed the idea and agreed that it is urgent to have a pay TV system in this country. As I have indicated before, it is not a question of whether we will or will not have a pay TV system in this country; it is a question of whether we will have a pay TV system over which Canadians have some influence and control.
As to the hon. member's remark to the effect that no one in this country, except the people who would make a buck from it, want pay TV, I am pleased to inform him that a lot of people in the Canadian production industry, the Canadian arts and cultural community are interested in the significant financial benefits which will accrue to the Canadian program industry and the Canadian cultural industry in general, because a good part of the profits from pay TV would accrue to them.


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, 1 was quoting from the Therrien report when I mentioned that the only people who are interested were those who would make a profit. Since it is not a major change in policy, according to the minister, it means that there is no communications policy.
In view of the strong arguments against pay TV as a pipeline for just more U.S. programming and the opposition to it by the creative people who are expected to benefit-as the minister has just explained to me-since they oppose it at this time, can the minister tell us who is directing this change in policy at this time? In addition, I would like to know why major policy changes are announced months in advance of a new comprehensive bill for a Canadian telecommunications policy?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I would like to reiterate what I said initially, that the Therrien committee was just that, a committee of the CRTC. It did not represent the views of the whole of the CRTC. The CRTC in its initial press release two weeks ago indicated that it would be looking at the Therrien committee report, and on the basis of a number of recommendations in it, that it would be issuing positions it would take. Yesterday the CRTC decided to issue its position on pay television in Canada and recognized the urgency of introducing that type of system in this country.


TELEVISION SERVICE TO NORTHERN AND CENTRAL RESIDENTS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the
Minister of Communications. The Therrien committee clearly stated that the priority must be to produce a balanced television and communications diet for people in the northern and central part of the provinces and the far north. Is the minister saying now that this is not his priority? Would he also clarify his statement which he made yesterday in Toronto, when he mentioned that something must be done about the proliferation of pirate signals in the urban centres? Is it his intention to develop a policy which will permit stations that have been established in the north to operate legally and under a licence, or will the minister close them all down? Can the minister ease this fear?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. He quite rightly reflected the CRTC's Therrien report to the effect that extension of services and provision for an adequate range of television services to remote and northern communities should be a priority. The full committee of the CRTC has endorsed the Therrien committee report in this regard. I indicated in my speech yesterday in Toronto that I was in full agreement with the CRTC in this connection. As a matter of fact, the CRTC has decided to hold hearings on extension of services to the north in February before any hearings will be held on pay TV. I think that issue is clear both in the Department of Communications and in the CRTC.
As to the question of pirating signals from U.S. satellites, I indicated clearly yesterday that we would pursue the present policy as far as northern communities were concerned. With regard to urban centres in Canada along the southern part of this country, where there is already a wide range of choice of TV signals, we have indicated that we would not tolerate proliferation of dishes to receive illegally U.S. satellite signals because such proliferation would clearly endanger the continued existence and viability of the Canadian broadcasting system, which we believe to be essential to the continued development of this country.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the same minister, the Secretary of State, who is responsible to this House for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
While the previous points raised this afternoon are important, I would like to go back to something fundamental to Canadians. Specifically, it concerns New Brunswick's CBC television studio facilities as well as CBC radio production and broadcasting in northern New Brunswick. I invite the minister to indicate his readiness to take personal action in this matter with the CBC to ensure that after these many years New Brunswickers will catch up to the 1980s and have adequate
October 22, 1980

facilities installed in television and radio, both from Radio-Canada and the CBC, in New Brunswick.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I know that the hon. member is very concerned about the level of CBC coverage in New Brunswick. It is a concern that 1 have brought to the attention of the CBC authorities. The hon. member will have the opportunity next week to talk directly about this issue with the president of the CBC, who 1 understand is being called before the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
Perhaps I could indicate to the hon. member in the meantime that the CBC is at present engaged in building three new transmitters to serve the Campbellton area and radio transmitters and one TV transmitter. I will give a quick breakdown. It includes an FM transmitter carrying the French language service of CBAF Moncton, which is expected to be ready for operation by next December or January of next year; an FM transmitter carrying the English language program of CBA Moncton, which is scheduled to be ready for operation late in 1981.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Francis Fox: I believe this is an important question, Madam Speaker; it was raised at the federal-provincial conference. Perhaps hon. members will allow me to conclude. There is a television transmitter carrying French language from CBAF Moncton which is also expected to be in operation in late 1981. It is a continuing concern of my department to see to it that the CBC does indeed give adequate coverage right across the country.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He will be aware that at least two private sector groups, Friends of the Earth and the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee have lodged complaints with his department concerning the government's massive $5,850,000 energy advertising campaign on the grounds that that campaign includes false and misleading information. The director of the marketing practices branch of his department has written to one of these groups to indicate that he does not have jurisdiction, because no commercial product was being sold and because "there have been some cases in law which appear to have established that agents of the Crown, which would include most government departments, cannot be prosecuted."
May I ask the minister how he can justify this double standard of exempting the government from provisions regard-
Oral Questions
ing false and misleading advertising where false and misleading advertising by the private sector would result in criminal charges being laid by the government?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, 1 categorically deny the allegations of the hon. member. There is absolutely no misleading advertising.


SUGGESTED STANDARDS CODE FOR ADVERTISEMENTS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Clearly, Madam Speaker, the minister is not concerned about the fact that there is a double standard in the law here.
I wish to pose my supplementary to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, who has the responsibility for government propaganda. In view of the fact that the federal government is the single largest advertiser in Canada and must maintain standards of propriety and accuracy at least equal to those it demands of the private sector, is the minister prepared to draw up and make public a code of advertising standards for federal government advertising? Also, is he prepared to create an independent board to which private sector groups and private individuals can go to lay complaints against the government, where they believe the government has been guilty of false and misleading advertising?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State, Multiculturalism):: Madam Speaker, the radio and television networks themselves have a policy of rejecting ads if they are dishonest or improper. I believe the federal government has acted responsibly in its use of advertising. Over the course of several weeks, we have seen the opposition continuously attempt to throw up a red herring with the advertising issue because they do not want to face the constitutional issue. Clearly it is not the view of the Canadian public that those ads are wrong. It is certainly my view that those ads responsibly bring to the attention of the Canadian public the energy program of the Government of Canada.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL TAX EXPORTS OF NATURAL GAS AND HYDROELECTRICITY
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I imagine the Minister of Energy has received the letter his colleague, the hon. member for Rosemont, published in the newspapers. I wonder if it is part of the new policy on informing the public. That letter challenges the decision which seems to have been made by the minister to levy a tax on exports of natural gas and electricity for the reasons the

October 22, 1980
Oral Questions
minister entertains. In view of the circumstances, and of the fact that his colleague is opposed to it and has sent a letter confirming it to all his colleagues on the government side, can the minister first tell us today that he has indeed decided to levy a tax on natural gas and electricity exports?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: It is perfectly obvious that the hon. member for Joliette would like me to reveal to the House, today, what next Tuesday's budget will bring. I would simply invite him to wait till Tuesday night next at which time the Minister of Finance will bring down the budget.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, on a supplementary. I should have liked the minister to tell the House, first of all, if he agrees on the contents of that letter. In any event, I would remind him of the following excerpt, which I quote:
In any case, and since Canadians assume responsibility for our own irresponsibility, let us subsidize the price of Canadian oil, at least for a time ... but let us see to it that all Canadians pay for that folly and not only the producing areas.
Does the minister intend to reply in the affirmative to the invitation his colleague for Rosemont is extending to him?


Marc Lalonde: There again my hon. colleague will have to wait till next Tuesday when the global energy policy of the government will be made public. I trust that, when he has acquainted himself with it, he will realize that it is an excellent policy for Canada as a whole.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In a submission made to a task force on native employment established by the minister's department, the National Indian Brotherhood complained that the job-creation programs being developed by his department were being planned without consultation with the national, provincial or local native organization. They also complained very bitterly about the fact that the funds available for native job-creation programs this year through the community development program and LEAP are substantially less than they were two years ago when the former Liberal government was in office. Has the minister given serious consideration to increasing the amount of money available for native job-creation programs this year?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: As the hon. member knows, Madam Speaker, the whole area of job creation, employment and training is presently under review by a parliamentary committee headed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. There is also a
review taking place within our department to look at the internal financing of these areas. It certainly is my intention to combine those reports, when they are available, to develop some new initiatives in this area. We are consulting with native organizations. Last week I met with several groups of them out west. We will certainly bring them into any full consultation before any new programs are introduced.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, the minister's reply to my question indicates there will be no more money this year while the matter is being considered. In the same submission, the National Indian Brotherhood urged the establishment of a joint committee from the minister's department, the Department of Indian Affairs and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion so that for natives there can be one economic development package instead of the completely separate programs which they now have from various departments. Is the minister consulting his colleagues about the possibility of such a joint approach?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, there have been a number of discussions between the departments concerning how we can better co-ordinate and combine the different initiatives to assist native Canadians in employment and training programs, in fact in the whole area of economic development and assistance. As well, I assure the hon. member that in the development of plans we are looking at the initiatives we can take in western Canada where a large proportion of native people reside. We are also looking at ways in which we can develop special initiatives in terms of development funds for them in that area. I can tell the hon. member that the concerns he raises are ones that we also share and there are very extensive discussions taking place.

[ Translation]


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Following the safety exercise held at Mirabel yesterday with the simulated crash of a DC-8 aircraft the toll of which would have been 34 dead, 25 seriously injured, 31 passengers with minor injuries and 25 other passengers in a state of shock, can the minister tell the House, first if he is satisfied with the results and, second if the persons in charge of staging this event will be asked to develop a safer and faster rescue system?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I guess the answer to the first question is no and the answer to the second is yes. However, this morning, around eleven o'clock, I asked my department for a detailed report on this situation because not knowing the criteria used for this exercise, I cannot pass judgment on what happened.
October 22, 1980

I have been told that such simulations take place on a routine basis and I can only rejoice that these dead and injured are just simulated and not real casualties. However, I will seriously further this inquiry and provide the hon. member with the opinions expressed by the experts. Anyway I can assure him that all efforts are being made to improve airport safety in Canada.


COMMUNICATIONS
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to direct my question to the Minister of Communications and ask him to clarify his earlier remark that his department was going to follow current policy with regard to the operation of illegal earth stations. As the minister is aware, the operation of the earth stations involved in the north is illegal. Is he suggesting that he is going to condone this illegal action, go for an interim licence arrangement or have the RCMP look into closing them down?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, 1 refer to the fact that I answered this type of question a number of times in previous months, particularly in the spring and late summer. We do not intend at the moment to close down the operations in the north. We intend to address the problem, first of all, by trying to provide northern and remote communities with an adequate package of Canadian television services. When that is done, we would expect operators in those areas who are licensees, people who would be licensed by the CRTC at that time, to reorient their dishes toward Canadian satellites.


FRENCH PROGRAM TRANSMISSION IN NORTHERN AREAS
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Communications. In view of the fact that one of these operations in Whitehorse, Yukon, has been required to cease and desist day-long transmission entirely in French transmitted from the city of Montreal, and cannot renew transmission until cleared by the CRTC, will the minister explain whether he knows of this requirement? If so, will he perhaps hasten the approval of the transmission of French programming in the Yukon so that we in that part of the country can share in a very worth-while bilingual program?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, 1 am not sure if 1 understood the hon. member quite clearly. In any event, I am not aware of the specific instance he has brought to my attention. I will look into it and see what can be done as soon as possible.
Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker AGRICULTURE


ACCESS OF CANADIAN FARMERS TO UCO ELEVATOR
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. Given the substantial sums of money which were expended by the federal government for construction of the UCO elevator in the Essex area, given the nature of the direction behind the expenditure, namely that the farmers of Essex would have first access to that elevator, and the fact that they are now being refused access to the elevator because it is full, would the minister advise whether he is aware of the problem, whether in fact, as stated, the elevator is full of American product, and whether in fact it is still the intention of his ministry to ensure Canadians that they will have access to those elevators first?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, we have received some representations about the inadequacy of the whole system and about its not being able to handle soybeans in particular. One of the main reasons is the abundant crop in southwestern Ontario this year. All facilities are plugged to the top, and we are thankful that we have so much. Much of it is in the position of being exported and it is moving. We hope that this will alleviate the situation. According to what I was told last week, this situation is not brought about because of imported beans either at the Windsor elevator or at the Port Colborne elevator. It was practically all domestic produce which was there.


POINTS OF ORDER
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I understand that you are prepared today to rule on the questions of privilege standing in the names of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty). This is an allotted day, and a short day at that. I have spoken to both hon. members and, in view of the circumstances, I wonder if you would be prepared to defer your ruling until tomorrow in order to save some time.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: Yes, I am prepared to defer the ruling until tomorrow-


Walter David Baker: Thank you very much Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: -because having looked at the arguments of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), I decided that I would hear the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), so therefore I shall defer until tomorrow.

October 22, 1980
Order Paper Questions


MR. BLAIS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I understand the procedure concerning motions under S.O. 43 introduced before the oral questions period, the mover must convince the Chair about the urgency and necessity of those motions. To do so, the allegations must be well founded.

