1981-03-13

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
30 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 13, 1981


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of some urgency with respect to the port of Halifax-Dartmouth. Citing rationalization and economics, Dart Containerline, together with its new partner, Canadian Pacific, have now moved from the port of Halifax approximately 30 per cent of the container business moving through Halifax. Because of the serious and obvious economic impact on the port caused by this move, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House requests the Minister of Transport to cause the Canadian Transport Commission to review the present and historic freight rate structure between Halifax and Montreal and, second, to initiate a review of the impact of government policies on the maintenance of what might be described as equal opportunity principles between the historic river ports and those of Saint John and Halifax.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) rose in his place on January 30, 1981, and misled this House when he stated that for each letter which may be delivered late there are 90 or 92 which reach the addressees on time, and whereas the Postmaster General should know that if the public believes such a statement, they also believe that the Pope is an atheist, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That the Postmaster General immediately assume the responsibility of his office, remedy the deplorable state of postal delivery in this country, and quit living in a dream world.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, for more than four months now a contract dispute between CBC Radio Canada and its journalists has deprived citizens in Quebec of news in public affairs programs in both our languages. Recent settlements of 10 per cent to 12 per cent or more, plus fringes, have been fairly common in Crown corporations and private broadcasting. For example, Air Canada flight attendants have received 11 per cent; letter carriers have received 12 per cent, and employees of CKVR-TV in Barrie have received 11.2 per cent. Therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That this House urge Radio-Canada to stop stalling, move from its ridiculous last offer of 8 per cent, and offer its journalists a decent settlement before more people begin to suspect that the CBC footdragging in negotiations is designed deliberately to black out information and comment on the constitutional question and the forthcoming Quebec election.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgency. The past Progressive Conservative government was providing for a once-in-a-lifetime capital gains tax exemption for farmers in order to help continue the attractiveness of agriculture and to provide for a type of pension for retiring farmers, those who spend their whole lives and all of their money on their farms' development. The Grits during the last election promised both exemptions and advanced valuation

March 13, 1981
days, neither of which they have followed through with to date. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
[DOT] (mo)
That this government be directed to refer the whole issue of farm capital gains tax and valuation to a committee of this House so that a proper method can be decided upon to aid farmers in this important issue as soon as possible.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. Yesterday at the Right Hon. Prime Minister's news conference, he indicated that it was unfair to expect Canadians fishing in the Georges Bank area to practise restraint in their fishing efforts while American fishermen indiscriminately expand their operations. This has occurred in that area by anywhere from 15 per cent to 40 per cent on some species. In support of the view expressed by the Right Hon. Prime Minister I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the government instruct the Minister of Fisheries to amend his ultra restrictive 1980-81 fisheries management plan for the trawler fleet by immediately restoring the cod and pollock quotas in area 5Z, which is Georges Bank, as well as 4VSW, to the equivalent amounts permitted in 1980, since present quota allocations can only lead to eventual loss of jobs this year at sea and ashore in Nova Scotia.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, rampant inflation has greatly increased the ostensible value of real and personal property in Canada since the valuation day benchmark, set for capital gains tax purposes, approximately a decade ago. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Haldi-mand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley):
That in order, at least, to mitigate the unfair and confiscatory process of taxing people on gains, based on inflation rather than any actual increase of market value due to improvements, or real appreciation, that the Minister of
Finance immediately review this situation so that Canadians who have retained assets for a number of years will not have their estates and properties unfairly assessed for capital gains purposes when these gains are illusory only.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas drought-stricken livestock farmers have been frustrated by administrative procedures of the herd maintenance program, caused in part by the involvement of three federal departments and three ministers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo):
That this House recommends use of rainfall criteria as shown by the drought map which was leaked yesterday be reconsidered, that the appeals board be given final authority to handle all claims, and that a committee be struck to investigate the handling of this program with a view to making recommendations to put together a workable program for use in future drought years.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATE VISIT OF UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. During the recent state visit of the President of the United States, opposition leaders of the provincial Grit parties, defeated Grit candidates and, in some instances, their wives, were invited to attend the gala performance honouring President and Mrs. Reagan, whereas the provincial premiers and leaders of the territorial governments were not invited. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That this House condemn the Prime Minister for his blatant contempt and total disrespect for the premiers, the leaders of the territorial governments and those Canadians who elected them.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
:


IHHIBfHllf
[Stage Direction]
March 13, 1981

Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. CMHC took majority control of the board of directors of York Condominium Corporation No. 46 in May of 1980, and then went on to take total control in February of this year. The CMHC lawyer stated that it was to "rejuvenate" the project and to make residents proud of the area. It has now been almost a year and there has been no rejuvenation and no pride in the project. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang):
That this House instruct CMHC to place residents of York Condominium Corporation No. 46 back on its board of directors so that the residents can proudly help to rejuvenate the project and, furthermore, review its policy in these matters.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Lang:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I did not second that motion.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. It should be the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean).


Madam Speaker:: The motion will be corrected to indicate the hon. member for Waterloo. It still does not have the approval of the House.


SUGGESTED COMPREHENSIVE PRICING REGIME-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The nation is experiencing a national catastrophe; energy self-sufficiency is being sacrificed to political ideology, and massive energy projects which should be proceeding are stalled due to political intransigence. The resumption of energy pricing meetings with the producing provinces is welcomed. In support of the success of such meetings, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson):
That the federal government announce, prior to the meetings, a new proposed comprehensive pricing regime for conventional oil production, for oil sands production, heavy oil production, tertiary oil production, offshore and frontier oil production as the basis for successful negotiations with the producing provinces.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and follows some questions by my colleague, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre, yesterday, on a provision in government policy which appears to have allowed a $172 million windfall profit to oil companies operating in Canada. The minister will have had an opportunity to be briefed more fully than he was yesterday when he responded to those questions. Will he tell the House, first of all, whether the government collected the petroleum compensation charge on the inventories the industry had on hand on December 31, 1980?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the practice which has been followed with regard to petroleum compensation charges under the latest increases from January 1 is the same as that which has been followed over the last three years, at least. There were two similar increases when the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was Prime Minister, and the practice has been the same.
As far as the collection is concerned, collection is taken on the product before it enters inventory, before it goes into stock. Therefore the collection is paid by the refiners on what goes into the stock or into inventory. There is no charge on what is in inventory. This is considered as income, and what happens is that the companies are paying income tax and are complaining that they are being charged income tax by the federal government on what is, in their view, and what is rightly, a purely paper profit.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, what is germane in the minister's long answer, designed to conceal rather than to communicate, is the admission that there was no charge on the inventory. Will the minister now tell the House of Commons whether the industry was allowed to increase prices on those inventories by an amount equal to $2.50 per barrel?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Madam Speaker. I said this is the practice that has been followed for the last three years. The same practice has been maintained. The industry complains, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, that the 60-day delay which is imposed for passing on increases in terms of domestic crude is much too long and the companies are losing

March 13, 1981
Oral Questions
money on that side. While they may appear to be making some in the short run on this one, as I said they are forced to pay income tax on it, and they claim this particular arrangement is very detrimental to them. When a reduction of imports is to take place, those companies will find themselves in the situation where they will have to reduce immediately the price to the consumer while they will have paid the petroleum compensation charge on everything they have in inventory too, so they will end up losing at the other end.


MECHANISM TO AVOID WINDFALL PROFITS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we have here a brand new principle introduced by the government that windfall profits are okay so long as you pay income tax on them. That is what he is telling us. He has admitted there has been a windfall profit that, by our calculation, is in the neighbourhood of $172 million, and he claims that is all right because it was done before and because they pay income tax on it. He says that the companies will be complaining; well, it is not the companies which are complaining, it is the consumers of Canada paying the $172 million who should be complaining.
The minister indicated there is a delay of 60 days before wellhead price increases are passed on, agreed to by the companies as a result of the minister exercising moral suasion. Why was a similar mechanism for a delay not put in place with regard to this situation to avoid that $172 million windfall profit?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition gets very excited over purely paper or book value profits. There is aboslutely no real profit as such here, while the taxes are quite real. The companies are required to pay up to 46 per cent taxes-


An hon. Member:: When? What oil company pays 46 per cent taxes?


Marc Lalonde: -every year, on the basis of the real value added to their income but, as I said, it is purely a paper profit. There is no windfall profit as such, as indicated by the Leader of the Opposition.


NATURE OF PROFITS MADE BY OIL COMPANIES-REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT'S TAXING PRACTICE
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He is clearly shielding his own inaction and lack of concern for the consumer by calling this a paper profit.
Would the minister please explain to me what a paper profit is? How can he describe a transaction involving a $2.50 price increase in real dollars on 70 million barrels of real oil, a total of $172 million which is paid by the consumers-how can he explain those real profits as paper profits?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, for the simple reason that that so-called profit is made on the inventory they are required to maintain, and for every barrel of oil they sell out of inventory they have to replenish it at a higher price, so it is a purely book value profit. There is no real additional money coming into the corporations.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Don't try to sell that nonsense at the gas pumps.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I think the minister missed the point. The industry is not paying any more for the oil that they are replacing in inventory. The additional price increase is flowed through entirely to the government on the replacement of those inventories. The paper profit that he refers to is a real profit taken on the inventories in place prior to December 31, on which the industry levied those increases following December 31, and on which there is no petroleum compensation charge paid to the Government of Canada. Would he explain that and, while on his feet, would he make a commitment to this House that he will change this practice so that there will not be unearned windfall profits taken by the industry on the backs of the consumers?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, we examined this matter very carefully several months ago and, as I indicated before, this has been the practice followed during the last few years, which includes the administration of my friend. Taking every factor into account, this was found to be the simplest and best way of doing this. If a better way can be found to manage the program we will certainly implement it, but at the present time under this administration, and the two previous ones, it is felt this is still the fairest way of doing it.
As to the first part of my friend's question, he knows that the refineries in this case act as tax collectors for the federal government. That $2.50 surcharge is money collected for the federal government-


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not true.


Marc Lalonde: -by the companies.