I therefore must take exception to the unfounded allegations which were made by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) in his presentation of his motion under Standing Order 43.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, if my hon. friend was rising on a question of privilege, I think all of us in this Hose know that the point was neither a question of privilege nor a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: For the information of the hon. member, the minister was rising on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: It was still not a point of order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, at the next sitting of the House, immediately before the order of the day for resuming debate on motion No. 18 introduced by the Minister of Justice and Social Development (Mr. Chretien), namely, government orders, I will move that the debate not be further adjourned, this notice being given to the House under Standing Order 33.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 872, 993, 996, 997, 999 and 1,206.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Gass: Will the council of fisheries ministers of the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and the government meet this year and, if so (a) in what location and on what date (b) what will be the agenda for the meeting?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: No meeting of fisheries ministers of the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and the government has taken place since the change in government. The current constitutional talks, however, afford the opportunity for provincial and federal representatives to share and exchange ideas and recommendations on the future of the fishery in this country.


Mr. Cossitt: What is the public service employment history of Mr. Richard Asselin, vice-president of finance and administration of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: We are
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows: None. Mr. R. Asselin, B.Com., M.A.Sc., C.A., vice-president of finance and administration has never been employed in the public service.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is Mr. Leo Labelle employed as regional director of the national capital office of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and, if not, on what date and for what reason did he leave?
2.	Has he at any time brought a legal action, or given notice of his intention to bring a legal action, against Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and, if so, what are all the details involved, including an exact description of the action and the circumstances leading to such action?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows:
1.	No. He resigned on March 23, 1978.
2.	Yes. This matter is sub judice.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the percentage of turnover in staff for the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation during each of the past three years?
2.	Is the figure higher than might ordinarily be expected and, if so, what are all the reasons?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows:
1.	1977: 42 per cent, including staff on probation 1978: 42 per cent, including staff on probation 1979:	24 per cent, including staff on probation.
October 22, 1980

2.	No, because 75 per cent of the turnover in 1977, 72 per cent in 1978 and 95 per cent in 1979, of the figures presented in part one, is represented by clerical positions where mobility is much higher than the administrative and sales positions. This is further compounded by the fact that the corporation is a small organization with very few promotion opportunities, consequently, employees often have to look outside for more senior positions. The above should be compared with a turnover of 19.3 per cent (1979) in the administrative support category of the public service where promotion opportunities are far greater.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Mr. Yvon Gariepy appointed master of the Royal Canadian Mint and, if so (a) on what date (b) who was the Minister of Supply and Services at the time?
2.	Was Madam Claudette Nadeau appointed as head of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and, if so (a) on what date (b) who was the Minister of Supply and Services at the time?
3.	Was Mrs. Anne Asselin, wife of the vice-president of finance and administration of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, a member of the public service and, if so, was she employed in the office of the Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer at any time?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by the Royal Canadian Mint as follows:
1.	Yes.
(a)	June 16, 1975.
(b)	Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer.
I am informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows:
2.	Yes.
(a)	August 11, 1975.
(b)	Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer.
3.	No. However, Mrs. Anne Asselin was employed in the office of the Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer from January 26, 1976, to April 20, 1976. Mrs. Asselin's salary was paid by the minister's exempt staff budget.
FIRM OF POULIOT, MERCURE, LeBEL, DESROCHERS, LEGAULT AND DANCOSSE OF MONTREAL


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total cost for the legal services rendered by the firm of Pouliot, Mercure, LeBel, Desrochers, Legault and Dancosse of Montreal, to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation during the past five years and (a) what is the breakdown for each year (b) how many cases were handled?
2.	What is the description of the work done in each case and what was the cost?
3.	(a) How many times has the firm been paid a retainer (b) on what dates and what was the amount in each case?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows:
1. $25,993
Motion for Papers
(a)	1975/76 -nil 1976/77 -nil 1977/78 -nil 1978/79 -$1,732 1979/80 -$14,139 1980/81 - to date -$10,122
(b)	10.
2.	Labour relations matter	$1,732
Labour relations matter	1,511
Employee termination	1,043
Labour relations matter	1,794
Labour relations advice	1,807
Submission to the Canada
Labour Relations Board (CLRB)	3,762
Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal of decision rendered by the CLRB on May 17, 1979	4,222
Labour relations advice	619
Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada	8,778
Labour relations matter	725
3.	(a) None
(b) Not applicable.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 17 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and internal working papers.
I ask that the other notice of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Subject to the ordinary reservations mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 17 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 17-Mr. Nystrom:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, memoranda, notes, minutes of meetings and other communications, concerning the transfer of responsibility for Statistics Canada in June, 1979 from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to the Treasury Board.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
October 22, 1980
The Constitution
Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Charles Joseph Clark: That this House supports the immediate patriation of the Constitution of Canada, incorporating only the generally agreed upon amending formula known as the Vancouver consensus, so that all other constitutional changes shall be made in Canada by Canadians.
He said: Madam Speaker, I regret that I must rise today to introduce a motion which, I believe, could move Canada from a bitter impasse over constitutional questions in the shadow of the announcement by the government House leader that the Government of Canada intends to invoke the rules of closure to stop the Parliament of Canada from debating the Constitution of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Charles Joseph Clark: I regret indeed that hon. members opposite invoke closure when there have been more speakers on the motion from the government side than there have been from the ranks of the official opposition.
This matter will be discussed at greater length in the country and in the House of Commons, as indeed it was discussed during the pipeline debate when closure was used to stop the right of Parliament to debate a matter-


Mr. Cousineau:: And to filibuster.


Charles Joseph Clark: -which would have struck at the heart of the nation. We will discuss it more, but I want to make two points. One is that this is not the normal kind of stoppage of debate we have had. This is the closure of C. D. Howe. This is not the modified Standing Order 75C, so-called. This is pipeline closure. This is the kind of closure which was used, unhappily, in 1957 to try to ride roughshod over the rights of this House of Commons. That is what is being done again today by this government.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is interesting to note that the last time this kind of C. D. Howe closure was used, it was used to force upon Parliament changes in the rules of Parliament. It was used then for the first time in the history of the British parliamentary tradition anywhere in the world to change the rules of parliament. Now again that extreme and extraordinary measure of closure-that full force C. D. Howe kind of closure-is being used, to stop debate which has not been excessive, because government speakers have spoken more than hon. members in this party have, it is being used not on a minor matter but on the fundamental law of the land. Hon. members opposite do not want our constitution debated. They want to cut off debate. They want to stop the right of Canadians in Canada's Parliament to discuss the constitution of this country. That is unacceptable.


David Michael Collenette: Rubbish!


Charles Joseph Clark: Because we respect both this institution and this nation, for which disrespect has been shown by the actions of this government, and because we respect the constitution of this nation, what we are proposing, by contrast, is a means by which Canadians can act today to bring the constitution of Canada home today so that Canadians can change it here in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The motion that we have introduced provides: [Translation]
That this House supports the immediate patriation of the Constitution of Canada, incorporating only the generally agreed upon amending formula known as the Vancouver consensus, so that all other constitutional changes shall be made in Canada by Canadians.

This motion calls for the Parliament and the people of Canada to act quickly on the one constitutional question with which virtually every Canadian agrees, that is, to have the constitution of Canada here at home in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has consistently said he wants our constitution home, I have consistently said I want our constitution home, so has the Leader of the NDP and so has every other member of the House of Commons. What this motion offers is an opportunity to stop talking and to start acting to bring the Canadian Constitution home to Canada in a way that respects the rules and traditions of this House and respects the rules and the nature of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: More than that, this motion today provides a way to ensure that we can work with our constitution once we get it here. It allows the whole Parliament of Canada to approve an amending formula which was accepted in principle by the committee of officials working on constitutional reform through the summer and, even more than that, which was accepted in principle by all the provincial premiers when they met in Ottawa in September, and which was accepted in principle by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 22, 1980


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Not true.


Charles Joseph Clark: Those are matters of Canadian agreement, agreement on having our constitution home, agreement on the Vancouver formula as the way to work with that constitution once we have it home.
Unfortunately, in recent days the focus of attention in the nation has been on the disagreements which exist on constitutional questions, disagreements which are deep and which are in danger of becoming even deeper. But we should not let those serious disagreements obscure the fact that very real progress was made this summer, and that Canada is, for the first time in at least a decade, in a position where agreement exists as to both the necessity and the means of bringing our Canadian constitution home.
We in this party want Canada to act on that agreement, and our motion provides the instrument to let Parliament start the action to get the Constitution of Canada home so that Canadians can work with it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We are all aware in this House and throughout the country that discord and disagreement in Canada on how we should renew our federation grow worse with every passing day. We know that, with budget and energy policy coming, other deeply wounding controversies may well lie ahead of this Parliament and of this country. For the sake of our country, all Canadians must come together on common, solid ground. We must do it free of partisan recriminations, and we must do it free of any kind of narrow perspective.
On September 13 the first ministers' conference broke down. Now is not the time to assess blame for that; we have had enough blaming. It is time in this country for some building, building for Canada. To that September conference all the participants came with packages of reforms which they wanted. Obviously, it would have been the best thing for our country if a balanced, comprehensive compromise package of reforms and improvements in the constitution had been agreed on. But that did not happen, as the House knows. What did happen, however, was the emergence of the Vancouver consensus as a formula accepted in principle by virtually all of the participants in the closed session in September.
That formula allows amendments to the constitution, and allows them now, Mr. Speaker, not two years hence. It does not freeze the Constitution of Canada for two years, so that the people of Quebec, who might want more changes, are told, "No, you cannot have them for two years." It does not freeze our constitution for two years so that the people of western Canada who might want changes are told, "No, you cannot have them for two years; it is frozen." Instead, it gives us a means and an instrument by which we in this country can use and change our constitution right now. It is a device we can use today. It is not a device we must wait for two years to use.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The Constitution


Charles Joseph Clark: And as the House will know, that formula also protects the provinces of Canada, because it provides the fundamental guarantee that no province can be affected by an amendment unless it chooses to be affected. Thus does it reflect the essential partnership of Canada. Thus does it respect the essential nature of a federal system.

There is no ideal formula but that one has the decided advantage of having been approved, in the present context, by all the partners in federation. Given this approval in principle, it is time all partners set aside, for the time being, all the constitutional amendments they propose. It is time they join in bringing the constitution back to Canada so that the required changes can be effected afterwards by Canadians, in Canada. Let us ask the British Parliament merely to give us back our constitution with the generally accepted Vancouver formula. Let us make that happen quickly and let us then, without the intervention of another country, promptly update our federative agreement.

I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, why the government insists on a procedure that would have Britain pass amendments to the Constitution of Canada instead of letting Canada pass amendments to the Constitution of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Surely, Mr. Speaker, our constitution is our business. We should be dealing with our constitution here in Canada and we should not be waiting two years, we should be doing it now. What is so tragic about the way we are proceeding is that the Government of Canada not only wants the British to change our constitution but wants us to be prevented from working with our constitution for at least two years. Neither of those is acceptable to me. 1 am a Canadian, I want to have my constitution here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I see no reason to wait. I see no reason to put in an unnecessary two-year delay, because we can have our constitution home quickly, we can have an amendment formula agreed to quickly, and we can do it quickly. If this motion is accepted, the will of Parliament will be clear. The will of the premiers is already clear; they accepted in principle the Vancouver consensus when they met in September.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Not true.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister of Justice says that is not true. But he knows that is true.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Ask Bill Davis.


Charles Joseph Clark: He suggests that we ask the Premier of Ontario. The Premier of Ontario indicated, in the last 15 to 20 days, that he is prepared to accept the Vancouver amending formula.
3938

October 22, 1980
The Constitution


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That is why we have a basis of agreement here.
If I could speak of the one provincial government of the party which in this House agrees with the Minister of Justice, the Premier of Saskatchewan, he has indicated that he too would find the Vancouver amending formula acceptable. Those are the facts, and the Minister of Justice, if he has any respect for the truth or the federal system, should accept that fact and act on it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Then, with the will of Parliament clear, as it could be if members rise above party and vote to support this amendment, and with the will of the premiers clear, we can work quickly on the details of the Vancouver formula, to which I will come later. Then we can work on amendments which will allow us to begin work immediately to change our constitution here in this country. If that happens, if the House of Commons is prepared to rise above party matters and is prepared to accept this motion which allows the House of Commons to bring our constitution home today with an acceptable amending formula, I believe we can then start immediately, we can start this week. Instead of bringing in closure which will divide this country, we could start this week to have officials sit down and discuss the wide range of amendments Canadians might want.
The chairman of the premiers, Mr. Lyon, has suggested that it would be useful to meet again, that we should not write off all the work done this summer, that we should not let the failure of the September conference mean the failure of constitutional reform. He said that there should be more meetings, there should be more discussions. How much more fruitful it would be if those new meetings and new discussions occur in the context of agreement, not only on having our constitution here, but on the formula by which we can have it here? That agreement exists; that agreement exists.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Not true.


Charles Joseph Clark: It was accepted in principle by all of the first ministers. The Minister of Justice says that it is not true. Perhaps his boss, perhaps the Prime Minister does not agree with it, but every premier does. Every premier is prepared to accept that formula and to use it to bring the Constitution of Canada home.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, no; it is not true.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: If the atmosphere is positive we can get agreement on constitutional change. If the atmosphere is negative in this country, and it shows that there is a real risk of it becoming deeply negative on this question, on energy questions and other questions, then we will not get agreement on even
the simplest kind of changes. That would set back deeply and dangerously the process and the promise of constitutional change in this country. If this motion is accepted, if we bring our constitution home with the Vancouver formula, then we will have both the momentum and the means to achieve Canadian amendments to the Canadian Constitution right here in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Ever since the end of the first ministers' conference we have been calling for precisely that approach-patriate with the Vancouver consensus amending formula and then make changes in the Canadian Constitution in Canada by Canadians. In our view it is undeniably the way to make constitutional change a source of bringing Canadians together rather than driving them apart, because they will be driven apart, and they are being driven apart by the current proposed constitutional resolution of the government.
Our views on the dangers for federalism in the proposed resolution are well known, and we intend to keep on making them as forcefully as we can. If we are gagged in Parliament by the use of closure, we will carry our case to the country. A majority of provinces are now testing the constitutionality of this proposal in the courts. It is not just a few provinces but a majority of the provinces of Canada. Premiers are attacking premiers. Federalists in the province of Quebec are disastrously divided, to the joy and to the benefit only of the separatists of the province of Quebec. Western Canadians and Atlantic Canadians justly resent the second-class status and the third-class status of their provinces inherent in the Prime Minister's redesigned Victoria amending formula.
All provinces have just cause to fear the dangers to the basic federal character of Canada in the proposed section 42 where a federally-written, federally-timed referendum could allow Ottawa to go around the other order of government entirely. Plans for provincial referenda multiply. What kind of a situation will we have with different levels of government asking different questions on the same subject of the same people, and getting different answers? What will that lead us to here in this country? It will lead us to chaos in this country, constitutional chaos in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We have no need for that chaos because we have the means here for agreement. There is a Canadian will to have our constitution at home. There is a Canadian way to have our constitution at home in the Vancouver amending formula. What is needed is a willingness on the part of the Liberal party to rise above narrow partisanship and to support this principle which will let Canadians have their constitution home. Why does the Liberal party oppose having Canada's constitution home this week? Why does the Liberal party oppose the amending formula which is accepted by all the first ministers? Why is the Liberal party standing in the way of the people of Canada having the constitution of Canada here at home so we can amend it, live with it and work with it in
October 22, 1980

Canada? Why is there that kind of opposition? There should not be. What we need, instead, is a determination to move forward now, immediately, to bring our constitution to Canada in a way that we can work with it in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The government can introduce closure if they will. They intend to do that with the respect for Parliament that was shown by the late C. D. Howe. That is their intention.


An hon. Member:: What respect do you have when you filibuster?


Charles Joseph Clark: They talk about a filibuster. This must be the first time in the history of Canada or in the history of the British parliamentary system that anyone has talked about filibuster when the government has spoken more than the official opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: Not true.


Charles Joseph Clark: I will admit that the speakers of the official opposition have made more sense than the speakers of the government party. There have been 19 Liberal spokesmen and only 18 Progressive Conservative spokesmen, and they call it a filibuster.


David Michael Collenette: What about the NDP? They are part of the opposition.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) suggests that the NDP should be considered part of my party. I am not exchanging letters with the hon. Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: But 1 say to members like the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), members who, I know, are concerned about the substance of the resolution brought forward by the government, and to members such as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who, I believe, would be opposed to closure on a constitutional question, that I hope when the time comes for them to cast their votes at a quarter to six this afternoon they will consider whether they want to invite deep rancour and deep division in this country by proceeding both with closure and with a constitutional package they know is divisive, or whether they would prefer to adopt the motion before the House now which would let the Parliament of Canada act today to bring the constitution home immediately in the way that Canadians want.
There are a number of merits to the constitutional amending formula which has been agreed to by the premiers. Of course one merit is the single fact that it has been agreed to. When all of the conditions that were uttered at the first ministers' conference are set aside, when all connections to any packages
The Constitution
are put aside, the House must ask the question: why was that formula given virtually unanimous approval in September? Why did it emerge as the only focus of ministerial consideration this summer? Why was the Victoria formula of 1971 not that focus? Why did Premier Davis just the other day acknowledge that he understood the Victoria formula was no longer acceptable? What other generally agreed on formula has ever emerged over all the last several years of debate? The Vancouver consensus is the inescapable amending formula in 1980 for this country. It is the only formula that seeks harmony in the federalism of Canada and allows unity in the national life of this country.

The Vancouver formula applies to the realities of the day and will allow us to build the Canada of tomorrow. At present, it provides that constitutional changes may be made with the consent of Parliament and of two thirds of the provinces comprising at least 50 per cent of the population. However, if the amendment approved by the required majority concerns, first the powers of a provincial legislature to make laws, second the rights and privileges granted or guaranteed by the constitution to the legislature or the government of a province, third the assets or property of a province or, fourth, the natural resources of a province, dissenting provinces may dissociate themselves from the amendment, which would not apply in their case.
I want to emphasize that among those advantages of the Vancouver formula-I draw this to the attention of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party-there is a clear guarantee of natural resource jurisdiction. It is not a guarantee which can be overriden by a referendum triggered unilaterally without any other cause than the will of the Prime Minister. It is a guarantee that will endure. It is a guarantee that provinces can count on unless they choose themselves to surrender or to modify that situation.
The words which I have just used to describe that proposal are drawn from the report to the first ministers by the continuing committee of ministers on the constitution, a committee which I must say was ably co-chaired by the hon. Minister of Justice and by the attorney general of Saskatchewan. There remained some details to work out, especially concerning how to deal with amendments of universal applicability, which cannot be subjected to opting out, whether constitutional provision should be made for the financial implications of opting out of amendments. Those are details. Those are details which can be dealt with.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Justice propose to use closure to stop Parliament from debating a matter when the government spokesmen have outnumbered the spokesmen of the official opposition. The Minister of Justice is skeptical that we can work out those details. I

October 22, 1980
The Constitution
have faith in Canada. I have faith in the capacity of Canadians to work out those details.


Some hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: What is more, I believe Canadians should be given the chance. Why leave the decisions to the British? We are an independent, sovereign country. I want us to act like Canadians, not like colonials. This provision would allow us to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Various proposals were suggested in the continuing committee's report, and it seems clear that final agreement was clearly within reach with no fundamental issue of principle threatening to polarize or divide opinion. In our view those final stages of negotiation could be completed in short order. No participant in the September conference has suggested otherwise. Perhaps the Minister of Justice will today, but it will be the first time because he has not suggested otherwise before, nor have the representatives of the premiers.
We do know that the Prime Minister himself was prepared to accept the Vancouver consensus if-and he applied a condition-he got agreement for his package of constitutional changes. And I cannot believe that he would have taken that position concerning an amending formula that was neither sensible nor workable. He was bargaining with it. He was bargaining with the Vancouver formula but, by being prepared to bargain with it, he knew that if his bluff was called, if there was agreement with this price, then he would have to deliver on the package. So clearly on the question of principle, on the question of the merits, the Prime Minister of Canada himself accepts the Vancouver amending formula, as did every other first minister at that table in September.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Indeed, the government's leaked memo is at pains to list several advantages to the formula, advantages to Canada, and to minimize the disadvantages. One disadvantage, which the Prime Minister has talked about since that time, is that the opting-out formula might lead to what he calls a checkerboard effect. On page 28 of that leaked memo it said:
No amendment could be made without the consent of Parliament. So there would be a federal check on any checkerboard effect that might be brought about by "opting out": that is Parliament or the government could decline to proceed with an amendment where the provinces did not all agree.
Finally, the government's advisers from the Department of Justice contend that-and again I read from page 29 of the document:
-if the provincial consensus (on the Vancouver formula) .. . holds, the federal government could consider joining the majority position.
That was the secret advice, the secret decision of the Government of Canada prior to the first ministers' conference. Why will they not accept in public what they accepted in secrecy? Why will they not let Parliament act today on a formula which they were prepared to accept in September? What has changed? Why do they want to stop Parliament
from acting now to have our constitution here in Canada where we, in Canada, can work on it? The secret document went on to suggest appropriate arrangements on the side of details referred to earlier.
We know now that the provincial consensus on the Vancouver formula did hold. But the Prime Minister would not agree to join that clear consensus without agreement on his package. It was then the Prime Minister who stopped agreement. As I said earlier, no partner in our federation should now hold all of Canada up to ransom for their own hidden agenda items. The way lay open in September to patriation with the Vancouver formula. It lies open now. And beyond that achievement, which could be finalized in all stages in a matter of weeks, lies the prospect of having the means here in Canada for Canadians to amend our constitution, free from hidden agenda, free from veto, free from referenda, which could override the provinces and destroy the nature of the federal system, and free from blockage.
I believe we have a great opportunity here today to make the most out of unusual circumstances. There is great hope among the people of Canada that we can get an agreement on constitutional change. I remember going into the province of Quebec during the referendum campaign and speaking sincerely about the need for constitutional renewal. I know the attitude in western Canada, the region of Canada from which I come. I know there is a deep sense there that change is needed. I know that in every corner of this land there is a determination to end the colonial system that leaves our constitution in another country and that permits decisions affecting us to be taken by another government. There is a desire to have Canadians act, not only to bring our constitution home but to have it here where we can work with it.
The Prime Minister has amendments that he wants. The Leader of the NDP has amendments that he wants and 1 have amendments that I want. Premiers have amendments that they want. They can all be dealt with here in Canada and they can be dealt with in accordance with the Vancouver formula. 1 know I am approaching the end of my allotted time, and so I will conclude by saying that everyone in Canada wants to have constitutional change. Everyone in Canada wants to have our constitution here at home. The reason there is opposition to the government proposal is that they want to have Britain make changes which we believe should only be made here in Canada. They want to continue a colonial status which we want to end. But instead of holding up the House of Commons in debate, our party is today proposing a means by which the Parliament of Canada can act to bring the Constitution of Canada home, to be amended in Canada. It can be done if there is a will in the House of Commons to do it. I pray that there is that will, so that Canadians can change our own constitution here in our own country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I rise to participate in this-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean "Mr. Speaker."
October 22, 1980


John Edward Broadbent: We have changed Speakers, I see. I am corrected by the sage of the House, who has just pointed out to me we have changed Speakers.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate with pleasure in this very important debate, which is really a continuation of the debate which has been going on for a number of days on the future of this country. I would like to pick up on one suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), that the approach to constitutional change be made in a non-partisan fashion as much as possible. Shortly after the referendum the Leader of the Opposition expressed sentiments of the kind expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Mr. Andre:: How do you know that? We did not participate?


John Edward Broadbent: I listened to my colleagues on my right, and I would appreciate their indulgence for a few minutes. They may disagree with what I have to say, but I would have thought that it would have pleased even the member of the Conservative party most immediately to my right.
When the country's constitution is changed it should be done through consensus here in the House of Commons, outside the House, amongst the provinces, the premiers and the ordinary people of our land wherever they may live. Without criticizing the Leader of the Opposition, but simply to illustrate the point, so far, in the discussion on the proposed resolution introduced by the Govenrment of Canada, there has been some partisan reaction. I will not pass judgment on the decision-making process which led to that reaction.
Two Conservative premiers, one from New Brunswick and one from Ontario, have indicated their support for the resolution. Then there are other Conservative premiers who, with equal good will-I am not presupposing that difference of attitude-have indicated their opposition to the government's proposal. The Premier of Saskatchewan, as members of this House well know, has not made up his mind finally on the measure. He sees certain matters which he likes and other which he does not like. The point I am making is that in some quarters there is a feeling of give and take which is appropriate when a nation experiences the kind of severe change which is inevitably involved in constitutional change.
1 would like to see that kind of spirit in this debate and the pre-supposition that good will will prevail amongst those with whom we differ. I have no higher regard for the Premier of New Brunswick because he happens to be closer to my position on this issue than I have for the Premier of British Columbia. They are two different Canadians expressing their judgments, and 1 merely happen to be more in agreement with one than with the other. Nor am I questioning motives.
When the Leader of the Opposition says rhetorically, and he means it substantively, that we should stop being colonials and bring the constitution back to Canada before we make the changes, to a certain real extent he is game-playing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
The Constitution


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to make my argument. What we have before us in the government resolution are topics which have been debated in Canada and upon which judgment has been passed by the people in the provinces and the House of Commons. In fact it is a Canadian decision, and the British parliament will not act unless they get a recommendation from the people of Canada. We all know that.
I suggest that there is some weakness-and I will not put it any stronger than that-in the argument that by opting for the approach put forth by the Leader of the Opposition over the approach initiated by the Government of Canada, we would somehow be more Canadian. Both involve a decision-making process, the outcome of which will be determined by Canadians. One may be more preferable than the other, but the fundamental, intellectual truth of the situation, surely, is that both decisions, whether we adopt the Conservative party approach or the approach proposed by the Government of Canada, will result in a decision made by Canadians, and no one else, in the final analysis.
There are some very serious implications in the approach proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. There are some things in the government proposal in which my party profoundly believe, such as the entrenchment of rights and the establishment of language rights for the two official languages which exist in our land. At this historical point in our history I believe that these subjects ought to be entrenched, because 1 fear that the opportunity may not arise again. There is the principle of equalization. This principle can be improved upon, and we will deal with that in committee. It is a principle in which I believe.
There is also the commitment, although it is very fundamental now because the government has made a commitment, that the provinces of Canada will have the right to control and manage the development of their resources. I say to the Leader of the Opposition as a member from western Canada that that is very important at this point in our history. Premier Blakeney said the very same thing at a press conference held today in Regina.
I would also say to the Leader of the Opposition that if we reject the government's approach and accept his approach- and I will come to the concerns which I have over his approach-we will lose the points I have just mentioned.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I see that the opposition leader is shaking his head, and I will come back to that point in a minute. We will lose those things. It has been suggested by an hon. member from Newfoundland, a former cabinet minister who ought to have known better, that the proposal of the New Democratic Party on the question of resources was aimed at the province of Saskatchewan. I say to that member as a man who grew up in Ontario, nothing could be further from the truth, and 1 mean that.
If I thought, for example, that we could have obtained the right for Newfoundland to have control of their offshore resources, he can be sure that that would have been a principal

October 22, 1980
The Constitution
part of the bargaining instrument because that is the position of our party. We believe that the offshore provinces should be put on the same basis as the inshore provinces. That is our belief, but we were not in a position to do anything, and I state it frankly because it is no secret. We have our strength in western Canada and the Liberal party is weak in western Canada.
One can see these moves within the political process in two ways. One can look at it and say, "Ah, somehow that is cynical wheeling and dealing". That is the essence of democratic politics that it be conducted openly. If we believe in the consensual approach to constitutional change, and if there are in a proposal many things in which we believe, as my party saw in the constitutional proposal, such as fundamental rights, language rights and equalization, and you also saw something which was missing in terms of resource control which was important to western Canadians as well as others, and you saw the means of negotiating because of your strength, then I think it is appropriate in a democratic system to negotiate toughly and get it, and we got it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You sold out.