[DOT] (U25)


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, and it concerns another industry which has been experiencing some paper profits. I am referring to the banking industry, and the profits are in the form of bank notes.
I would like to ask the minister whether he thinks it is appropriate that our chartered banks should be making windfall profits from the interest rate policy of the government. I
March 13, 1981

point out to the minister that the spread between what the banks pay and what they charge is now five points, that it has been five points for many months now and that, as a result of this spread, industry analysts are admitting that the banks have made windfall and inventory profits since the interest rate policy of the government was announced.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the same question was asked a few days ago and was replied to by the Minister of State for Finance. I have nothing to add except to support him in his answer that the question of bank profits must be considered over a longer term, taking into account rising interest rates and declining interest rates. When both these are taken together, it might be possible to reach a more valid judgment.
Having put that aside, I am quite interested in the point which was made in the House last week and again today, and I will be monitoring that situation very carefully.


REQUEST THAT CANADA FOLLOW BRITISH POLICY
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I thought we had a minister and not a monitor. I would like to point out to the minister that in his answer to my colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap, on March 2, he indicated that the reason for the windfall profits was because of the external profits which the banks were making, whereas the evidence from the industry this week is crystal clear and shows that it is not as a result of external policy; it is as a result of the difference between what the banks are paying to the Canadian consumer and what they are charging the Canadian consumer.
Since that great radical-who I know is a model to the minister of Finance-his colleague, the chancellor of the exchequer in Great Britain, Sir Geoffrey Howe, introduced a windfall profits tax in his recent budget, I would like to ask the minister, since he is following Margaret Thatcher in all the bad directions, why, for once, he cannot follow the example of Great Britain and look at the windfall profits which are the direct result of the interest rate policy which is being carried out by his government.


Walter David Baker: Remember, you are a Jacobite.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have decided to run a Canadian policy. I am not going to follow the advice of the Conservative Party and decide to ape the Americans, nor do I intend to follow the advice of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood who surprisingly asks me to follow an economic policy which he himself has denounced as being reactionary. There is more to the policy that is being followed in the United Kingdom than this particular measure to take additional moneys from the banks. It is a very broad policy, and I do not think it is appropriate to Canada, nor do I think it is appropriate to take one single aspect of the policy of the United
Oral Questions
Kingdom and import it into this country. I thought the hon. member had passed that stage of his development.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POWER TO EFFECT ROLL BACK OF INCREASES
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I can assure the minister that I have passed whatever stage of development he is referring to, but I have not reached the point of such senility-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: -that I am unable to distinguish a windfall profit, a profit which is the result of activities carried out by the Canadian banks in Canada at the expense of the Canadian consumer, and which has resulted in windfall inventory profits to our largest, most dominant and cartel-like financial institutions. I am amazed that the minister, who has been associated so long with those institutions, is unable to distinguish between the cost of doing business and a reasonable profit.
The Liberal party and the Conservative party together, when voting on the Bank Act, voted down an amendment by the New Democratic Party, a Canadian amendment proposing to deal with Canadian conditions, which said that the Minister of Finance should have the residual power to monitor and to roll back interest rate increases when they seemed to be excessive. Does the minister think that a five-point spread between what the banks charge and what they pay is excessive, and does he not think that the government should have the power to force a roll back in order to protect the Canadian consumer when the market is clearly not doing its job in protecting the Canadian consumer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows perfectly well that one of the purposes of the revisions to the Bank Act was to provide greater competition in financial markets, not only through widening competition within Canada itself but also through the process of permitting foreign banks to compete in this country. I regard the operation of a competitive market as a much more important inducement to bringing down these spreads than accepting Sir Geoffrey Howe's proposal of putting a windfall profit tax on the banks at this particular time based not on long-term objective evidence but basically upon a propagandist thrust put forward this morning by the hon. member.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and

March 13, 1981
Oral Questions
Resources. Last week Robert Bertrand, the director of anticombines investigations, alleged that the oil companies continued to overcharge their customers since 1973. The government accepted these allegations, but action has been postponed for two to four years because of the reference to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the seatmate of the minister, said last week that Petro-Canada was Ottawa's "honest broker in the field to make sure that the consumer would be protected". In order that the Canadian consumer can get lower prices for gasoline and petroleum products, will Petro-Canada now be announcing lower prices to Canadians for its products?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the question is left hanging in mid-air. The role of Petro-Canada is to ensure that it becomes a very aggressive competitor in that sector and that it will introduce an element of even stronger competition than the market has known so far. Does this mean that in certain circumstances Petro-Canada's prices will be lower than those of its competitors? That will be decided by the marketplace on a competitive basis. So there is no question of Petro-Canada systematically following a policy under which its prices would always be lower than those of any of its competitors in the market.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the government seems to take the position that there has been an immense rip-off, yet the one agency over which it has any direct control refuses to take any action. As a matter of fact, John Ridsdel, a spokesman for the Crown corporation, admitted that Petro-Canada's prices are the same as those of private major oil companies. He quoted the president, Wilbert Hopper, that the company is "in business to make money".
Since one of the announced priorities of Petro-Canada was a competitive price for industry and consumers, since consumers are getting a shellacking with the prices of the government- S3.25 per barrel this year higher than it would have been under our pricing policy-and since the minister has statutory authority to instruct Petro-Canada with respect to its policies, will the minister direct Petro-Canada to lower its prices immediately to a realistic level, so that the price reduction will have an effect and consequence upon its competitors in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, being very competitive is not contradictory to making money. Petro-Canada is in the field to be extremely competitive with any other company and to operate on a business basis. As far as the allegation of the hon. member is concerned, to begin with the price per barrel at the present time is lower than it would have been under the Conservative budget.


Walter David Baker: Not true.


Marc Lalonde: I invite the hon. member to look at the facts if he wants to ensure that he is not misrepresenting the situation.
We have a report by the director of combines investigation which is before the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. It is the report of the director after several years of investigation. The allegations contained therein will be examined by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, and the people against whom the allegations have been made will have an opportunity to have their say. This is the position of the government.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. About three weeks ago the minister stood up in the House and told members that they were paying attention to the Canadian evidence task force with respect to the charter of rights. Members will be aware of the article which appeared in The Globe and Mail on Monday, entitled "Americanizing Canadian Criminal Law".
In light of the fact that the Canadian evidence task force strongly recommended against going to the so-called tainted evidence rule in the United States, why does section 24 of the charter of rights not only write the tainted evidence rule into the charter but makes it obligatory on the courts to disallow any evidence which is considered to be tainted?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I am not here to reply to the questions put by members of the constitutional committee during its hearings. This question was debated at length in committee. The hon. member did not appear before the committee to ask any questions.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, it is clear the minister knows as much about law as he knows about finance. Will it be his policy not to answer any questions about any aspect of the charter of rights, or is he prepared to answer seriously a question which I suggest concerns a great many Canadians?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I was present at the committee hearings. Members who appeared before the committee asked many questions about this matter. We are now at third reading stage of this proposition; we have replied to all those questions. Never has a minister been in front of a committee as long as I have been.


Charles Joseph Clark: You are in the House of Commons now; answer the question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I was in front of that committee for more than 110 hours, and I replied to all questions on all technical
March 13, 1981

aspects of this resolution. A little arrogance from the member does not impress me at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I am sure he will recall that on August 1, 1980, he announced on behalf of the government the approval of the take-over by Reynolds Industries of the United States of Canadian Canners Limited, Walmer Transport Company Limited, and Aylmer Foods Warehousing Limited. In approving that takeover, the minister indicated that there was a commitment not to close any of the operations in Canada for a minimum of two years. There was an announcement by the company of its intention to close its Rexdale plant on April 30, 1981. What action does the minister propose to take to enforce the commitment?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, this matter is being examined. If what is happening turns out to be contrary to the undertakings, I will have all the recourse provided by the law to pursue it.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, could the minister elaborate ever so slightly on what recourses in fact are available to him, given that the director of corporate surveillance for FIRA indicated that there has been no violation of the agreement? How can it be that last Saturday the minister said the agreement was in place and the plant must be kept open for a minimum of two years, and the head of the corporate surveillance department said there was no violation?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I will check into the accuracy of what the hon. member says was stated by one of the officials. As far as I am concerned, I will look into it personally. If it turns out that there is a breach of the agreement, in consultation with the Minister of Justice I will see that the law is respected and enforced.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minister will know that, in the main estimates for the coming year, job-creation funds are reduced by 37 per cent from the current year. When inflation is taken into account, they will be half what they are this year.
Oral Questions
In view of the Canadian unemployment situation today, could the minister tell us whether or not this significant budget reduction is a consequence of his current status within cabinet, or does it shift the policy priorities of the government? Are they deliberately creating a situation where more unemployed people will continue to remain unemployed in Canada?
[DOT] (U40)


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It gives me the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, for the ninth month in a row, the employment figures in Canada have gone up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: We now have a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate that is substantially lower than it has been for the last year and a half, which happens to be the time when this government came back into office.
Contrary to the kind of doom and gloom certain critics and observers have portrayed about the economic situation in Canada, we in fact are developing a very healthy employment picture. I think all Canadians should take some satisfaction in that.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister would not like to leave the wrong impression. Employment creation in Canada in the private sector is 25 per cent of what it was under the previous government. Employment creation in the public sector is about 15 times as great. That is the reason the seasonally adjusted rate stays where it is.
My question to the minister relates to what he intends to do to meet the needs of 928,000 officially unemployed Canadians and well over one million unemployed Canadians in reality. He is cutting the budget in half for the year ahead in terms of meeting their needs. Can he explain to the House why he thinks the need in the year ahead will be half as great as it was in the year in which we are currently?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I find it somewhat ironic that the hon. member, along with his many colleagues, were applauding vigorously the statements made by the President of the United States just two days ago. The President has, in fact, cut the entire employment training budget of the United States government. Again, I think hon. members opposite are trying to have it both ways. They are trying to have their ideological music and still play a critical game, which simply will not work.
The fact of the matter is, as I have said many times in the House before, that we are taking the employment training money and targeting it into special needs groups. We have new programs designed to deal with the problems of the handicapped, and others who have major disadvantages in the work place, to provide special training for native people, and for women in non-traditional work. We are targeting the money into the areas where it is really needed.