John Edward Broadbent: Someone has said that we sold out. 1 would say to the Conservatives, "What have you obtained for the people of Canada?" Not a thing. The people of Newfoundland should pay attention with some care to what Mr. Peckford is saying because, as a result of constitutional entrenchment which will amount to two full pages of constitutional text, over resources all the provinces will have substantial power. As a result of its inclusion in the constitution, Mr. Peckford, if he is still premier at the time, will have the clear authority to manage and control the right of, for example, development of hydroelectric power in Labrador and Newfoundland itself. No longer will private corporations be able to challenge the right in the courts or his participation in interprovincial trade, as is the case today. The victory which we have won in this debate is for the people of Newfoundland not just the people of the prairies. Similarly,-
[ Translation]
-in Quebec, Mr. Levesque wants control over asbestos. With those rights entrenched in the constitution, the Quebec government, presently that of Mr. Levesque or perhaps in the future that of Mr. Ryan or someone else, could also have control over those natural resources. It could decide what it wants as far as asbestos is concerned. It would be its right, which is not the case at present, because the Supreme Court has made certain decisions in the past which have changed the present constitutional reality of Canada.
So I say to our friend in the Conservative party, not only for Newfoundland but for the people of the province of Quebec, this constitutional amendment, giving them a right to control
the management of their resources, is of profound importance, and I am proud to play a role in that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: In Alberta and Saskatchewan the same right holds for the development of taxing powers over their gas, over their oil and, indeed, over their potash.
I should like a member of the Conservative party to put on record, sometime, how many millions of dollars the right to indirect taxation on oil and gas is going to mean to Mr. Lougheed. We have done some preliminary calculations and even for Alberta, Mr. Speaker, "it ain't hay". So the prairie provinces are going to benefit as well.
British Columbia, a province that has gas, a province that has lumber resources but which wants to set up planning mechanisms and that wants to set up a pro-rationing method of development, under the constitutional change that we have proposed and that the government has accepted, the government of British Columbia-whether led by Mr. Bennett, or before long, we anticipate, Mr. Barrett-will be able to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The point is that the resource amendment that the government has decided to accept is not without significance; it is something of real importance to every region and province in our land.


Charles Joseph Clark: Ask Allen Blakeney.


John Edward Broadbent: The Leader of the Opposition tells me to ask Allen Blakeney. Mr. Blakeney spoke for himself a couple of hours ago and said the same thing.


Charles Joseph Clark: Check the record.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say that if we moved in the Conservative party's direction today, if we supported the motion before the House, then language rights, fundamental rights, equalization and provincial control of resources would all go out the window.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not true.


John Edward Broadbent: The Leader of the Opposition says that is not true. But they would go out the window in the precise sense that if the motion presented by the government and so amended in the future is accepted, we would have those things; under the Conservative proposal we would have nothing but a constitution back here.
In this context, I want to ask about our native people.


David Edward Crombie: They are not protected here.


John Edward Broadbent: A former minister says the native people are not protected here. I correct his in one minor respect only: there is a clause referring to existing rights. I say to the House that this party intends to work very hard to improve what is in the existing resolution presented by the government, and to
October 22, 1980

ensure that the rights of native people are not only as stated in the bill but are extended well beyond that to include treaty obligations as well. So we will be fighting for that.
In the Tory position-and I do not say this pejoratively as I am trying to understand it-if we got the constitution back, all it would mean is we would have it back without any reference to a clause at all-without any understanding that there would be anything in it for our Indian and Inuit population or any of our other native people. At least in the present resolution there is something that we can amend and improve.
The same point could be made with reference to women's rights. There is an affirmative action clause that we like but that can be improved. There is also, in our judgment, a need to deal with the constitution in such a way that it would reverse a number of Supreme Court decisions made in the past decade the effect of which has not been to establish equality between men and women, but just the opposite. In the resolution that the government has offered, we have grounds on which to make improvements on the matter of women's rights, and we intend to do that.
I want to come now, Mr. Speaker, to what in our view is basically wrong with the Vancouver formula. The former prime minister, the Leader of the Opposition, says that in his proposal we would have a "work" something-I do not have the precise words from his press release of this morning but the gist of it was that it would be a formula that would enable us to get speedy and concrete change right away. With all due respect, I say to him that in my judgment he is wrong, and I want to tell the House why I think so.
The essence of the Vancouver formula is that all the provinces would particpate in the decision but that any province would have the right to veto its application to its own province. That is what is in the Vancouver formula. Of course, the provinces agreed to that; why would they not? They would each retain a veto over things that affect them; they would have everything to gain and nothing to lose, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition, we are a federal party and we have national responsibilities that go beyond provincial premiers.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: If we accepted a formula like that, would we have medicare in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: No!


John Edward Broadbent: Would we have hospitalization in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: No!


An hon. Member:: No thanks to the Tories.


John Edward Broadbent: I say, Mr. Speaker, if we had accepted a formula such as that proposed in the Vancouver amendment we would not have a Canada with a common set of rights-of fundamental decencies, if you like-from coast to coast. We would have a hodge-podge Canada with a highly differentiated
The Constitution
set of rights and principles. We will have nothing to do with that kind of Canada.


Mr. Malone:: The option is no Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Not only is that a fundamental flaw, it is a serious flaw, and 1 am disturbed that the Conservative party, as a federal party, could put that forward as a serious option at this time. I mean that, because I think it could lead to the dismemberment-it could lead to a highly differentiated set of rights in every region of our land. There could be family law of one kind in Manitoba, for example, and an entirely different kind in another province. Some provinces would have medicare and others would not. What we stand for in this party is a common sense of Canadian citizenship. That is fundamentally important, Mr. Speaker.
The other point I want to make is less significant but surely must cause the Leader of the Opposition some concern. Some amendments simply cannot be subject to an opting-out formula. I ask the Leader of the Opposition what he would do with proposed amendments that would change the Senate of Canada? What would he do with amendments that would change the Supreme Court of Canada? Will some provinces be able to opt out? In other words, Mr. Speaker, it would be inoperative to take the formula with that kind of requirement-an opting-out process for each of the provinces-in dealing with an idea that we favour, for example, such as provincial participation in the Supreme Court. That would be completely inoperative in a federal state.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not true.


John Edward Broadbent: I stand to be corrected by the Leader of the Opposition later on, but that is certainly my understanding of the way it would work.
I understand that my time is just about up, Mr. Speaker, but I wanted to say to the House that there are many things in the government bill that we profoundly believe in because they have been established New Democratic Party policies. Of course, there are other areas of very serious concern, as my colleagues have expressed. In committee we will deal with the amending formula, women's rights, and native rights. We plan to fight for improvements in those areas.
As a Canadian, I want the deadlock broken; as a Canadian I want a reasonable package that has something that is favourable to Atlantic Canadians, to people in Ontario and in Quebec. We have that in equalization and we have it in language rights, and now we have it in resources. I want action now so that, to use the phrase of the Leader of the Opposition, we do not need to continue to be colonials.
If we bring the constitution home along the lines indicated, we will indeed have a constitution in Canada, and we will have embedded in it a number of just principles that all Canadians could defend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 22, 1980
The Constitution


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we witnessed this afternoon what I would call a rather spectacular about-face by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark). What does he propose today? He is proposing this afternoon immediate patriation of the constitution, something we have been urging in this House for months and something all Canadians call for. He proposes an amending formula that at this point does not meet with unanimous approval from the provinces. I attended the constitutional conference and I spent the whole summer, Mr. Speaker, trying to get a consensus.
We worked on that formula. We considered the implications. It was first called the Alberta formula and later the Vancouver formula, because it was considered in Vancouver. It was clear to all participants that it was probably the most rigid one that could be included in the constitution, because even though the provinces might or might not accept some changes, it was clear to all participants that the federal government, with an absolute veto in these matters, would very soon be forced never to accept any constitutional amendment because we would eventually evolve into a kind of Canada where there would be certain rights for some Canadians and other rights for other Canadians. And this is basically unacceptable to those who believe that Canada must be able to guarantee its citizens equal rights across the land.
We did consider that formula, but we did so in the following spirit: We believed at some point that we were going to enshrine in the constitution the basic rights of Canadians, that we were going to guarantee Canadians mobility rights; that we were to guarantee minorities education rights in their first language wherever they may be in Canada; that we were going to guarantee Canadians basic liberties, democratic freedoms, non-discrimination rights, mobility rights and so forth. Since these rights were to be guaranteed, we could then consider the formula. But this was only further to agreement on the 12 items or a majority of the items that were under consideration. And anyway, we were telling participants that aspects of that formula were not clear. And this was obvious. During the discussion, the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition referred to certain difficulties.
For example, what were we to do should any province use the opting-out clause to withdraw its support of the constitutional amendment, should there be costs incurred by the people, should this matter not be settled? What were we to do should any part of the constitution not be amendable under the Vancouver or Alberta formula? Suppose, for example, that Canada-that is nine provinces out of ten plus the federal government-decides to have an upper chamber different from the one we now have. There is no way to settle this matter because any one province could have stayed outside this institution by using this formula. If we had another formula-the Vancouver formula is incomplete. There were several other
problems of this nature. The Supreme Court, as was mentioned by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) and all that. And I know-
I know that today it was because of a possible consensus, but it was not an agreement. It has never been presented as an agreement by the first ministers. At no time. Never. I defy the hon. Leader of the Opposition to prove that the ten premiers were in agreement with that formula.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We agreed to study the formula. But the more we looked into the formula, the more flaws we found, and until the last moment we agreed to keep looking into it.
If we patriate the constitution today with that formula, it is to hell with the rights of Canadians because we can never enshrine them in the constitution. It would be impossible to have a charter of rights which would apply to all Canadians. Hon. members only have to listen to the speech of Premier Lyon, who said that he will always oppose any entrenchment of a bill of rights in the constitution. He said that time and time again. So I ask: what will the result be? There will be rights for certain Canadians but not for others. As long as I am a parliamentarian, I want to have rights for all Canadians across this land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: For instance, take the situation today about the mobility of manpower.


David Edward Crombie: What about the Indians?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I will come to the rights of Indians. I am not embarrassed by that because I worked for a long time on that problem.


An hon. Member:: He was the best minister, too.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We put a provision in the act that all their rights would be protected, and the incorporation of the charter of rights will not affect the treaty rights of Indians. It is clear in the constitution. If the hon. member has the guts to come to the committee one day and deal with that, we will be able to cope with that problem. But hon. members are refusing to come to the committee. The committee will start next week and we will deal with all of those problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: However, there are a lot of other rights. There were hon. members who made speeches in Quebec who said they did not want to impose education rights. If the Fathers of Confederation had had the wisdom to put education rights in the constitution in 1867, the Canada of today would have far fewer problems than it has now.


Charles Joseph Clark: They were stupid, too?
October 22, 1980


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, I do not say that. They were not perfect, neither are we. Nor is the Leader of the Opposition perfect.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am telling hon. members that those rights have not been protected in the constitution as they should have been. This is an historical debate-a once in a lifetime chance and we shall not miss it. But it will be impossible with the amending formula which the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting today.
I dealt with ministers all summer. We came close. There was a lot of good will, but certainly the old problem of trying to bargain the patriation against something else again was the flaw which prevented an agreement.