March 13, 1981
Oral Questions INCOME TAX


REVIEW OF CAPITAL GAINS TAXATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of Finance concerning capital gains tax. Since it is approximately ten years from valuation day, and since the minister knows that when assets change hands now they are being taxed heavily on inflation, which 1 think he would agree is confiscatory, what plans do he and his cabinet colleagues have to revise or otherwise make more equitable the capital gains tax structure in this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, shortly after the budget I released a discussion paper on capital gains, which discusses, among other things, the question of indexation or providing an inflation adjustment. I am awaiting representations and views from interested parties on that paper, and I will take them into account before another budget.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I am curious about that answer, Madam Speaker. I wonder if the minister could elaborate slightly and say what time frame he anticipates he is looking at before he will be considering these representations. Also, does the minister agree with the statement made recently by Mr. Harris, the president of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, who points out the ironic situation where people who benefit from lotteries are not subject to capital gains while people who invest in their country are? Mr. Harris also suggests that this revision of capital gains would provide the needed stimulation to encourage the creation of new jobs. Does the minister hold to those views himself, or does he see any merit in them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I would be glad to receive Mr. Harris' views directly; then I will consider them.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the Japanese economy had grown to the size of one trillion dollars by 1979, which is about half the gross national product of the United States and larger than any European country, and comparable to the Soviet Union; and in view of the fact that this economic growth is attributable to the relationship between the government and the large trading organizations, the banking establishment and the large manufacturers, will the minister initiate the same kind of arrangement in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting suggestion. I understand that already there is a group of Members of Parliament studying that particular question of
trading corporations. Their results will be considered by the government.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Where is the much promised omnibus Crown corporations bill?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, the much promised omnibus Crown corporations bill is proceeding as it should.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: I hear some hee-haws on the other side.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The donkeys are on that side, though.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, 1 assure the House that we are proceeding rapidly, I hope, to bring forward legislation. I would say the consultation process has been very effective. It has been completed and I am putting final touches on a discussion paper.


Charles Joseph Clark: A discussion paper!


Donald James Johnston: I hope to bring the matter forward for cabinet consideration at a very early date.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the Clark government within six months was able to go from a discussion paper to a bill introduced in the House of Commons, yet the President of the Treasury Board in more than a year has been incapable of even putting a discussion paper before his cabinet, when will the minister either introduce legislation in the House or admit to the Canadian people that his claims about making progress have been a fraud?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the Clark government did a great deal more than that in nine months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: It disappeared.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: Besides that, Madam Speaker, a bill was brought forward. That bill had serious defects. I see no point in bringing forward another bill which has serious defects.


Walter David Baker: Name them.


Donald James Johnston: That is why we have been engaged in a wide consultation process, to correct those defects. That is what I am in the process of doing. I assure hon. members that very
March 13, 1981

substantial progress has been made and that the bill will be brought forward in the very near future.


Henry Perrin Beatty: When?


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I was going to address my question to the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona with respect to why his party supported the amendment to the charter which he is criticizing, but that would be unparliamentary, so I will not do it.

Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Communications and the Minister of Labour, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. Considering that the management of the CBC French network has openly shown ill will in their conflict with the striking journalists in Quebec over the past four months, and keeping in mind the ridiculous offer of a salary increase of about 8 per cent, does the Prime Minister or his government intend to continue burying their head in the sand much longer and to shirk their responsibilities?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the government is not burying its head in the sand; it is allowing free negotiations to take place between the parties and it has suggested the appointment of mediators. But I am surprised to hear the hon. member say that the government should do more and intervene in these negotiations. How? Through legislation to take the right to strike away from the workers, or what? What is his proposal?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, according to the union and the two major political parties in Quebec, the CBC management is alleged to have offered free air time to the political parties during the election campaign, provided those parties stop boycotting current events and public affairs programs. Given such inadmissible blackmail on the part of a Crown corporation, does the Prime Minister intend to step in to put an end to that and, if not, why not?


Mr. Louis R. Desmarais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member might be interested to know that the CBC is now negotiating with six unions representing 7,500 employees. In two of those negotiations the federal mediator has drafted his report and this afternoon it will be handed over to the parties involved. As to the blackmail referred to by the hon. member, I believe that the question ought to be directed to the Minister of Communications.
Oral Questions


WESTERN DEVELOPMENT FUND
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the commitments he made in the budget of last October. There was a commitment that he would consult with the western prairie provinces regarding the use, the programs, and the specific initiatives for the Western Development Fund. I should like to know if the minister has consulted with the governments of western Canada regarding the use of this fund and, if he has not, when will he consult with those governments in accordance with the commitment made in the budget he brought down last October in this House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, no consultation has taken place yet. When the plans are further developed in the government, it will be then possible to consult with interested parties, including the governments, as mentioned in the budget.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. As the minister is aware, he made a commitment to consult with the governments. We are not talking about a small amount of money, we are talking about $2 billion. This government has the authority to take $37.5 billion out of western Canada within the same time frame. Is there a change in government policy at the moment? Senator Argue, the assistant to the Minister of Transport, has said, as reported in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix on January 15, 1981, that " ... provincial governments will be given no special significance in those consultations." Is this a change in government policy? Does the assistant to the Minister of Transport speak for the government in this matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have not seen what Senator Argue said nor have I talked to him on this subject. Without commenting on what the hon. member has said, what has been stated in the budget stands as government policy.


AIR TRANSPORT
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I am sure the minister is heartened by reports from the United States that authorities there have been unable to find a U.S. carrier which would be interested in providing direct air service between Ottawa and the city of New York. In view of this development, and it seems to be a new development, would the minister undertake to expedite negotiations with respect to

March 13, 1981
Oral Questions
changes that may be needed in the bilateral arrangements between Canada and the United States so that such a service can be provided as is desired by every responsible group in Canada?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, we would all like to see an agreement for direct flights between Ottawa and New York. There are two ways to do that, either through the regulatory bodies, the CAB and the CTC in Canada, which is the first way, or the second way, which is under the Canada-U.S. bilateral air agreement. I think we have to follow that last line first.
First of all we wanted to see if some American airline would like to operate under the present agreement, that is, with a single route, New York-Montreal-Ottawa, Ottawa-Montreal-New York. We could not find one, but it seems that some might be interested if the Ottawa-New York route were a separate one. This is what we are exploring now. If we do not find an American company willing to use this approach, then we will fall back on the regulatory approach, and First Air and Air Atonabee would be allowed to compete.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I hope it is not the purport of the minister's answer that he is looking for an American carrier to provide the service between Ottawa and New York. That is what it sounded like to me. I hope he will stand in his place and deny that.
Will the minister press the American authorities to make whatever changes are necessary to provide the services, in the bilateral agreement or elsewhere, because apparently no one is interested now? Would he also assure the House that while this search is going on and while changes are being pressed with the United States, nothing in that procedure will hold up consideration by the Canadian Transport Commission of the applications that are now before it from First Air and Air Atonabee?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the difficulty is with the phrase, "no one is interested now". That is what I said was not the situation. It may be that an airline would be interested if the route were defined differently. I am not looking for Americans, but it seems to me that this is the first way to go. We must assure ourselves that no American airline will give a direct service. There is an agreement between Canada and the United States on that subject so obviously that has to be cleared up first. If there is somebody in the United States who wants to operate under that agreement, he has the first right to do it. That is the spirit, and the law as it exists now.


Charles Joseph Clark: The status quo forever.


Walter David Baker: So there will be no change.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is only if that first avenue is found to be unproductive, the Americans being satisfied that they cannot use the right they have under the bilateral agreement, that we can go the other route, and that is the route of the regulatory agency. That is the law.


Walter David Baker: That is some Canadianiza-tion plan if I ever heard it!


FISHERIES
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans but unfortunately he is absent, as is the acting minister, the second acting minister, and the parliamentary secretary. I presume I should direct it to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, and I do so in light of his interest in the problem.
In the 1980-81 fisheries management plan the government shows a decrease in allocations to the Canadian trawler fleet for codfish caught on the Scotian Shelf, which includes area 5Z, or Georges Bank, of some 1,500 metric tons when compared to the previous year.
Since the Americans have now decided to abolish the 1979 fisheries management treaty covering Georges Bank, and will be catching whatever fish are available in that area until the boundary question is settled, I ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister is he making any plans to permit Canadians to do likewise?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not think it is correct to say that they will be catching fish without any limitation until the boundary is determined because we have an undertaking from the United States administration that, on the contrary, they will be putting forth a solid management plan which will have as its object precisely to ensure the conservation of the species.


QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBLE RESTORATION OF QUOTAS
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I note the answer given by the Right Hon. Prime Minister and, of course, I am sure he is aware that, in the two years that have passed since this treaty was under negotiation, the Americans have increased their scallop catch from an estimated 15 per cent to 40 per cent. Scallops are now the size of your fingernail, so this is really not a conservation program.
My supplementary question deals with yet another area of fisheries which comes under the government's management. It concerns the decrease in the trawler quotas on pollock in the same general area, of something like 2,000 metric tons, which will cost Canadians about 100 man-years and some $3 million in lost productivity. Will the Prime Minister undertake to look into this matter and, we hope, restore those quotas which would be of benefit to Canadian fishermen and the Canadian economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, with respect, I would suggest to the hon. member that his comment at the beginning of his second question does
March 13, 1981

not contradict what I said. He is quite right; for the past two years there has been overfishing. That was one of the difficulties with the present situation when the treaty was being held up in the Senate. That is why, on this side, we have attempted to put the best possible light on the President's decision to put an end to this since they could not get the treaty through the Senate, which we profoundly regret, and since this long delay was resulting in overfishing. We have accepted the President's undertaking to withdraw the treaty, I repeat, with some considerable regret on our side.
The President undertook, and I believe he repeated in this House-at least it was repeated at the press conference, in statements to the press-that they would be putting a scallop management plan in place there. It is precisely our hope and expectation that the overfishing of the past few years will now cease.
In lieu of the treaty we will have this management plan which I cannot say we are blessing in advance. But at least we see this as a positive step on the part of the United States administration to try to solve in that way the overfishing situation, which the hon. member and the government deplore. Whether it will work out or not, I honestly cannot say. But, as I argued, it is probably fair to give the United States administration a little time, since it is a new administration, to correct a situation which was getting more and more deplorable, not only over the past two years but over the years before that during the time when the treaty was being negotiated.
As far as trawlers and quotas are concerned, I am afraid I will have to take notice of that on behalf of the minister.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of House has laid upon the Table the forty-third report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following agreement is a result of consultations I had earlier today with representatives of the opposition parties. Members of the special committee appointed to act as a special parliamentary task force on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements are Messrs. Blaikie, Blenkarn, Breau, Herbert, Loiselle, Thacker and Weatherhead. The said com-
Tabling of Documents
mittee is empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada and the necessary staff is authorized to convene the committee.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, there have been the usual consultations. We are prepared to have that matter go forward without debate.


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, we agree.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Madam Speaker:: In accordance with the motion moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and adopted by the House on December 19, 1980, I am pleased to table an extract from the minutes of the meeting of the Commissioners of Internal Economy held on Monday, March 3, 1981, regarding extra compensation to be paid to the House of Commons employees who worked extended hours during the lengthy session on December 18 and December 19, 1980.
Hon. members will note that the extract contains the names of those employees to whom the House wishes to express its thanks.


TABLING OF LETTER FROM MADAM SPEAKER TO MR. KNOWLES RESPECTING EXTRA COMPENSATION TO CERTAIN EMPLOYEES
Madam Speaker:: I also table the letter which I addressed to the Hon. Stanley Knowles dated March 4, 1981, explaining how we devised the amounts to be paid as extra compensation to the House of Commons employees. It is in English only because it was written to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). However, if the House agrees to append it to Hansard, it will be translated. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It is so ordered.
[Editor's Note: For letter above referred to, see Appendix.]

March 13, 1981
Order Paper Questions


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. 2,009 and 2,076.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does the Prime Minister or a cabinet minister have to file a request for the use of a Department of National Defence aircraft and (a) if so (i) to whom is such a request made (ii) who makes the decision (iii) is the person requesting the aircraft required to state all the reasons for such usage (b) if not, what is the procedure?
2.	Is usage for important government business the only criterion and, if not, for what reason?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. See question 169 answered on October 7, 1980, page 3419.
2. Yes.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 1,707 which states in part, that total donations to the Crown during 1974-75 amounted to $29,454 (a) for what reason do records for 1973 not exist (b) what happened to the records (c) were they destroyed and, if so, on whose instructions?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: (a) and
(b)	As a result of the department's move from Ottawa to Hull, some detailed supporting documentation covering the period prior to 1974-75 was lost and/or misplaced; a search of it was carried out in the files presently stored in "Archives" but without success.
(c)	See (a) and (b) above.
(d)	Not applicable.

[ Translation]


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 175 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 175 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	Which departments have (a) audio tape equipment (b) movie, slide, film strips, overhead projectors (c) recording studios and, in each case (i) in what quantity (ii) what is the estimated value of such equipment?
2.	What was the cost of servicing this equipment in (a) 1977 (b) 1978 (i) within (ii) outside the public service?
3.	Is there a central service and repair centre in the public service to repair and maintain audio tape equipment, video tape equipment, editing equipment and other equipment related to audio-visual equipment?
4.	(a) How many tape recorders were purchased in (i) 1976 (ii) 1977 (iii) 1978 (iv) 1979, by department, and how many could be accounted for in November 1979 (b) what was the estimated value in each year (c) what number were lost to (i) damage (ii) other and what was the value of loss?
5.	(a) Does each department have a system of inventory control (b) is a system of user signature against the serial number of the item used and, if not, what system is used?
6.	How many times a year is a physical check of such equipment made?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
RESOLUTION RESPECTING CONSTITUTION ACT, 198]
The House resumed debate on the motion of Mr. Chretien, seconded by Mr. Roberts, for an address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada.
And on the amendment of Mr. Epp, seconded by Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton)-That the motion be amended in Schedule B of the proposed resolution by deleting Clause 46, and by making all necessary changes to the Schedule consequential thereto.
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, last night before the House rose I was trying to lay the groundwork for what I have to say on behalf of Yukon and the Northwest Territories in connection with the proposed constitutional amendment. We have, on the one hand, the policy of the government opposite, as stated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) publicly, that Yukon will not see provincial status in his lifetime. We have on the other hand, the nationally publicized policy of this party that Yukon is a natural candidate for provincial status and will be granted that status when the people of Yukon make that request.
March 13, 1981

Under the Constitution as it now stands, there is provision in the British North America Act for the taking into the federal state of additional territories and converting them to provinces in exactly the same way that Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia entered confederation.
With the proposals now before the House, that process is no longer possible. As for provincial status, they can forget about it in Yukon, the Western Arctic and in Nunatsiaq. It will never come. Why do I say never? It is not simply "not in my lifetime", as the Prime Minister said; it has now become never. It is never because, by the formula proposed in the constitutional proposals before us, there are two provinces with a veto, namely Quebec and Ontario. If either one of those provinces objects to the entry of any other territory into confederation, as is now provided for in the British North America Act, the territory will not get in. That is the result of the proposals before us.
Another question which concerns us greatly is that of mobility rights. There was a great deal of time, effort and expense involved in the production of the socioeconomic terms and conditions with respect to the construction of the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline, if indeed that project ever goes ahead. Those socioeconomic terms set forth a hiring preference and a mechanism by which migration could be controlled so that the impact of thousands of workers who would be foisted upon Yukon all at once in the construction stage of the pipeline would be minimized. We tried to amend that provision in the joint committee. It was rejected. We have a provision in the constitutional proposals which will negate the effect of that mechanism. When that matter was raised with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) in a recent visit to Whitehorse, his response was, "Well, we will find a loophole". It sounded rather strange for a minister of the Crown who supports the constitutional proposals now before us to be telling the public in Yukon that a loophole would be found whereby we can get around the mobility rights of the Constitution. The fact is that when the proposals before us become law, if indeed they do, we can forget about the socioeconomic terms and conditions which would provide that protection to Yukon.
The other matter which concerns Yukon and the Northwest Territories greatly is the proposals contained in section 35(3), I believe it is, which deal with the attendance by elected representatives of Yukon and the Northwest Territories at federal-provincial conferences. At first blush that provision would appear to go a long way toward meeting the legitimate aspirations and desires of Yukoners and Canadians of the Northwest Territories. However, a careful reading of it will disclose immediately that all it does is maintain the status quo, because there will be no representation at the federal-provincial conferences by either Yukon or Northwest Territories unless the Prime Minister in his magnanimity deems to allow that representation at the table.
The Constitution
When the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was in Whitehorse recently, he said this, and I quote from page 5 of the text of his speech given to the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce on February 14, 1981:
Hand in hand with the economic development to which we all look forward must go political progress and evolution.
One cannot disagree with that statement. It was indeed our policy, our aggressive policy.
For the past year, Yukoners have enjoyed full responsible government, at least in practice if not in statute.
That statement is absolutely false. Yukoners do not now enjoy, nor have they in the past year enjoyed, full responsible government either in practice or in statute.


Walter David Baker: Why would he say such a thing?


Erik Nielsen: Why? Because of the deviousness of this government. It is very evident in their advertising campaign. They try to twist the minds of their listeners.


David Michael Collenette: Nonsense.


Erik Nielsen: The parliamentary secretary says "Nonsense". All one has to do is refer back to the advertisements this government put forward at taxpayers' expense, trying to sell its constitutional package before debate even commenced in Parliament. One can refer to the energy ads which went out previously and which apparently we are going to be saddled with again, at taxpayers' expense. They do not tell the truth. That statement I just read is not the truth.
Yukoners do not have jurisdiction over laws. They do not have jurisdiction over resources. Yukoners do not have the right to introduce money measures in their own legislative assembly when even the municipalities in Yukon have such a right. The minister retains the residual power to say yea or nay to anything done by the legislative assembly, the elected representatives of the people in the Yukon. The same situation pertains in the Northwest Territories. Therefore, it is utterly false for the minister to say that full responsible government has been enjoyed in practice if not in statute.
The government recently got itself into hot water on the disposition of federal lands by not publicizing their availability and not giving all Yukoners full opportunity of bidding on their disposition. The minister said in the same speech:
That means that the decisions of the territorial government have been made by your elected representatives.
That decision certainly was not made by the territorial representatives. It was made by the minister's public servants in Whitehorse and in Ottawa.
It also means, obviously, that they must be held accountable for their performance.
"They" refers to the territorial legislatures. That patently is not so in the example which I have just exposed to the House. It was not the territorial government which disposed of the lands in question, it was the federal government.