Charles Joseph Clark: It is a shame to have a federation, is it not?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I say that we want to have the mobility rights and the non-discriminatory rights protected. What is wrong with that?
The freedoms we have in Canada have been gained over the years. This land has known discrimination in the past, but we are mature enough to have overcome a lot of it. The progress that we have made has to be protected forever in the constitution.


Charles Joseph Clark: Tell us about the War Measures Act.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: This is just like what John Diefenbaker wanted to have. I tell hon. members to read the records of 1960 when he was debating the Canadian Bill of Rights. Mr. Diefenbaker was complaining about the provinces which would not agree at that time to have rights protected in the Canadian constitution. We are just finishing the work for Mr. Diefenbaker today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am appalled to know that the Leader of the Opposition who comes from western Canada does not feel strongly about the rights of Canadians.
There are many people in this land who do things and whose rights seem to be well protected in normal society, but these rights can disappear very rapidly. Just take a look at other countries around the world. Some of the most stable societies have seen the ugly head of racism rising to the surface. That shall not happen in Canada because rights will be protected in the constitution.
It is very easy for the majority to have views of minorities. It is the role of this Parliament to make sure that this land of ours, it is a land of minorities of all kinds, will see the rights they have acquired over the last 113 years protected forever in the Canadian constitution. This is the Canada we are going to have.
The Constitution


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think that today the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is trying to find his way out of the mess he got himself into.


An hon. Member:: As usual.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Today he is proposing the unilateral patriation of the constitution. We did not get any agreement on the Vancouver formula. There was no such agreement. Show me the agreement if it does exist. The fact is it does not exist. We have talked about it and it was always under the condition that such and such a thing be accepted. They were not accepted. There was no agreement. Several premiers, several ministers who attended the conference constantly expressed reservations regarding this formula. This is why, Mr. Speaker, we prepared this resolution.


Roch La Salle: Have there been any agreements on your resolutions?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am pleased the member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) raises this issue because we are being accused of not having gone far enough, of not having forced Ontario, for instance, to accept section 733, of not having forced the provinces to accept it. We are being criticized for refraining from systematically invading the provincial jurisdiction concerning bilingualism in the legislatures and as concerns provincial statutes. Some would have liked us to impose-


An hon. Member:: Courts of justice!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -certain things to the provinces. We would have liked to do so, but we have respected the rights of provinces.


Charles Joseph Clark: This is what we are asking you to continue doing!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: And that is what we are doing. However, I do not like people who have a double standard, such as the hon. member for Joliette, who says: "Impose what I want, but do not touch what I do not want." Either we have neutral patriation-and in the patriation formula that we are now proposing, we have basically tried not to effect the balance of powers between the federal government and the provinces. We have respected this balance of power and the only change we have suggested in this regard is the one we accepted today at the request of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, we have agreed to change the powers of the provinces so as to guarantee their control, which is already granted by the constitution, over their own resources by giving them the right to tax resources indirectly and to legislate in the area of interprovin-

October 22, 1980
The Constitution
cial trade subject to the paramountcy of the federal government. We have accepted this concept. We had not included it from the outset for a very simple reason, namely, that we had decided that we could in no way amend the powers of the federal government or the provinces. What we wanted to do was to provide Canadians with the means to prevent the Canadian government and the provincial legislatures from infringing on the rights of individuals-


Charles Joseph Clark: As in the case of the war measures!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Exactly, in the case of the war measures, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will recognize that when we have a charter of rights in the constitution-


An hon. Member:: There will be a referendum which could-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: While the War Measures Act may have led to abuses in 1970, if we had had at that time a charter of rights we would not have witnessed all those abuses, because any person arrested would have appeared immediately before the courts. The charter of rights will have fundamental effects and we will discuss that in committee when the official opposition will no longer be afraid to go-


An hon. Member:: They are afraid.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Instead of showing those ugly scarecrows, I urge the Leader of the Opposition to come and ask those questions in committee, because those questions will be answered and we will say to him that the War Measures Act will be much more moderated by the entrenchment of a charter of rights in the constitution.
Mr. Speaker, in order to accept the formula they suggest it would require first that the fundamental rights of Canadians be entrenched in the constitution; otherwise, if we wanted a charter of rights for all Canadians some provinces might opt out. As a result some Canadian citizens would have more rights than others and that is why the proposed formula could be accepted if we had a charter of rights, if the power sharing had already been definitely determined in the minds of participants, but now we are putting the cart before the horse. We do not have the agreement of provinces. We therefore have a very rigid formula because there can be no responsible federal government. Unless the vision of the Prime Minister at the time is that of a kind of community of communities where the provinces will always get a yes, where the federal government will be the flunkey, the messenger who will deliver to the provinces anything they want, or unless we have a Prime Minister, a leader of the Canadian government who is anxious to ensure the equality of Canadian citizens, who is anxious to share Canada's wealth. I noticed this afternoon that the Leader of the Opposition never mentioned equalization. Is it not important any more? Does it not count?
Let us suppose now that equalization were not enshrined in the constitution, that we want to include it and that rich provinces opt out. We shall have to collect money from the poor to give to the poor. This is the amending formula of the opposition leader?
If the rights are already enshrined in the constitution there is no problem, but this formula should be extremely rigid in its nature as, in such circumstances, a federal government would not proceed through constitutional amendment if it were to realize that some provinces want to withdraw from the constitutional amendment. And then that right of veto would turn into the same strait-jacket we have been wearing for 53 years, the patriation of the constitution.
So I am pleased to say that today the Leader of the Opposition tries to jump in with us and that he now supports the patriation of the constitution. Under the cover of a supposed agreement he has put forth an amending formula which was never agreed to by the provinces.


Roch La Salle: It is the majority. We have always supported the government; we simply disagree about methods.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am happy to hear that! It is unilateral, hurrah! I am happy to hear that the hon. member for Joliette is for unilateral patriation of the constitution. In addition, what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting is that we should impose an amending formula right now; on the other hand, we on this side of the House already have a provisional amending formula allowing the provinces to agree; if they find a good formula, we can then incorporate it in the constitution, here, in Canada. That is because we do not want to impose a formula upon the provinces. We say we will give the provinces another two years to agree. If they can come to an agreement in two weeks, so much the better. And if the amending formula is not acceptable to the federal government-


Roch La Salle: I have never said anything of the kind. [English]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If the amending formula proposed by the provinces is seen by this House as not acceptable-


Charles Joseph Clark: No, by a government using closure.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I will come back to that if 1 have the time. I do not understand the Leader of the Opposition. I am anxious to go to the committee to respond to all of their questions, but they do not want to see me. The committee need not only sit in the afternoon and evening. It can sit in the morning, afternoon, and all evening.


Charles Joseph Clark: Will it travel?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We are the Parliament. We do not want a road show. We want the people of Canada to talk through their elected representatives.
October 22, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The usual courtesy was extended to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). It should now be granted to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien).


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If the Vancouver formula is so good, what about all the flaws which the Leader of the NDP spoke about earlier? It is a kind of checkerboard formula for a constitution in Canada. If it is so good, let us have the premiers agree to it and make their recommendations to us. If the federal Parliament does not like it, who will decide? It will be the people of Canada who will decide.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am not embarrassed by that. I do think that sometimes our priorities as national politicians cannot and should not be the priorities of the premiers, because we have different jurisdictions. If you are a premier it is natural that you defend what you think are your local interests, but we national politicians sometimes have to become the arbitrators of the different aspirations to make sure that the wealth of Canada will be shared, and to make sure that the citizens of Canada will have the same rights.


Charles Joseph Clark: Except the right to speak in Parliament.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is our national responsibility, and if we have a fundamental disagreement about the amending formula, the people of Canada will decide what is wrong with it. I have confidence in the people of Canada. We are going into committee. We have tried to make our resolution the best possible.


Charles Joseph Clark: Ha!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes. I have been listening to the speeches of hon. members opposite for weeks. None of the hon. members opposite has spoken about the charter of rights.


David Edward Crombie: Oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, the hon. member asked a question about it. I told him to come to the committee. I did not listen to the hon. member's speech. I am sorry, but we are going to the committee, and we will reply to those questions. The hon. member raised a question about the possibility of not having affirmative actions, and in our charter of rights there is the possibility of affirmative actions, so this problem does not exist. It is good that the hon. member raised the question. It was a valid question, but it is in committee that we can deal with it, so let us go to committee. That is the whole point.
Why do we have this diversion today? Now hon. members opposite will get up and say that we did not debate the constitution today. We have debated it for days and days. In order to waste time there was question of privilege after question of privilege. Some took a whole day, rather than
The Constitution
debate. Those subjects were not created by us. They were just raised to gain time. We are going to the committee. We will listen to hon. members there.


Charles Joseph Clark: Then you will cut it off by closure there too.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada want us to make up our minds. They are absolutely fed up with debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The people of Canada want to know where hon. members opposite stand.


Charles Joseph Clark: I stand for having the constitution home today.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: They do not want the double-barrelled type of standing that we are for and against at the same time. Hon. members opposite should make up their minds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We know where we are going. I think that this tactic of diversion this afternoon will be voted down.


Charles Joseph Clark: You are going to Westminster to hide out.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We will vote to go to committee. We hope to have a decision by the end of the year, and by some time next year we will have a Canadian constitution which at last will have broken the deadlock forever.


Charles Joseph Clark: You won't have a country next year.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We will have a Canadian constitution which will be amended in Canada, with a bill of rights which gives a guarantee to all Canadians that the rights they have acquired-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -will be those of all Canadians, that Canada is a country which could become mature and endow itself with the institutions it needs, a country which would be able to amend its constitution in Canada-


Charles Joseph Clark: For amendments, it is necessary to go to London!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Since we must go there anyway, we might as well go. We want a charter of rights. Because it is the only legal way we can get one just now, that is the way we will proceed, Mr. Speaker. We have committed ourselves to changes, decided that we wanted a Canadian constitution, that we needed to enshrine the linguistic rights of Canadians in the constitution, as well as both official languages-


Charles Joseph Clark: In England?

October 22, 1980
The Constitution


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -that we needed to protect in the constitution the rights of Canadians to mobility, non-discrimination and other basic rights, and we will do it now.


An hon. Member:: Who is we?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Canadian Parliament. That is the promise we have made, Mr. Speaker, and that is the promise we will keep. After 53 years, we will settle the problem once and for all.


Charles Joseph Clark: That was a disgrace to Parliament, to Quebec and to Canada.


Mr. Rossi:: You are a disgrace.


Arnold John Malone: You don't know your country. You do not know anything.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Carlo Rossi: Go Back to the farm where you belong.


Arnold John Malone: Shut up. You don't know anything.


Carlo Rossi: Go back to the farm.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp).


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking in support of the resolution before us, and after the speech of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), 1 would like to get back to the realities. I think at times the minister went well beyond the scope of reality and was also caught up by his own rhetoric and histrionics.


An hon. Member:: A fanatic, a Hitler.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I think it is important that we take a look at the elements of the resolution as well as what has brought this Parliament and Canadians to this position.
I want to spend just a little time on the speech of the Minister of Justice. The minister put into question whether there was agreement between the premiers on the Vancouver consensus. He knows very well, as he co-chaired a committee, that a consensus developed during the summer on the Vancouver consensus. Neither the minister nor the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) has attacked the Vancouver consensus per se. What they have really said is that there are flaws in that consensus or formula. I think the minister wants to be fair and objective about this, so if he takes a look at his package and his proposed resolution, he should agree that the same criticism can be made.
There are members of the minister's own caucus who object seriously to clause 41. There are members of the New Democratic Party who object to clause 41. There are premiers who object to clause 41, but we have not even ittentioned, to this point, the abhorrence of clause 42. If the minister is a fair-minded person, surely he does not want to say today in this
House that his formula suddenly has more support or more strength because one government supports it, his, and that is the only government which supports it in that sense because the premier of Ontario, for instance, as recently as the Tuesday on which the premiers met in Toronto, said that while Ontario had traditionally supported either the Victoria or Victoria-modified, he could now see the validity of the Vancouver consensus. Why? It is very simple.
It is because he has realized, as a person who is looking at the country and the need to make it work, that he was seeing that the Vancouver consensus fundamentally retained the principle that the provinces are equal entities and that we do not have class A provinces, class B provinces and class C provinces. My hon. colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass), asked where Prince Edward Island is in our formula. Is Prince Edward Island written off? Does Prince Edward Island not exist? Does the minister not care?
The minister says today that we should not accept the formula the premiers agreed to. He is saying that his is better. Why? His actually eliminates Canadians totally. That is what the minister is saying to us.
I know the Minister of Justice quite well. He said that he has faith in the Canadian people. So do I. If that is the case, no matter what the minister's objections have been throughout the summer of negotiations-or today for that matter-why does he object to the people of Canada, through their elected representatives here in Parliament and their premiers who are elected in their respective provinces, making all future amendments to the constitution? Why does the minister insist it be done in Britain rather than in Canada? Why does the minister have more faith in Westminster than he has in this House, the legislatures and the premiers? That is the question he must answer, because under the government's package there is no question that the British parliament is being asked to amend the constitution under an amending formula to which all or no other amendments can ever be brought to bear again. The government wants to bootleg through Britain an amendment in a formula which will never be used again or cannot be used by anyone else. That is what the government is asking Canadians and this Parliament to do.
The Minister of Justice also says he is interested in fair play. So am I, and I sincerely believe that he is that kind of person, but if that is the case, if we look at language rights in the package he has introduced, the proposed resolution, what he is doing for all time is making immigrants who move to the province of Quebec second-class citizens in terms of education and minority language rights. What they are doing is entrenching sections of Bill 101. He said today on the floor of the House that he is in favour of fair play. That is exactly what they are doing in that package. He mentioned, for example, that the War Measures Act cannot be used again under the bill of rights which is included in the proposed resolution. What about the emergency power? Can they not invoke the emergency powers and then come in with the War Measures Act?
October 22, 1980


An hon. Member:: The truth would be helpful.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You see, Mr. Speaker, these are the realities. I know why the Minister of Justice holds his views firmly, and I do not object to that, but it is important for the people of Canada, looking at this debate at this period of time, that we also look at the facts. I think the Minister of Justice will admit that what I am putting on the floor of the House is, in fact, the matter of the way in which the constitution will operate.
Additionally, we are facing this day a closure motion at a period of time when the government has had more speakers in this debate than the official opposition.