March 13, 1981
The Constitution
Let me get back to the Constitution. After having disposed of those matters which are of direct concern to Yukoners, I want to deal with these proposals in a national way. We have been dragged, all of us, into a great constitutional crisis because of the intransigence of one man. It is doubly dangerous and doubly deplorable that that man should be the Prime Minister of Canada.
Before going into the nature and causes of the crisis, let us look at the nature of the country which is being subjected to this divisive impact of the Prime Minister's obsession with rewriting the Constitution in this fashion.
Canada is a confederation; it is not a unitary state. That is to say, there is a central government having certain powers allotted to it in the Constitution as it now stands, and there are provincial governments which in turn have power over other matters. That is clearly understood and has been clearly understood since the Constitution was devised in 1867.
The Constitution did not spring full blown into being. It was the result of protracted study by elected representatives over a protracted period of time. Prior to being passed in the form of an act in the British Parliament, it received the approval of the legislatures of the provinces which became the first members of this federal state, this partnership. Those which joined later did it in the full awareness of the terms on which they entered.
I suggest it is ridiculous to treat the Constitution as a scrap of paper representing a British act of parliament. Macdonald himself in the constitutional debates of that day referred to the BNA Act as a treaty. Certainly it was an agreement among duly constituted governments, each having its own elected legislature, as to the form and shape that the future nation of Canada should take.
At no time was it contemplated that in the future nation the central government would have the power solely and of itself to amend or change the original articles of confederation. Had that been the case, it is quite obvious that lower Canada, which was to become the province of Quebec, would never have become a partner to confederation.
The Constitution of 1867 was in no way imposed upon Canada by Britain. It was a device, an instrument, created by Canada. The work of Macdonald, Cartier, McGee, Brown, Tupper, Tilley and other Fathers of Confederation was passed into law by the parliament at Westminster because that was the only method by which colonies could assume the mantle of nationhood.
The tragedy of our time is that the Prime Minister and his party are now in a position of attempting to divest Canada of national status and return it to the status of a client state of the parliament at Westminster. To hear the Prime Minister's vague and bombastic threats of independence or of following the example of Smith of Rhodesia is to show up the falsity of his position in its true colours.
Canada has been an independent nation since 1931 when the Statute of Westminster established that Britain could no longer make laws affecting this nation. That statute and that departure simply placed the capstone on what actually existed
at that time. It was merely statutory recognition of what already was the de facto situation.
At the request of the provinces, it was decided that changes to the Constitution would continue to be ratified by Westminster and that parliament would retain its function as the custodian, the trustee, and nothing more, of the BNA Act. I want to emphasize that the provinces were consulted on the constitutional implications of the Statute of Westminster. They made recommendations, and those recommendations were adhered to even though they meant a radically different approach to the constitutional content of that statute.
It is quite clear on examining the precedents that the provinces were regularly consulted when changes were contemplated in those matters falling within their provincial jurisdiction. This was done by Mr. St. Laurent in bringing in old age pensions, it was done by Mr. King in implementing the unemployment insurance provisions, which were the brain child of the previous Bennett government, and it was done in many more cases, I believe eight in all.
It is all very well to say, as Judge Freedman did, that consultation was not necessary. What is important is that those changes, the carrying out of these changes, was op the basis of consultation, and those charged with the carrying out of these changes did consult. They felt at the time that consultation ought to be the process in which they engaged, and they did do just that. Certainly the frequency and directness of such consultations very distinctly implied the growth and recognition of constitutional convention in these matters.
It is not my intention to enter a legalistic treatise on the growth of the constitutional convention. Anyone who is interested can read Jennings and others on the subject; Dicey is another very comprehensive publication. Suffice it to say that on almost every occasion, indeed, on every important occasion when the interests and jurisdictions of the provinces were involved, there was invariably consultation at that point. That point was made with some force by Senator Maurice Lamon-tagne, with a good deal more precision than I, before the special joint committee.
These are political matters, they are constitutional matters. Canada is not some newly emerging nation whose Constitution is determined by sections or clauses put down on paper in the inner reaches of the ruling class, in the bowels of the Langevin Building. Our Constitution came from the people of Canada. It came from elected members of the provincial legislatures. It was thrashed out, debated, argued over, and what went to England in the last analysis represented a consensus of the most advanced political and constitutional thinking in this nation. Canada was not given birth by a piece of paper; Canada already existed in the hearts and minds of its people. The Constitution was simply a baptismal certificate, as it were.
Macdonald made it very plain that his chief aim was to conciliate the various provincial and sectional interests and devise what he thought was a compromise, a Constitution that would be acceptable. That was a major consideration.
March 13, 1981

We now have a new ball game and a new ball. We have a Prime Minister who is determined to be captain of the team and the umpire as well; he wants to pitch and call the strikes. He tried to impose his will on the provinces, then on the country, and now on the British. The Prime Minister and his party have confronted Westminster with a rewritten, an amended, Constitution to which a majority of the provinces object. The box score on that, Sir, is that eight of the ten provinces are opposed to the action now being taken, Ontario and New Brunswick being the only two exceptions. Six of the ten provinces are fighting the action in the courts. Quebec Liberal leader Claude Ryan is totally opposed. The New Democratic provincial parties of Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec have publicly spoken against the action. Four NDP Members of Parliament have broken with their party leader and their party and will vote against the Trudeau package in the Commons. An hon. member who spoke just yesterday, the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos), has also broken with his party and will vote against it.
The Prime Minister and his puppets are riding roughshod over the provincial governments. He has overturned the unwritten convention, or is attempting to, of 100 years. If the federal government with a majority in Parliament can unilaterally alter the Constitution against the objections of the provinces then, Sir, this is no longer a federal state. The rights of the provinces mean very little if they can be altered or subtracted from at any time by a simple decision of the federal government with a parliamentary majority.
Above all, Sir, the Prime Minister's position underlines his attitude toward confederation and to the separation of powers. Why should he consult with the provinces? They might not agree. He says the consultative process is too slow. It may be slow but it is 100 per cent democratic. If the federal government and Parliament can unilaterally amend and rewrite the Constitution in matters confided to the provinces by the BNA Act, then the BNA Act is a dead letter. Whether the Constitution is a pact or a treaty, as Macdonald called it, or a simple statute of the imperial Parliament, it is a matter for experts to determine. In any case it does not affect the issue, as I see it.
Whatever it may be, the Constitution is an understanding between the federal government and the governments of the provinces, those who signed in 1867 and whose legislatures ratified that action, and those who came in later by free choice. In no single instance was a single section or clause of the 1867 Constitution imposed on any province. They were free to accept or reject. For more than 100 years that spirit of compromise and conciliation, as Macdonald called it, was followed in all matters affecting constitutional change. That is what has been altered.
A constitutional convention having a century of practice as its mandate has now gone. The understanding that the Constitution was not the business of the central government alone, but that the provinces had very clear spheres of jurisdiction and that they would be respected, is also gone as a result of this proposal. It is this understanding, this compromise, this
The Constitution
spirit of conciliation, which has been torn asunder by the unrestrained ego of one man.
The Prime Minister says he is not waiting for the provinces. They are too slow in agreeing with him. He says it must be done in his way. We have heard those words before, Sir, from the lips of dictators and tyrants.
The publisher of The Globe and Mail was taken to task for using the word "Tyrant". I am surprised there is no objection across the way to my using it. According to the dictionary, a tyrant is a person who exercises power despotically. A despot is someone who acts in an arbitrary manner. A despot does not take advice; a despot must have his own way. A despot insists on pushing his ideas to the end, riding roughshod over the rights of others. A tyrant is in the same category. A tyrant sees only one side of a coin, and usually it is the side bearing his picture. The publisher of The Globe and Mail may have erred a little on the side of emphasis, but in principle he was right on. It is strange, sir, how sensitive the Grits are on these things. He was attacked not for what he said but for saying it.
There was a suggestion in the remarks of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), the "minister of oil", as he is now called, that there was something wrong, not quite cricket, in the publisher of The Globe and Mail criticizing the Prime Minister's position. Saying what he said in England was even worse. It is hard to follow this kind of reasoning. We do not find the Prime Minister or his henchmen mincing their words in their references to the Premier of Alberta or even their friend, the Premier of Saskatchewan; but when the boot is on the other foot then the shoe pinches.


An hon. Member:: One-party state.


Erik Nielsen: If there is a one-party state in this country, it is over there. They are the believers in the one-party state, the advocates of rule by divine right. Nothing could be more evident in proving that situation than what the-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: I cannot hear hon. members; I would like to enjoy an exchange with them if they would rise-


An hon. Member:: You are getting to them, Erik.


Erik Nielsen: -and put a question. It is not what is said that pinches but the mere fact that in this bright new Grit world of friendly thought control anyone would dare raise his or her voice in protest.
It is, above all, the press whom they fear and distrust. It was not by mere coincidence that, after the Toronto Sun had attacked the Prime Minister and his government some years ago in biting terms, the office of that newspaper was raided. This was something not seen before in this country and something not often seen in England or the United States, or indeed any country where democracy is practised.

March 13, 1981
The Constitution
Perhaps the shabbiest episode in this catalogue of manipulation, evasion and half-truths which in those around the Prime Minister passes for government policy, was the put-up job- for it can be nothing else-on the British High Commissioner. So sorry and shabby and weak was this performance that even the Prime Minister has adopted a Pilate-like stance, washing his hands before the assembled media the other day in saying he had no complaints against the British High Commissioner. How does he justify the sickness of the episode in which that valuable and dedicated official's name was dragged through the mud to serve the political purpose of this government?
The government wanted to open a rift with England, they wanted to put pressure on Westminster. Think of it, Sir, this little group of time-serving wasters of our nation's patrimony putting pressure on the Mother of parliaments! That was their motive, their objective, and they have now had to back off. A member of the NDP, which is now recognized as the official annex of the Grit party, the little red rump as it has been referred to, or some sort of halfway house in this House, became involved. When the conversation with the British High Commissioner was reported, then the Grits went into action.
What was this conversation? In a reception on his own premises the British High Commissioner gave his opinion on the reaction of the British government and parliament to the constitutional package. He was doing his job, which was to put forward Britain's views. When the NDP ran back and tattled to their masters, the Grits did not for a moment hesitate to embarrass the British government and their representative here for their own purely political ends. That is what is sad, even tragic, about the whole sorry, shabby episode. A government in Canada was using an ambassador of another country as a whipping boy, and that is precisely what happened. It was a kind of diplomatic mugging engaged in by the Grits with their socialist accessories, the little red rump.
I say with regret, sir, that the position of the socialist members in this whole constitutional imbroglio has been one of slavishly following Trudeau's whistle.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I know that particularly with respect to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) it is hardly necessary to draw his attention to that standing rule that we refer to each other by title and riding and not by name.


Erik Nielsen: Well, of course, Mr. Speaker, when I used the term "Trudeau" I meant the Prime Minister.
When the Prime Minister needs them, he just blows his whistle, and like Pavlov's dog they come wagging their tail, automatically salivating as they travel. Even the attorney-general of Saskatchewan, Mr. Romanow, read them a lesson a few weeks ago on the folly of the position taken by the federal socialist party under its present leadership.