An hon. Member:: That is not an argument.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I hear that that is not an argument. In other words, what the member, I suppose, is saying is that you could just have government members speaking. Let me convince members opposite of the accuracy of my contention. I shall quote from 3732 of Hansard of October 16.
On that occasion the Prime Minister said:
"The Speaker has asked that Parliament return on Monday to begin debate on that resolution. Every member of Parliament from every corner of this land is asked to participate in this historic act."
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in his television address of that Thursday, wanted every member to participate. And yet we face closure today. At present there have been 21 Conservative speakers who took part in the debate. Those are the facts. I ask members of the government: are you sincere when you say that closure is justified at this stage when you yourselves have had more speakers?
The only conclusion to which I can come is that the Prime Minister has no use for federal-provincial conferences, for the premiers or for the provincial legislatures. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) says that federal-provincial conferences are a bother and should be done away with. And now it is the parliamentary debate which is being curtailed. How many members have said that this House should debate this resolution? Yet now we face closure. We face closure even before we go to committee, and the committee is faced with closure on December 9.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The very memos talk about closure and the negative effect it would have on the House and in the country. The recommendation is in there provisionally at this time, closure of this debate on the Constitution of Canada and the fundamental laws of Canada cannot and should not be used. Putting it in another way, we can see this government, because of its past actions and its negative attitudes toward Parliament, bringing in closure. We have the NDP, those great defenders of democracy! Did you hear so much as a peep today that they object to closure?


An hon. Member:: Not a word.
The Constitution


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Not a word. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) sits mute. He will prostrate himself in front of the Liberals, his present colleagues, and will accept closure in the House and closure in committee.
We have had ten days of debate, and they say closure. I can hardly fathom that the NDP would accept the mess of potage or, as somebody has described it, the mess of potash, that they have received. One thing which I thought I would never see is notice given immediately after a closure motion, that the Leader of the NDP would rise. We heard him give a speech and never object to closure. That is what we saw today. My good friend from Saskatchewan says, "wait". I know they feel uneasy because of the sweetheart deal and because the premier of Saskatchewan today rejected it. He kept it open, but he certainly does not like the deal.
The point is that what we have before us here today is simply a fait accompli by the government using its majority and applying closure, and total acquiescence by the NDP.
For example, there is the matter of resources. The NDP and the Liberals now say there is a guarantee. If you look at the first clause in the Prime Minister's letter, why do you need a guarantee on resources? This right is guaranteed in the constitution. Section 109 guarantees non-renewable resources, and section 92.5 guarantees it for the provinces, and the British North America Act amendments of 1930 guarantee it for the three prairie provinces. Who brought the question in doubt? Who questions ownership of resources? It was this Prime Minister. He brought it in doubt. The provinces did not have that doubt, but this Prime Minister has always tried to smuggle in the notion that the provinces should not own the resources. He has used his powers as the Prime Minister to raise doubts in the minds of Canadians. That very doubt today has caused a division which we see in the country. That is the legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau right now. That division is his legacy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: At least we win elections.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They might win elections, but what is happening to the country?


An hon. Member:: You win elections and ruin the country.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They are jocular about it, but let me be quite serious about it. What is happening in western Canada is that western Canadians feel deeply alienated right now. They are as good Canadians as any one of you opposite, and they want to stay in the country. There is an old adage: not only must justice be done, it must appear to be done. Right now the appearance of justice as the west sees it is gone. That is the reality. I say to the members very seriously: at your own peril and at the peril of the country you ignore that fact.
In terms of the Vancouver formula there is a point which I wish to make-I mentioned it earlier-that is, that the principle that the provinces are equal must be maintained in any amending formula. That is not the case in the Victoria formula

October 22, 1980
The Constitution
or in the Victoria modified formula, or in the present package which the government has put before us. As a person coming from a province with a population of about one million people, I recognize the fact that population should be taken as a factor when there is an amendment. There is no argument with that, and that population factor is considered as the resolution passes through the House. It is also recognized to some degree in the other place where, while representation is on the basis of regions, we also recognize the population reality there. But once they have a resolution through both Houses of Parliament and have recognized the population reality, surely they cannot once again classify provinces on the basis of population, making some more equal than others, dealing one in and dealing one out, because then they will not have a mosaic, a country, a federation. It is not a unitary state yet, and we do not intend to let them make it one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: There is one other point. When the first ministers met, there were certain areas they thought should be changed. I do not have the time today to go into the areas of opting in and opting out, but they were restricted. I will just give one for the benefit of the Canadian public. One opting-out section was that if a boundary of a province was to be changed or if its resources were affected, that province could opt out. I think that is only natural and normal. It is becoming clear today that under section 42 the resources of the provinces, no matter what guarantees are in the letter dated October 21 from the Prime Minister to the Leader of the New Democratic Party can be taken way; they can be taken away under section 42.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: They cannot.


Charles Joseph Clark: Of course they can, absolutely.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They can be taken away. Throughout this debate we have been saying that on section 42, and we have asked the Prime Minister if he will only use section 42 as a one-time only deadlock breaking device. He never gives us that assurance. He wants that cudgel, he wants that power.


Charles Joseph Clark: To create the deadlock and then use a referendum.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is not true.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Perhaps I should give the gentleman opposite a simple lesson in political science. The premiers and the members of their ten legislatures have been elected by the people as well. They have some legitimacy, even though the government might not want to recognize that.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We have some too.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That point should be kept in mind. One additional matter which I did not think after ten days of debate would have to be mentioned is the matter of patriatior.. But I must mention it to both my Liberal colleagues and members of the
media. I believe I am a person of some patience, but even as late as last night the press mentioned that suddenly we are in favour of patriation because of the resolution before us. My leader said in the opening speech of this debate that we want patriation, we want it now, and we want our amendments here in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It was in the communique. No matter what the arguments of the Liberals might be in terms of the proposals we put forward, they should not any longer leave, either directly or inferentially, the big myth that we are opposed to patriation. That is the fact. They should stay with the truth, and they know that is the truth. But they like always to shade it. If it helps their argument, they shade it a bit. They should not shade it again.
It makes eminently good sense that the constitution be brought back. The argument put forward by the Minister of Justice that we would not have a constitution, that we would be naked-I would take it seriously if I knew he had. But he himself did not take it seriously. Amendments should be made in Canada. We want a made-in-Canada constitution. I believe that is our responsibility. Let us patriate it. The formula works if we want to make it work and do it at home.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to participate in the debate this afternoon. I want to deal with the procedural aspect of the motion before us, because I think a case could be made that this very supply motion is not in order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Michael Collenette: Rather than challenge the propriety of this motion and be accused of denying the opposition its right to speak, we have not done that. But if Mr. Speaker consults the precedents, the Standing Orders, and citation 481 of Beau-chesne's, for example, he will see that we should not be discussing this matter because the substance of the matter is still before us in motion No. 18. Citation 481 indicates quite clearly that the similarity of the subject matter of an opposition motion cannot prejudice in any way the progress of a bill under discussion which deals with approximately the same matter.


Some hon. Members:: What bill?


David Michael Collenette: If the precedents were looked up, I suggest that would also extend to the motion before the House. I just wanted to raise that in passing, because we are being magnanimous.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Michael Collenette: We are being generous.
October 22, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Not true.


David Michael Collenette: We know the position in which the official opposition has found itself in this debate. They have no position. In fact the last three weeks has been one exercise of obstruction on behalf of the official opposition in this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: They have the audacity to come here with a supply motion on their allotted day and ask us to consider a complicated matter contained in the resolution, that is, patria-tion with the Vancouver formula. They want discussions and a judgment of this House within three hours this afternoon, yet they plead, they writhe for time to discuss motion No. 18 in committee. They want the committee extended, they want the reporting of the committee and the other debate extended. What it really amounts to is one rule for the Tories, and one rule for the rest. That is what we have before us this afternoon, an exceedingly mischievous motion.


Walter David Baker: What a distortion.


David Michael Collenette: I can see the fine hands of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) in the drafting of this motion. It is mischief, or perhaps it is a clear misunderstanding of the rules. Under Standing Order 58(9), the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton and his colleagues know full well that this is a matter of confidence. If the members on this side of the House were disposed to agree with that motion, and if we voted with the official opposition-


Walter David Baker: We would have a new constitution.


David Michael Collenette: -we would not have a government.


An hon. Member:: We have not got one now.


David Michael Collenette: This is a matter of confidence and they know it. The subject matter of the motion does not matter, it does not matter how laudable it is.


Charles Joseph Clark: Ask Lester Pearson.


David Michael Collenette: There may be laudable points in the arguments brought out as a result of this motion, but we are imprisoned with the Standing Orders of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Michael Collenette: If we voted with the opposition, there would not be a government; there would be an election.


Walter David Baker: I lower my eyes.


David Michael Collenette: I put that down to a clear misunderstanding of the rules because, if it is not, it is absolute, pure, unmitigated mischief.


Walter David Baker: Smile, David.
The Constitution


David Michael Collenette: Given what has happened in the last three weeks, we could probably say to the official opposition-I see the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton making rude faces.


Walter David Baker: I am laughing.


David Michael Collenette: It does not behoove him well, a man of his stature as the House leader of the official opposition to be making smirks and deriding the business of this House. Shame on him for that.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point or order. The hon. member can indulge in all the unparliamentary language he wishes, but I was not making rude faces, unless my friend considers a smile of derision at his fatuous argument a rude face.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I need not comment on the supercilious intervention of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. Obviously the strength of our arguments are getting to that side and I think that the strength of our case, as it has been presented in the last few weeks, has obviously been unsettling to them. That is why the opposition leader sits in his place wriggling, writhing and red-faced, heckling the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). He knows he is in an impossible position.
Another reason why this very motion is mischievous-


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mischievous!


David Michael Collenette: However you pronounce it in Victoria or Esquimalt-Saanich-I am quite flexible on my English pronunciation.
But, Mr. Speaker, if the government votes with the official opposition on this motion, as I stated, the government ceases to exist, Parliament is dissolved, and there is an election. If we vote against their motion this afternoon, as we will, I do not think hon. members opposite realize what will happen. It precludes the special joint committee from dealing with the substance of this argument at a later date. And so I question their sincerity, I question their motives. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) went on about the so-called Vancouver consensus. He is bluffing, because if he were really serious he would not bring this motion before us this afternoon, the very vote against which will preclude comment on it or even acceptance of that later in the debate. I say that the arguments of the Leader of the Opposition, if not mischievous are dishonest-and I say the arguments are dishonest-and he is playing games with this House. It is a pure example of Tory trickery.


Walter David Baker: You're splitting hairs.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, the last three weeks have been marked by very passionate and intellectual debate from all sides. There have been some outstanding interventions-and I have been in the House most of the time-from all sides.


Mr. Paproski:: Now you cut them off.

October 22, 1980
The Constitution


David Michael Collenette: I should say, in countering the incorrect arguments of the opposition, that 25 members from the other side have spoken. Twenty-five members from their side and only 22 from this side. So when you want to talk about the rights of Parliament and the rights of the opposition, it is in the record that there have been more interventions from the other side.


Arnold John Malone: You are including the NDP.


David Michael Collenette: Of course we are including the NDP. I cannot understand the arrogance of the Conservative party which likes to protect the rights of the opposition, deriding a legitimate opposition party, that is, the New Democratic Party. They have a right to speak. Perhaps the Tories do not think so, but we do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: 1 should point out that the speeches from the NDP have not been overly favourable, there have been criticisms, but to their credit they have decided to work within the parliamentary system. The official opposition, devoid of a substantive position on the whole constitutional debate, have chosen to obstruct this House in a wilful manner-a wilful manner, and I say that quite clearly.
The spurious questions of privilege that we have heard, the red herrings we have been subjected to, I think have tested the very fairness and the graciousness of the Chair. I think the Conservative party in this House has brought Parliament to a level at which it has not been for many years. That is a shame, a terrible shame on them that they are not discharging their obligations as a constructive opposition, something they pledged to be when this session reconvened.
1 remember the words of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton when he said that we would not have mindless opposition-that they would not be guilty of mindless opposition. Look at Hansard, look at the televised debates. If there is an example of mindless opposition greater than the one which we have sat through during the last three weeks, then I wish to be shown it. We have had obstruction, we have had trickery, and now, this afternoon in this House, the government has said, through the motion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), that members of this House and the Canadian public will not put up with that kind of obstruction any longer.
The people of Canada want us to get on with budgetary matters. They want us to get on with other pressing issues dealing with energy, the Bank Act, and the 25 other bills on the order paper. They do not want to see the time of this House wasted by the manipulative tactics of the official opposition, the schemers over there, who must sit by candlelight every night with their rulebooks trying to find ways to impede the debate.
We have come to the position where tomorrow night the question will be put. But I should say, contrary to what the official opposition are spreading, the falsehoods that they are spreading throughout the country, that the debate is not
terminating. All that is happening is that the motion before us to strike a special committee to look into the resolution, and bill which accompanies the resolution, shall be voted upon. All we are saying is that phase of the debate will be over. There will be ample time in committee. We have had many excellent interventions, and I think of the one made by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie)-I think the Minister of Justice acknowledged his participation a little earlier-in which he brought out a legitimate question. I think of some of the legitimate questions asked by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who, incidentally, has not spoken in this debate. I wonder where he stands on this matter. He has asked some legitimate questions during question period. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the forum for answering those questions is in the committee.
We want all members of the House and members from the other place to have as much time as possible to grapple with the intricacies, the technicalities, and the substance of the draft constitution of Canada act.
My time is fast coming to a close, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: I can tell by the agitation over on the other side that they recognize the impossibility of their position. They know that the federal Conservative party of Canada, the official opposition, is the subject of ridicule from one coast to the other. We know that the numbers supporting their argument are declining. Only five provinces are supporting their arguments. There has been reassessment by the government of Saskatchewan. Their friend from New Brunswick, even their friend in Nova Scotia, doesn't go along with court action and is desperately trying to put some distance between his government and the irresponsibility of his federal cousins.
What we see is a desperate party, led by desperate people who wish to obstruct and impede the business of this House, who want to deny the people of Canada a charter of rights, a protection of fundamental liberty, who want to deny the people of Canada the self-respect of having at once, at last, our own constitution, one that can be amended in Canada. Mr. Speaker, that is what the official opposition is doing in playing its game of delay and obstruction. The people of Canada are recognizing this, and I have no compunction whatsoever in standing up in support of the motion put forward by the President of the Privy Council.
It is time this House got on with its business, got on with the business of the constitution, and I submit, in closing, that the motion before us this afternoon is either a piece of naivete- and that could very well be the case, knowing the members on the other side-or another example of Tory deception and Tory trickery.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like, on a formal basis, to urge the House to support the motion which is now before us. If hon. members are interested in having the constitution brought home quickly, with consen-
October 22, 1980

sus, and having the constitution brought home quickly with consensus and the opportunity to have Canadians make alterations, then that is why they should support this motion.
1 had an opportunity the other day to deal with some of the matters which concern me about the government's position on the question of the constitution. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) had not had an opportunity to review my remarks, and he indicated an interest. 1 would like to offer some of those remarks now because 1 think they bear on the acceptability of the motion before us.
It has become increasingly clear-and I think it is why the government is introducing closure-to the people of Canada that what is before them and this Parliament is not merely the bringing of the constitution home from Britain. If that were the case, then everybody here would support the motion, and that should not go unmarked. If that is all that we are talking about, the motion could be adopted today.
However, if we are on about something other than bringing the constitution home, then there are some problems, I think, of which Canadians are becoming increasingly aware. I want to speak about those problems. There are some Canadians who wonder why, given the budget of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Fleming) to explain a simple matter of advertising and patriotism, some provinces are opposed.
Why is it that six provinces are opposed to the proposal, two support it, and two are not sure? Why are six provinces opposed? First of all, it is because the whole thing is being imposed upon them. The constitution of this country was obtained by provincial consensus, and that is the way in which we operate. That system is being changed by imposition. Second, it creates for some provinces a second-class status. That is very important. Is there a member in this House who would like to stand up and say honestly to their constituents, "I am willing to accept that my province, when it comes to constitutional amendments, is second-class"? That is what the government's resolution says. That is what the members of the Liberal party and now my friends in the New Democratic Party are willing to accept, and it is also why a number of people are not willing to accept it, because it creates some provinces more equal than others.
The third thing was stated earlier by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), who said that the question of equalization between provinces is now being used by this resolution to divide the provinces.
Fourth, the problem of natural resources, particularly as it affects the east coast and the west, is not adequately dealt with in this resolution. These are not points which I have made up. Indeed, members of my party and my leader have spoken well on all of these points.
Let us check these points again. The reasons why the provinces are opposed to the constitutional changes proposed by the government are: one, that it is being imposed; two, that it creates second-class provinces; three, that it changes and destroys in large measure the good will created by the equalization formula; and fourth, it continues to make uncertain the
The Constitution
opportunity of the provinces to look after themselves in relation to the natural resources, either offshore or within their land boundaries. Those are the reasons.
The second reason why more and more people are becoming concerned lies exactly in the field upon which the Minister of Justice decided to speak loudly. I say loudly because he almost shook the benches over here, not with the wisdom of his remarks, but with their sheer volume. I do not blame him because there is an old saw "if your arguments are weak, shout louder".


Roméo LeBlanc: Your own leader shouted him down.


David Edward Crombie: I think it is fair to say that there are many people who have difficulties with the question of the charter of rights which are good and legitimate. My great difficulty is that there are many people on the government side who simply say, "Here is the charter of rights; it is good for you, take it like a pill". I would like to offer eight problems which have been raised to me by people in this country who represent groups in this country that are wronged and need to be dealt with before we adopt any charter of rights. They are not minor matters.
First of all, the charter of rights as proposed by the government changes our understanding of where our rights come from. The fundamental philosophical basis for the rights which are being offered in the government's proposal says that they will be guaranteed by the constitution. It assumes that our rights come from government. Our rights do not come from government, and they never have come from government. Our rights come from ancient statutes, laws and government processes of 1,000 years, and certainly from the Quebec Act of 1774. No government, particularly this government, has the right to arrogate to themselves that they give Canadians rights. It can destroy or disturb those rights, but it does not give those rights. They belong to Canadians; they belong to us. The government's job is to protect those rights.
The second problem with the charter of rights deals with the War Measures Act and the Emergency Powers Act. If one looks at the debates in the House of Commons from 1947 to 1950 when it dealt with the charter of human rights from the United Nations, and the debates in 1961 when it dealt with the Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker's bill of rights, there were Liberal members on both occasions who argued that it was absolutely essential to change the War Measures Act and the Emergency Powers Act and to change the Criminal Code so that it could deal with insurrection and so that the War Measures Act would not be operative in peacetime. It is a good principle and a good thought.
The Criminal Code should deal with this matter to alleviate the constant threat of the War Measures Act and the Emergency Powers Act. The government knows this, but it does not want to deal with the matter because it upsets the advertising campaign. If it really wants to do something, then it should make this change.
The third problem is language. Much of what we have done here in the last couple of weeks and, indeed, in the last number

October 22, 1980
The Constitution
of months is in response to the referendum in Quebec. I suggest that as the message slowly gets through to the people who speak either language in the province of Quebec, they will become more and more concerned about what is in the government's constitutional proposal. Indeed, I would direct all members and anyone who is really interested in rights as a question of rights, not as a question of politics, to pick up a copy of the October 14 Le Devoir and read an article written by Mr. Robert Decary. In this article he goes through all 59 sections of the proposal and takes the sections which are related to the question of the charter of rights and points out the difficulties. He concludes that if the proposal is adopted the province of Quebec will rue the day.
When it comes to the question of rights, we in this country will have to face the reality in the not-too-distant future, one which is avoided in the government's proposal, that the country must operate on the basis of equality, a principle which existed between the two founding groups. That principle is not in the proposal, and that is why the three political parties in the province of Quebec oppose it.
The fourth problem is that people are beginning to wonder why representatives of native groups appear at 6.30 and eleven o'clock in the news on their television sets, and are opposed to this proposal. How can it be when the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and the Minister of Justice are saying that it is a wonderful proposal? What are the Indians complaining about? It has to do with section 6 and section 15, their inability to determine what will happen to their land claims, whether or not there will continue to be any rights or even the possibility of any rights for Metis and non-status Indians, and the effect of that mobility clause in relation to the reservations.
I hear a faint voice from Indian women on this matter. Canada has been brought before the Human Rights Commission at the United Nations because the government will not act to give first-class status to native women. They have wanted to change the Indian Act for years. It is their view that the adoption of the government's charter of rights will forever place them in a second-class position. That is why native people in this country are opposed to the government's constitutional measures.
Fifth, Mr. Speaker, for the first time in the history of this country we have created two classes of immigrant. It is never much fun to be an immigrant, but there was always one saving factor-everyone was the same. When people arrived here without being able to speak the language and wanted to get ahead, they knew one thing for sure-that they were all in the same boat. That is not true any more. Section 23 creates two kinds of immigrant, and that is not acceptable. It is a mockery to suggest that somehow the same rights are guaranteed to all Canadians. It is just not true.
Sixth-and I raised this just the other day in a question, because it is a serious matter-if we adopt the charter of rights as it currently exists in the government proposal, we will run into the same problem that the United States have been
coping with for the last 25 years; that is, they increasingly have to phrase their legislation to take into consideration problems that are raised by the courts.
Just the other day I mentioned the Bakke case. In June, 1978, the Supreme Court of the United States-and I think quite rightly-ruled that a black student should not have preference over a white student merely because there was an affirmative action program in the University of California. This has thrown into jeopardy and doubt many social programs, particularly affirmative action programs, in the United States. Anyone who does not believe that can call the Health Education and Welfare Department in Washington in the United States and ask what the effect of the Bakke case was on the development of policy in relation to social programs. By their very nature, Mr. Speaker, social programs are discriminatory.
We have had affirmative action programs for years north of 60, without calling them that, in relation to the hiring of native people. We do not know what is going to happen to those programs. I am not raising idle fears or threats, Mr. Speaker. The problem is real and it must be dealt with before we adopt the principle.
In that connection, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to social programs, when it comes to legal rights, non-discriminatory rights, democratic rights and human rights, there is going to be a massive shift of power to the courts, as the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) said the other day. In all sincerity, I say that may not be an unfair or bad thing, but it must be understood that it is change. It cannot be assumed that there is not going to be a change. We will not become more Canadian as a consequence; we will become more American.


An hon. Member:: That is what he always wanted.


David Edward Crombie: It rankles me to hear the nonsense spoken on the other side when they claim that somehow they are being more Canadian. There is nothing more Canadian than the understanding that the common law protects our rights and that ultimately people operating on the principle of consensus will arrive at appropriate opinions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: That is the Canadian system, but the charter of rights changes that. Some people may like the change, but it cannot be denied that it is just that-a change. That is why people are saying, "Ah, I see. We are now going to have to worry about what the Supreme Court says." That means we may have to find another way to get judges. In the United States, where judges make more law than ours do, they have made things more democratic by electing judges. We have not felt the necessity to do that. Indeed, we have always felt that our judicial system was superior because we do not elect our law. If we are going to hand judges the power to make law for people, then we will have to find a better way-as the United States had to-to obtain judges.
October 22, 1980

On this sixth point with respect to the charter of rights, I say that we are taking a giant step toward the Americanization of this country. That bothers me, particularly when it is done in the name of Canadianism.


Charles Joseph Clark: True Brit.


David Edward Crombie: Yes, using the British to do it.
I come to my seventh point on the charter of rights. On three occasions the Minister of Justice has suggested that he is continuing the work of the late John Diefenbaker. Wow!


An hon. Member:: What a perversion.