An hon. Member:: A little red Tory.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Romanow is a little red Tory. Does the parliamentary secretary say that? I am sure he would be interested in learning of that opinion.
The hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) and his advisers have sadly misjudged the mood of Canadians if they think the Canadian people are going to sit still for an arbitrary invasion of the powers of the provinces, which is precisely what this is. The actions of the Grit government on the Constitution are more serious than that. They represent a massive power grab, a raid by the feds, a step back toward centralization in the destruction of the power of the provinces as operational entities in this country.
If the Grit majority in this House, along with the socialists, the puppet master and the puppets, can legislate in matters belonging constitutionally to the provinces using-and we know the term for it-the British parliament to impose constraints on the provinces which they are not prepared to accept, then, Sir, the provinces have been destroyed. They will cease to exist as viable structures. Anyone who examines the situation even briefly is compelled to come to that conclusion.
But that is not all. If the Prime Minister is balked in this mania of his, if Britain says "We do not have the mandate to do these things", then the Prime Minister issues threatening noises about what will happen. If the British say that they recognize the convention of consulting the provinces, and the indications are that they will, the consensus principle that prevailed in the Statute of Westminster of 1931, in unemployment insurance, old age pensions, the retirement of judges and other instances where amendments were made affecting the rights and prerogatives of the provinces, and if they say that they cannot seek to impose on the provinces of Canada in matters of their own jurisdiction principles originating at the federal level, then they are told by this government that they have no choice. I say, sir, that is simply not so.
I see that, despite the fact I have another 20 pages left in my carefully prepared speech, I have run out of time so perhaps I can deliver the other half at another time.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am very pleased indeed to have the opportunity of making a few remarks with regard to this historic debate on the Constitution of our time. I congratulate all those members who have taken part in this debate ahead of me, because many of them have made signal steps in the direction in which we want to go in this nation.
It will be an historical moment when we bring the British North America Act to Canada with a charter of rights and an amending formula. We are in effect cutting the Gordian knot with the past but at the same time retaining our traditions and institutions that have served us so well over the years. After 114 years the time has come to patriate our Constitution. It is what we all want, it is what the United Kingdom wants as well, and it is the last vestige of colonialism.
March 13, 1981

Times have changed over the 114-year period. Particularly in the past 54 years we have tried to patriate our constitution on numerous occasions. This has been attempted by a number of prime ministers, including Mr. King, Mr. Bennett, St. Laurent, Diefenbaker and Pearson, each and every one of them without any success whatsoever.
It is important that we consider a number of aspects of this constitutional package. I do not intend to dwell at length on the preamble, because I recall a preamble that was presented at the first ministers' conference in the Convention Centre by the Conservative government of Ontario. At that time the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was prepared to accept it, but the other provinces would not agree.
I will not dwell on the charter of rights because many others are taking a great deal of time to discuss each and every aspect of that matter from many points of view and with many reasons.
So far as the amending formula is concerned, whether it be the Victoria formula of 1971 or the Vancouver formula, it would appear that in any event there will not be any agreement, certainly in the foreseeable future, between all provinces on qny kind of amending formula.
Returning to the charter of rights, I want to deal with only one fundamental, basic matter, language rights.

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in Canada's history the rights to education in the language of the minority will be guaranteed throughout the country. The charter of rights and freedoms will give all Canadians the right to have their children educated in their official language where the number is sufficient to warrant it. English-speaking Canadians who will settle in Quebec will have the right to have their children educated in English, and French-speaking Canadians will at last have the right to have their children educated in French no matter where they live in Canada. By guaranteering minority language educational rights we will entrench in the constitution the agreement reached by the provincial premiers in St. Andrews in 1977 and in Montreal in 1978, to wit, and I quote:
Every child belonging to the French or English minority has the right to receive in his or her mother tongue his or her primary and secondary schools instruction in any province where the number of children is sufficient to warrant it.
The Constitution now includes other linguistic rights concerning the use of French or English in the legislative assemblies, before the courts, in the statutes and the parliamentary documents of Quebec and Manitoba. Those rights will continue to be guaranteed by the existing constitutional provisions. In addition, at the request of the New Brunswick government, the linguistic rights will apply to that province.
The Constitution acknowledges the right to use French and English in Parliament and before federal courts. Those rights will be defined in the Canadian Charter of Rightsand Freedoms.
The Constitution
It also includes other rights which are now part of the Official Languages Act and which will be entrenched in the Constitution. French and English will be defined in the Constitution as being the official languages of Canada. In it will also be spelled out the right of the public to communicate with the headquarters or the main office of the institutions of Parliament or of the Government of Canada, or to be given services in French or in English and, in regions where the number warrants it, the public will have the same right with respect to any other office of those institutions.

When we look at the proposed Constitution Act of 1981, which is the resolution tabled by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) on February 13 of this year, in considering language rights we refer specifically to a number of sections, from Section 16 to Section 22. Section 16 makes English and French the official language of Canada and of New Brunswick, with equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of government at the federal level across Canada and at the provincial level in New Brunswick. The section also assures that nothing prevents Parliament or the legislatures from providing for greater equality and use of the two languages.
Section 17 of the same resolution provides that any person has the right to use either English or French in the debates and other proceedings of Parliament and the legislature of New Brunswick. This right already exists, as we know, in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba.
Section 18 requires that the statutes, records and journals of Parliament and the legislature of New Brunswick be printed and published in both English and French and makes both language versions equally authoritative.
In Section 19 there is provision for the use of English and French in all courts established by Parliament and in the courts of New Brunswick. It entitles any person to use either language before these courts orally or in writing and to have processes issued by the courts in either language.
Further, Section 20 will give members of the public the right to use English or French in communicating with or receiving available services from any head or central office at the federal level and from any other office whenever there is a significant demand for communication or service in such language due to the nature of the office.
Section 21 preserves the existing constitutional language guarantees, whether English or French, under Section 133 of the British North America Act, which applies particularly to Quebec, and under Section 23, which refers to the Manitoba Act.
Finally, Section 22 is designed to ensure that any rights or privileges existing with respect to languages other than English or French are not impaired by provisions of the charter.
It is important to note that an amendment has already been made to Section 20 so that the courts, rather than Parliament, would ultimately determine whether other federal offices should provide bilingual services. Also, the test for the provision of services in English or French would be based on a

March 13, 1981
The Constitution
significant demand for services in the language required rather than on the number of persons in the area concerned using the language. The amendment would also require the provision of services where there is a reasonable requirement for services, such as at airports and train stations.
While the federal government would like to see institutional language rights at the provincial level guaranteed in the Constitution, it will not impose such rights over opposition by the provinces. The charter provides minimum guarantees in attempting to achieve the widest consensus possible from provincial governments. Thus, when the provisions for institutional language rights at the provincial level included in the draft charter tabled at the first ministers' conference in September received virtually no provincial support apart from New Brunswick, the provisions respecting the provinces were withdrawn. However, the status quo is preserved, and both Quebec and Manitoba remain bound by existing constitutional rights.
As New Brunswick officially requested that these rights apply to it, this has been provided. The amending formula has been modified to facilitate the opting-in of any province, with the concurrence of Parliament, to any or all of the provincial language provisions listed in Sections 16 to 20 of the charter which I enunciated.
As most provinces-other than Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick-do not have sufficient judges, lawyers and other court personnel trained in Frenqh, it would not be realistic to entrench the right of an accused to be tried in his own language in criminal cases. The Criminal Code now provides this right, which is enforced in New Brunswick, Ontario and the Territories. As other provinces develop the capability, the right is provided that if a province delays too long the Attorney General of Canada may unilaterally proclaim the provision in force after two years' notice. This amendment was already made to the Criminal Code, and it was enacted in 1978.
Provinces are encouraged to provide the same rights in civil cases as in criminal cases. However, until there is sufficient court ability in the second language, entrenching such a right would be illusory. The right now exists constitutionally in Quebec and Manitoba and by law in New Brunswick. Ontario now provides for some civil cases to be heard in French.
I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the March 6, 1981 edition of The Toronto Star. It refers to Premier Davis' speech to the Empire Club and is subtitled: "Conservative premier reaffirms his support for Pierre Trudeau's Constitution package". The article indicates that one of the key elements championed over a decade by the Conservative party in the province of Ontario has been this:
The right of parents to educate their children in whichever of their own two founding languages they choose is protected where numbers warrant.
The article continues:
To those, both here and in Ontario and elsewhere, who would attack me for not making Ontario officially bilingual I offer a simple and direct response.
Unnecessary excess that corrects no injustice serves no purpose. Understanding and commitment to fairness, on the other hand, breeds tolerance and co-operation. We will not, in Ontario, be stampeded to repeat the mistakes of others. We will chart our own path, in fairness and understanding, in the broad interest of all Ontarians.
In summary, we have a package of constitutional changes that are consistent with Ontario's traditional views as well as our perception of current needs. 1 regret that many of my fellow premiers do not share that over-all view, but to wait for unanimity would be to wait forever.
I suppose I have received more correspondence on the matter of the supremacy of God in the Constitution than on any other aspect of the constitutional package. Personally I believe in God. I note that God is referred to in our Canadian Bill of Rights at the beginning, where it reads in part:
The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions:-
Without doubt, this is still the situation in Canada. The Canadian Bill of Rights will be adhered to, in spite of the fact that there is no mention of this in the constitutional package. Also I point out that God is referred to in our national anthem, "O Canada", in line 7 which reads as follows:
God keep our land glorious and free!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Sing it.


William Kenneth Robinson: Perhaps we should all sing it. Every day before question period in the House we have prayers; we mention God. The Lord's Prayer is recited every day, and I have no indication that this will change. The people of the country do not realize that we recite the Lord's Prayer every day before commencing our deliberations in Parliament. It is important for these people to know that we recite the Lord's Prayer and give God precedence in the chamber.
The hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) summarized it well when he said, as reported on page 8107 of Hansard of March 10, 1981:
My belief in God is secure; it does not need to be enshrined in secular documents. It is now enshrined in the greatest of all constitutions-the Good Book.
God is there today and He always will be. Our Constitution must include a preamble which mentions God and other spiritual and national values. I am sure that such a preamble will be adopted in the course of the continuing constitutional discussions.
I should like to refer to another aspect of the constitutional package which is of great concern to me, particularly as a practising lawyer. An article appeared in The Globe and Mail on March 11, 1981, written by Mr. Roderick M. McLeod, who is a spokesman for the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel and assistant deputy attorney general of Ontario. Mr. McLeod contended that the provision in the charter of rights -Clause 24(2)-empowering the courts to exclude illegally obtained evidence in certain circumstances will result in the adoption by Canadian courts of the American rule of automatic exclusion of illegally obtained evidence. This is simply not the case.
March 13, 1981

According to Mr. McLeod, in the United States, the doctrine of excluding evidence obtained in contravention of the U.S. bill of rights-protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and the right to remain silent in the absence of counsel-has been developed by courts as an absolute rule designed to prevent law enforcement officers from violating a constitutionally protected right of individuals. The rule operates automatically in every case regardless of how minor the breach of the right and regardless of whether the admission of the evidence would cast doubt on the integrity of the administration of justice. This is why, in the Williams case referred to by Mr. McLeod, the accused was set free even though, on the facts of that case there did not appear to be a serious breach of his constitutional rights.
Mr. McLeod says that the situation in Canada, under the proposed provisions of Clause 24(2) of the charter, would be rather different. Clause 24(2) provides that a court shall exclude evidence obtained in contravention of a charter right-e.g., by an illegal search or seizure or by evidence obtained from an accused who has been denied counsel-only where it is established, having regard to all the circumstances, that admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Consequently there would be no rule of automatic exclusion of illegally obtained evidence. The accused would have to establish to the satisfaction of the court that the illegality of the manner in which the evidence was obtained was of such a serious nature that using it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The circumstances which the court would consider in reaching a decision would include (a), the extent to which human dignity and social values were breached in obtaining the evidence; (b), the seriousness of the case; (c), the importance of the evidence; (d), whether the harm to the accused was inflicted wilfully or not; and (e), whether there were circumstances justifying the illegal action, such as a situation of urgency where the evidence would have been destroyed or lost.
In other words, says Mr. McLeod, the underlying principles of the proposed charter "exclusionary rule" are twofold. First, to ensure a proper balance between effective law enforcement activities and the fair administration of justice; and second, to avoid the courts becoming parties to activities which are serious violations of charter rights.
By providing the test of "bringing the administration of justice into disrepute", we are clearly signalling to the courts that we do not want the adoption of the automatic and absolute exclusionary rule of the United States, but one which operates to curtail the use of evidence where it has been obtained in flagrant violation of charter rights.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I take it the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) has not completed his remarks.


William Kenneth Robinson: No, I have not, Mr. Speaker.
The Constitution


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Then the Chair will recognize the hon. member at two o'clock in order for him to complete his intervention.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McRae):: Order, please. When the House rose at one o'clock, the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore had the floor.


William Kenneth Robinson: Before lunch, Mr. Speaker, I was in the midst of my remarks in reply to an article in The Globe and Mail of Wednesday, March 11, 1981, by Mr. Roderick M. McLeod, spokesman for the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel and assistant deputy attorney general of Ontario. I would like to continue those remarks at this time.
Mr. McLeod quotes the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Berger in the Williams case, which condemns the absolute exclusion rule. This is, of course, the position of the Chief Justice because of the fact that the rule is automatic and absolute, being applied without regard to the seriousness of the breach. As the Chief Justice noted in the 1971 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics case, cited at 403 U.S. Reports at page 388, a United States Supreme Court case, he is opposed to the U.S. rule because it represents a "mechanically inflexible response to widely varying degrees of police error". The proposed Canadian rule would allow for flexibility in determining when the breach of rights was serious enough to justify excluding illegally obtained evidence.
Mr. McLeod also asserts that the best means to ensure that the police observe the rights of persons is by "before-the-fact direction" or subsequent prosecution or disciplinary action for illegal conduct. The simple fact is that even if such ex post facto action occurs, it is of little solace to the person whose rights have been infringed. As Laskin, B. remarked in his dissenting judgment in Hogan v. The Queen, 1975, 2 Supreme Court Reports at page 574:
Illegalities or improprieties attending the eliciting or discovery of relevant evidence are, on the orthodox common law view, res inter alios acta. They are said to have their sanction in separate criminal or civil proceedings, of which there is little evidence, either as to recourse or effectiveness; or, perhaps, in internal disciplinary proceedings against offending constables, a matter on which there is no reliable data in this country.
Laskin then went on to observe with respect to constitutionally protected rights;
It may be said that the exclusion of relevant evidence is no way to control illegal police practices and that such exclusion merely allows a wrongdoer to escape conviction. Yet where constitutional guarantees are concerned, the more pertinent consideration is whether those guarantees, as fundamentals of the

March 13, 1981
The Constitution
particular society, should be at the mercy of law enforcement officers and a blind eye turned to their invasion because it is more important to secure a conviction. The contention that it is the duty of the courts to get at the truth has in it too much of the philosophy of the end justifying the means; it would equally challenge the present law as to confessions and other out-of-court statements by an accused. In the United States, its Supreme Court, after weighing over many years whether other methods than exclusion of evidence should be invoked to deter illegal searches and seizures in state as well as in federal prosecutions, concluded that the constitutional guarantees could best be upheld by a rule of exclusion.
As for the propriety of the courts using the test of bringing the administration of justice into disrepute as a basis for excluding illegally obtained evidence, Chief Justice Cartwright and Justices Spence and Hall, dissenting in The Queen v. Wray, a 1970 case reported at page 272 of the Supreme Court Reports, were clearly of the opinion that this was a primary duty of the courts. As Mr. Justice Spence remarked:
I am most strongly of the opinion that it is the duty of every judge to guard against bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. That is a duty which lies upon him constantly and that is a duty which he must always keep firmly in mind. The proper discharge of this duty is one which, in the present day of almost riotous disregard for the administration of justice, is of paramount importance to the continued life of the state.
In the present case, the confession or statement of the accused and also the information given by the accused as to where the weapon could be found, as Aylesworth J.A. pointed out, were procured by trickery, duress and improper inducements and they were clearly inadmissible. Moreover, as the Chief Justice of this court has indicated in his reasons the purpose of exercise of such trickery was stated by the inspector of the provincial police to avoid taking a chance that the accused, as the result of speaking to his lawyer, would not take the police to the place where the gun was found.
Under these circumstances, I am in agreement with the chief justice when he characterized the description of the situation by the Court of Appeal as not any overstatement.
I am of the opinion that were the trial judge to have, as he very properly did, excluded as inadmissible the statement of the accused and yet have permitted the Crown to have adduced all the evidence as to the accused's accompanying the police officers and pointing out to them the place where the weapon had been thrown away, in accordance with the information which he had given to them in the excluding statement, it would not only have brought the administration of justice into disrepute but it would have been a startling disregard of the principle of British criminal law, nemo tenetur seipsum accusare. Surely no authority need be stated to establish that as the most basic principle in our criminal law.
Mr. McLeod also expresses concerns about the manner in which the government changed its position between July, 1980, and February, 1981, on how to deal with the exclusionary rule in the charter. The simple fact is that the government was searching for a provision that would strike a proper balance between the absolute and automatic exclusionary rule of the United States and the common law rule in Canada which, with the exception of involuntary confessions, allows the admissibility of relevant evidence even when it has been obtained by illegal or improper means.
In this regard, the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution received submissions from many groups that Mr. McLeod characterizes as "misinformed special-interest lobby groups" which advocated some provision that would permit courts to exclude illegally obtained evidence in proper cases. These groups included bodies such as the Canadian Bar Association, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, the National Association of Women and the Law and the Canadian Civil Liberties
Association. The only groups before the committee advocating the maintenance of the existing evidence rule was the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel.
Finally, in response to the specific questions that Mr. McLeod poses in his article, the following points might be made. First, the charter is not adopting the U.S. exclusionary rule, but a test which will require the accused to show that admission of illegally obtained evidence would, in all the circumstances, bring the administration of justice into disrepute. There is nothing automatic or absolute about this rule.
Second, the results in the Williams case would not occur under the proposed charter rule since admitting Williams' statement would not have brought the administration of justice into disrepute.
Third, both disciplinary actions against the police and the prospect of excluding evidence in cases of flagrant violations of rights by the police are considered necessary to ensure respect for civil liberties.
Fourth, the Supreme Court will develop interpretations of the new exclusionary rule which will establish guidelines for the lower courts and Crown counsel for determining when evidence is inadmissible.
Fifth, while the task force on evidence may be recommending against the U.S. exclusionary rule, that is not the rule which is being adopted in the charter. The rule adopted in the charter is the same as that proposed by the Canada Law Reform Commission in its report on evidence in 1975.
Sixth, the wording of the proposed exclusionary rule is not inconsistent with any provision of the United Nations covenant on civil and political rights which does not deal with admissibility of evidence.
Seventh, the report of the McDonald commission on the RCMP is not relevant to rules relating to admissibility of evidence.
Eighth, the suggestion that rapists will be turned loose in the streets despite their guilt because of a technical error by the police is nonsense, since the test for exclusion in the charter would not apply to minor breaches of the charter rights.
Ninth, the government's flexibility in the development of the exclusionary rule is simply an illustration of its desire to develop the best charter possible, taking into account the views of the groups which appeared before the committee and the members of the committee themselves.
In sum, Clause 24(2) of the charter seeks to strike a proper balance between the interests of the effective administration of justice and the interests of the fair administration of justice.
Attempts by the police and Crown counsel to create in the minds of the Canadian public fears that the exclusionary rule will turn our cities into havens for criminals who would otherwise be behind bars is to do a serious disservice. The proposed rule is not the same as the exclusionary rule in the United States and should not be held forth as such.
March 13, 1981