David Edward Crombie: I am sure he meant it honestly, but I cannot think of any notion that is more wrong. In the debates of 1960 and 1961 setting out the views of Mr. Diefenbaker, two things become very important, and they are very unlike the proposal put forward by the government. First of all, the Bill of Rights deals in the same language as the Quebec Act of 1774; it deals in the same language as the Act of Union in 1841 and in the same language as the Act of 1867-unlike the government's resolution. The Canadian tradition is carried through the Bill of Rights.
Second, the Bill of Rights carries through a right that has been with us and has in many ways determined our rights and privileges, and indeed, has expanded rights and privileges for people. That is, in the enjoyment of property, whether that property be large or small. Many people in this country spend a good part of their lives working very hard for the enjoyment of their property. That is why Mr. Diefenbaker enshrined it in the Bill of Rights. It is not in this one, Mr. Speaker, and that bothers me.
I have offered seven or eight example-and there are more, Mr. Speaker-to explain that there are good and solid reasons why people have difficulty in merely accepting the view that "you ought to accept it and swallow it because it is good four you".
Another reason why people are becoming more aware of the difficulty involved in going along with the government is that increasingly we find we are not a country of consensus, not a country where consent is the operative principle-we are not going to entrench any rights that we do not already have but we are going to be entrenching what we do not have- bitterness and division.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Not one new right is being given by this government. Not one new right, Mr. Speaker. We should bear that in mind. The division and discord being brought down on this country will be with us long after the personal timetables of some politicians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who support what I referred to as the entrenchment of rights because it seemed to me that we entrenched the common law years ago.
The Constitution
A few days ago I enumerated them; section 133, language rights; section 94, the civil code in the province of Quebec; section 92, property and civil rights; section 51, representation by population, and section 99, the guarantee of an independent judiciary. Those things are already in the constitution. They did not come from this government, however. They came from Canadians who gave us that legacy 115 years ago. Those of us who oppose and have difficulty accepting that charter of rights and the creation of second-class provinces, for those of us who are opposed to the division and bitterness that are going to be entrenched in this country, would like people to know that we oppose because we honestly feel this way and that it is our responsibility to oppose it. And oppose it, we will, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel):: 1 would like, with your leave Mr. Speaker, to take this opportunity to refer to the constituency which I have the honour to represent. The constituency of Saint-Michel is situated in the northeastern part of Montreal and covers a small area of about 3.5 miles by 4 miles. The majority of the population is French-speaking, 16 per cent come from Italy, 3 per cent from English-speaking countries and 2 per cent belong to various other ethnic groups. They are fine people whom I like and know well. I like to tell them that the most valuable and fulfilling aspect of my mandate is to serve them. I firmly intend to continue to be their representative in this House, just as before when I was their commissioner. They have shown their confidence by electing me four times, twice as commissioner and twice as federal member.
However, this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about the future of our country. Our forefathers have left us a legacy which Quebeckers have kept by voting No at the referendum. As did several of my colleagues from Quebec, I devoted much time, effort and energy to that famous referendum, but our objective was worth the trouble and the weariness.
But this stage-I repeat-this stage of the referendum which I would not dare term a victory, was only the first step. Before we begin tearing at each other I suggest hon. members from both sides of the House should keep in mind the objectives of the constitutional reform. First, the basic rights and freedoms of Canadians will be entrenched for the first time in a Canadian charter of rights. Second, in the charter, Canadians will be assured of the freedom to move across the country and pursue employment in any province. Third-I am still dealing with the objectives of the constitutional reform, for that is what we are here for-the charter will guarantee that citizens of the English or French language minority in a province have the right to educate their children in that

October 22, 1980
The Constitution
language wherever numbers warrant. Fourth, the charter will recognize the principle of equalization, which involves the redistribution of wealth among the provinces. Fifth, a flexible amending procedure will ensure that all changes to the constitution can be made in Canada. But to those who may ask: "What about the entrenchment of the division of powers?" I will reply, "First things first: before one learns to run, one must learn to walk."
True, the proposed resolution needs some adjustment. There will be things to add to it, some things to suppress perhaps, and that is why a special joint committee of the House and the Senate is formed, so that we can all express our views. It is urgent to revise the federation compact, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, we find this task difficult, as reflected in the speeches we have heard in the last few days. The better to understand the government purpose, one must place this proposed resolution in its true perspective. And I repeat what has been said already: patriation will not take away any power from the provinces, it will only suppress a power held by the British Parliament and agree we will at last have a truly Canadian Constitution, providing we agree to get together and show a spirit of co-operation.
The constitution adopted in 1867 does not fulfil our needs and aspirations any more. It needs immediate revising, rethinking and rewriting in order for it to meet our new needs and reality. However, it still contains many things that are good, things which only need to be renovated and combined with new elements to create a truly Canadian instrument that would meet our present needs.
A major part of our constitution is dispersed in a multitude of statutes, a number of which are very little known to the Canadian people. And I know the need to go to London cap in hand for constitutional amendments is a cold shower on the proudness of very many Canadians, who view this not simply as an embarrassing subject but a national blemish.
Let us look together at the stages in our evolution. In 1931, Canada's independence was confirmed by the Statute of Westminster. In 1945 the Supreme Court of Canada became the court of last resort, and the Canadian Parliament acquired powers of constitutional amendment, but for areas of provincial jurisdiction. In 1952 we had our first Canadian Governor General. In 1965 we chose our own national flag. This year, in 1980, Parliament adopted a national anthem. The proposed resolution now before us, Mr. Speaker, is the last stage on the road to full independence.
On Monday October 6 I was pleased to hear the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) state, and I quote:
It is indeed time to act, and act now, on the Constitution of Canada.
I thank him for it and I know he is sincere, especially after hearing his remarks this afternoon. The opposition motion now before us suggests we should select the so-called Vancouver
consensus as the only amending formula. As the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien) so eloquently explained earlier, that formula would weaken the central government. I consulted my constituents, Mr. Speaker, and I received a clear and loud message. They want me to support a constitution that will reflect a strong Canada, and for that reason I support the government's position. This afternoon, when the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development, speaking on the motion, referred to basic rights, I heard the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) shout:

"What about the War Measures Act?" I would like to tell the hon. member about the War Measures Act, and anyone in Canada who wants to hear about it. I am a Quebecker who lived in Montreal in those days. One has to remember those things in the context of the time. Bombs were exploding in mail boxes. I have five children. They took the Metro every day and on top of each building and inside the Metro there were people with machine guns. Every night when my children came home, I got on my knees and thanked the Lord that they were alive. That is what it was like in Quebec in 1970 under the War Measures Act. It is no wonder that that measure was right for the time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker I would now like to speak for a few minutes about the two founding peoples of our country with regard to culture and language. Some 113 years ago, when English needed protection, because it was the minority language in Lower Canada, Sir George-Etienne Cartier acknowledged the fact when he said, "If we introduce before the provincial legislatures and the imperial government a resolution for the creation of a central government it will be our duty to protect equally all ethnic groups and take into account the interest of each." The English language was then protected in Quebec. Yet as soon as the demographic balance shifted to the advantage of Anglophones within the country as a whole, justice and tolerance were forsaken and we have been living in this state of injustice ever since the birth of the nation. One must not be surprised then if this is a touchy issue in Quebec because there are still a great many Quebeckers with a long memory. To give you an illustration of what I mean, I will quote Sir John A. Macdonald in an admonition addressed to his fellow English-speaking citizens. He said this in 1856, and I quote:
Leafing through the directory of Lower Canada public servants, you would be surprised to see the supremacy you have in higher positions. Take care that the French do not discover these facts and begin to denounce them.
In spite of a few mistakes concerning language and the economy, Confederation has not been a failure. We still speak French in Quebec. We have developed our own identity and we have a standard of living that many envy us. Some skeptics
October 22, 1980

will say-and I unfortunately see too many of them-that no one needs Quebeckers and that they can separate if they want to. To all of them I say, "Come to Quebec, spend one week around Lake Saint-Jean or the North Shore, spend one week with one of our farmers, and you will see what it means to eat in French, to breathe in French and to live in French." If there are still people who wonder what French Canadians want, I can tell them very simply that they ask for two things. If Canada is his country, the Francophone wants first of all to be heard in the courts of justice in French, from coast to coast. If Canada is his country, he wants to be able to send his children to a French school where numbers warrant it.
And if we do not stop hair-splitting about advertising and polls, we risk missing completely the basic issue of equal rights for everyone. Many of our villages and cities have already celebrated their tri-centennial and many can follow their roots to the beginnings of the colony. These same Canadian roots said No to separation.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution under consideration will protect the legitimate, and I insist on the word "legitimate", and basic rights of the whole Canadian nation. We must therefore take advantage of the present crisis to re-think our country and rebuild it ourselves, otherwise, we shall leave a broken-up country to our children and grandchildren.
For more than 53 years, Mr. Speaker, we have been cleaning up the workings of the constitution. We can no longer afford to do so. The Fathers of Confederation paid their own debt 113 years ago and it is now up to us to pay our debt towards our country.
Mr. Speaker, my time is running out, but before closing I would like to tell members on both sides of the House about a point that I find very important. It concerns section 15 of the proposed resolution, which deals with the right to non-discrimination. That article lists various categories of people who should be protected, but I note that the handicapped had been omitted. I draw that omission to the attention of all hon. members and take this opportunity to ask for their support when the special committee of the House tables its preliminary report, in the very near future, and recommends that the handicapped be included in the bill of rights.
I close, Mr. Speaker, saying that I recognize that opinions differ but the objectives of the proposed resolution, those I enumerated at the start, convince me that our efforts will not be fruitless, provided we manage all of us to respect our Canadian tradition and history of justice, loyalty and sharing for the greater good of all Canadians.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, this debate, which has ranged over just about two weeks, has reached a crucial stage. Indeed I would say that in the history of the evolution of Canada's constitution, this will probably,
The Constitution
without question of doubt, be judged by historians as a very sad day in the history of Canada.
Why do I say that, Mr. Speaker? We were served notice today that the government intends to invoke the rule of closure, not the reform kind of closure, if indeed 75C can be described in that way, which we have under our new rules, which themselves were brought in by the invocation of closure in 1968, but as my leader has said, the pipeline kind of closure, the C. D. Howe kind of closure. It is the kind of closure that no one ever expected this government to dare use again, especially on a debate concerning Canada's constitution.
We had received an invitation, given over the national networks of this country, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he introduced this measure, that he expected members from every corner of the country to participate in this debate. Now, after only two weeks, after less than 20 per cent of the membership of this House has participated, less than one in five of us having had a chance to speak, tomorrow night, appropriately in the dark of night, in the early hours of the morning, the guillotine is to fall on this very important and historic debate on Canada's constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


James Aloysius McGrath: Why is the government resorting to the invocation of closure? Why are ministers introducing closure in a debate on which there has been at least one consensus, namely, that it is a debate historic in its significance. 1 believe the reason the government is invoking closure at this stage of the debate, notwithstanding the fact that the motion before us calls for this debate to be in committee and back in the House before December 9, and that in itself is closure, the reason it is imposing this old-fashioned guillotine of C. D. Howe which does not provide for debate is because this measure cannot stand the scrutiny of public debate.
As my colleague has said, the people are catching on. Therefore it is important to the government, if they want to control their majority in this House and keep the traditional Liberal caucus discipline intact, to get this measure out of the House as quickly as they can. They know that once it gets off the floor of the House it goes into the relative sanctuary of the committee, which does not provide for input from all members of the House, but a relatively small number. It does not provide for the scrutiny of the television cameras or of the microphones of the radio and television networks of this country.
It is well that they would want to get it out of the House. They know that the longer it stays in the House, the more embarrassing it is going to be to the New Democratic Party who, today, sold their souls in support of a measure against which the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) spoke so eloquently in this House just a few days ago. Yes, what a price they are paying.
I pity the New Democratic Party. During my parliamentary career I have had the greatest respect for the party of Tommy Douglas and J. S. Woodsworth and for its philosophic integrity, but I have lost that respect because today I have seen

October 22, 1980
The Constitution
members of the New Democratic Party sell out to the government, sell out their friends in Atlantic Canada, sell out their commitment to the minorities of this country, sell out their commitments to the native people, and sell out their commitments to the rights of women in this country. That is what we have witnessed in this House in the past 24 hours, and that, in my opinion, is also a sad day for Canada.
Today I had occasion to direct a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), for whom I have a great respect both as a man and as a parliamentarian. My question was prompted by a concern arising out of the deal between the New Democratic Party and the government, because I could not quite believe what I was reading when I read the exchange of letters between the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broad-bent) and the Prime Minister. There was nothing in them to cover the Atlantic provinces and our argument for jurisdiction over offshore oil and gas.
I asked a question today of the Minister of Justice, who is the leader of the debate for the government and, if we can read between the rhetoric of the hon. gentleman, we get the message loud and clear that it was not even discussed, and while the exchange was taking place between myself and the hon. gentleman, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), the senior member of this House from the Atlantic provinces and the senior member of the government, sat there laughing like a Cheshire cat, and well he should because he is the arch-Machiavelli of this House. In fact he should have, as a member representing the interests of the Atlantic provinces in the government, been hanging his head in shame over what this proposal does to the little province, the senior province, of Prince Edward Island.
So far as constitutional reform is concerned, this proposal literally legislates Prince Edward Island out of existence. Where was the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance when that hideous, objectionable provision was written into the proposal now before the House? And yet the New Democratic Party would support that measure, which would deny rights to one of the senior provinces of this confederation with respect to constitutional reform.
In so far as oil and gas and the rights of the province of Newfoundland, which we brought with us as a dominion into this confederation, are concerned, they are being denied not only by the measure brought before this House but also by the so-called sweetheart arrangement entered into a few days ago by the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the leader of the government in this House. In so doing the NDP sold its integrity in so far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned and sold out what few friends it has left in the Atlantic provinces.
I urge the House to support this motion. I urge my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the senior parliamentarian and dean of this House, who has not said one single word against the scandalous move of the
government to invoke closure on this important matter, to vote for our motion.
1 urge the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, who made such an eloquent speech against the measure to which he is now married by virtue of the action of his leader, to put his mouth where his heart is and get up and vote against this measure and vote for our motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Finally, I urge the House to end the division and discord which are in the land as a result of the unilateral action the government proposes to take. I urge all hon. members of the House to vote for the realistic measure put forward by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), a measure which would allow for our constitution to be brought back to Canada, a measure which would allow for an amending formula to be built into the constitution and, more particularly, a measure which would allow us to retain our national pride and amend our constitution in Canada where it should be amended.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the debate and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of proceedings now before the House, in accordance with Standing Order 58(9).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will be
please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
It being after six o'clock, the House will now adjourn until tomorrow at 2 p.m. in accordance with Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.16 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, October 23, 1980