Time does not permit me to deal with some of the other aspects of this matter that I should like to deal with, so I shall sum up by saying that this constitutional package is enormous but necessary at this time. As Canada enters the eighties with a new made-in-Canada Constitution for the century ahead, it is clear that creating a Constitution is a painful, agonizing experience, as the Fathers of Confederation found out. In some ways, what we are going through now is not unlike the process we went through in getting our Canadian flag and our national anthem. But who would want to take them away today?
We need to patriate the British North America Act, our present Constitution. We need a charter of rights and freedoms and an amending formula, and we need them now.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with somewhat mixed feelings. There is always pleasure in participating in a historic debate, yet for me there is a certain amount of sadness in this participation. The pleasure comes from taking part in a golden opportunity that has been presented where we can finally do something about our Constitution and where the first concrete steps toward constitutional reform can be taken.
There is still a certain amount of sadness, however, in that this golden opportunity has been seized by the government and used to achieve its political ambitions, its nearsighted visions of constitutional reform. This seizure is dangerous because the blatant attempts of the government in this direction have tended to destroy the principle upon which this country is based, that being the spirit of co-operation and consensus which is essentially known by all of us to be the federalist nature of Canada. It cannot be denied that the fundamental nature of Canada rests on the philosophy of federalism. As a government of a federation I think we should understand that the steps to good constitutional reform are, first of all, the steps of co-operation, steps of agreement, and steps of consensus. All of those are steps of unity.
Then we must ask how those steps can be taken, Mr. Speaker. I think this is fairly simple. We begin with simple patriation, followed by entrenchment of an equalization formula and an agreed upon amending formula. So we have a solution which is ludicrously simple; in fact, it is so simple that it has escaped the discerning eyes of hon. members opposite and of many, but not all, members to my left.
I believe that it is in fact possible to get agreement, not necessarily unanimity but certainly consensus, on a number of matters, such as patriation, on which we already have agreement; on equalization, which we know we have agreement for; and on an amending formula, on which we have already had substantial agreement. This would be acceptable. It would be the logical federalist approach and it would certainly be in keeping with the federalist spirit of Canada.
The government does not appear to want to maintain that federal spirit, however. It said as much on October 22, 1980, when the government and the NDP newlyweds voted against a Conservative motion which called for immediate patriation with an amending formula. That motion met with a degree of
The Constitution
consensus and had it been given approval the Constitution would have been brought home. It would have been amended in Canada by Canadians and would have been the greatest exercise in unity in history.
That is what the majority of Canadians support. That is what the provinces support and that is certainly what the Conservative Party supports. Unfortunately, it is not what the Liberals and the NDP support. They want what the majority of Canadians do not want. In fact, recent polls indicate that 60 to 65 per cent of the Canadian population do not want unilateral action and that 80 per cent of the provinces do not want it either.
Hon. members opposite probably wonder why almost the entire nation is opposed to unilateral action. In order to attempt to answer this question I should like to ask one more question, one that is essential and with which all of us must come to grips. That question simply is: What is Canada? It is a simple question but at the same time a very difficult one. It is difficult in that we would probably receive as many different answers as we have different people.
For me, to describe what Canada is I have to think in terms of people and friends. For example, a friend who is a farmer in the Peace country; another friend, a banker who lives at the other end of the country in Prince Edward Island. Then I think of a friend who is a pipefitter living in Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories, and finally of a friend who lives in Vancouver and is a carpenter. Those people coming from wide regions, miles and miles apart, are Canadians and are essentially what Canada is. If I were to ask each of them what they thought of Canada, their answers would be different. Their answers would be very different because they come from different provinces and different regions. They have different lifestyles. They come from different economic strata having different desires and different goals. They have different conceptions of Canada.
Yet if we were to put them all together in one room, a very solid concise common denominator would exist. A togetherness, a camaraderie, would exist between them. It exists because they are all citizens of probably one of the most unique nations on earth. A togetherness exists even though people live thousands of miles apart. They know they live in a country traditionally willing to pull together, to co-operate and to help those in need, whether they live a thousand miles away or next door. They live in a country where consensus has been and is a way of life. It has made it possible for these friends of mine, the banker, the farmer, the pipefitter and the carpenter, to pull together, even though they may well be pulling for somewhat different goals and dreams.
It is this consensus and co-operation which allows those differences to be a unifying force, not a divisive force. The miracle of our federation is that differences can in fact be a unifying force. But what makes us a federation? It is very simply the fact that we have sovereign, democratically elected governments on two levels, provincial and federal.

March 13, 1981
The Constitution
We have such diverse goals and dreams, yet we expect both levels to pursue our dreams. Of course, the provincial level looks much more at regional dreams, the closer to home aspirations and things which have a close relationship interest. The second level, the national government, deals in a sense with our broader goals and our broader dreams. But that is not to say that the federal government alone acts for our national interests. The provinces, too, can act in our national interest, although this government would have us believe that only it can act in the national interest.
These two levels, each sovereign, each pursuing regional and national goals, make us a federal state and not a unitary state. We are a partnership, a cohabitation, a nation of different people from different regions coming together. We cannot escape that fact. Yet these people living together in harmony is the essential spirit of consensus and co-operation. It is that same essential federalist spirit. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself is well aware of what the spirit of federation is.
In 1964, in a speech at the Charlottetown conference when the Prime Minister was still a professor of law at McGill, he defined our federation as follows:
Federation is by its very essence a compromise and a pact. It is a compromise in the sense that when national consensus on all things is not desirable or cannot readily be obtained, the area of consensus is reduced in order that a consensus on some things can be reached. It is a pact or quasi-treaty in the sense that the terms of that compromise cannot be changed unilaterally. That is not to say that the terms are fixed forever: but only that in changing them, every effort must be made not to destroy the consensus on which the federated nation rests.
He seemed to know what he was talking about. Has he now either forgotten what he once said or has he decided we should not remain a federation? Has he decided we should not remain a nation of consensus or a nation of co-operation? Instead, he wants us to be a nation of one government rule, a government that needs not to consult nor seek consensus. Instead of a government that would take those differences and turn them into a unifying force, this government is turning those differences into a divisive force. It is turning us away from the path of federalism, for if there is no consensus, there is no federation, as professor Trudeau himself stated in 1964. What there was then, and what we have now, is unilateral action. We have a unitary government with no goal either of consensus, or attempts, as the Prime Minister then put it, to "limit the field of consensus".
The question must be asked: What will the end result of unilateral action be? As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) stated in a speech to this House on February 17, 1981, will it be that Canada will be "compensated" once the "strike and the discord and abuse" of this government's unilateral action is behind us? Will unilateral action forever sweeten future relations, as the Minister of Justice would have us believe? Will it create a mood that will lend itself to future consensus? Or will unilateral action forever taint future federal-provincial relations? Will it forever entrench a prevailing mood of tension? Will we become a wholly unitary state? These are all interesting questions and time will tell. But now is the time for us to look at the results of that.
First, I would like to read a passage from the infamous Kirby memo which outlined the possibilities for the federal government on federal-provincial negotiations on the Constitution. On unilateral action by the government, we read in the memo:
Ministers should understand that the Fight in Parliament will become very, very rough.
So much for spirit of consensus and co-operation. So much for the rewards of federalism. This "very, very rough fight" will no doubt leave a bitter taste in our mouths, a taste which will not easily be forgotten. How does this government defend unilateral action? This government says that unilateral action first is okay because it is the voice of the people, that the government has been given a mandate and therefore it is carrying out the will of the people. The government says also that it has the support of western Canada because of the NDP alliance.
Neither of those points holds water. On the first point I would remind hon. members opposite that a voter's mandate is given and applies only to a program on which the successful party campaigned, plus the administration of public affairs. As I remember, the February "18-cent election" was not a July 1 deadline election. On the second argument, that of NDP support, we all know how slipshod that support is. We know that most members of the NDP are not speaking for their constituents, they are speaking only for their leader, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) who, in turn, is just another mouthpiece for the Prime Minister.
What does the real NDP voice for the west say, the voice from Saskatchewan of Premier Allan Blakeney? He has said:
Should we not try to ensure that patriation, if it goes ahead, is accomplished in a way that minimizes dissension? Will it serve Canada's interests, at this point in our history, to compound division with division?
That is the voice from Saskatchewan. The same thing is being repeated by the premiers in Manitoba, in Alberta and in British Columbia. Division upon division, that is the result of unilateral action. If we multiply that division upon division by decades, we can see the result of this unilateral action down the road. We can see what it would be like to turn this nation into a unitary state.
Even the ghosts of constitutional reform past against unilateral action are beginning to rear their heads. For instance, we awn look back at the Fulton-Favreau white paper. This was a Liberal task force. In that white paper we read:
The Canadian Parliament will not directly request an amendment directly affecting federal-provincial relations without prior consultation and agreement with the provinces.
That is what was said by Liberals not so very long ago, yet these Liberals do the exact opposite. They do not seek agreement with the provinces. There is no agreement, but they do not care. There is no consensus, but again we hear them say "who cares?" I care, Mr. Speaker. Canadians care. What we do not care for is unilateral action.
However, the Prime Minister creates the illusion that he does care. For example, on November 5, 1980 the Prime
March 13, 1981

Minister told the partisan gathering of the Ontario Liberal Association the following:
The west demands a new deal from confederation and the federal government must help bring it about-I believe that for Ontarians to say no to the aspirations of the west today would be to say no to your own tomorrow.
Is it okay for the Prime Minister to ignore the west but not okay for Ontario? Again he can be seen as going directly against his own advice, for he is not paying attention to the aspirations of the west by moving unilaterally.
Then there are his compatriots in Quebec, the Liberal party of Quebec, headed by Claude Ryan. Does Mr. Ryan agree with the Prime Minister's unilateral action? Does the party agree with the Prime Minister? Obviously the answer is no. The message of Mr. Ryan's beige paper states that the essence of Canada is federalism.
Then we come to the leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Oshawa. Even he realizes the dangers of unilateral action. He stated on the opening day of debate on this resolution that the way the Constitution is changed is almost as important as the substance. He said: "We could have a situation of grave danger."
What caused him to change his mind? Perhaps he agrees with the Prime Minister that Canada should not be a federation, that all decisions should be made in Ottawa and that the provinces should serve no real purpose. Perhaps he agrees with the Prime Minister that Canada should instead be a republic and not a federation, as was indicated by the Prime Minister's remarks on November 23, 1979 when he stated that a republic might be better for Canada.
Is this the ultimate goal of the Prime Minister, the transformation of Canada into a republic? Is unilateral action merely the tool that will wipe the provincial governments off the face of the map? Many members opposite would say it is not so. They would tell us to read the words of Liberals in this House the day after the referendum.
I recall all too well the emotional rhetoric, the calls for reform, change, co-operation and consensus. What has happened since? The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) said as far back as October 21, 1977 that "fuller consultation by the federal government" is needed. He said the areas of the country must be made to feel that they are being consulted. Where is the greater consultation? Does he call a week in September greater consultation?
I return to the day after the Quebec referendum when the Prime Minister said:
What we must do is chart a new course and agree upon a common itinerary toward that common destination.
Is the July 1 deadline a common itinerary? Is this amending formula, this charter, this referendum, the common destination? He continued:
We shall constantly need the support of the Canadian people.
Where is the support? He does not have the support. He went on to say:
The Constitution
We are also counting on the support of all provincial governments, including that of Quebec. We shall all have to agree on the basic principles underlying our efforts. We have to be receptive to the needs and aspirations of all Canadians to stick together.
Those are his words, "to stick together". Has he lost the glue? If so, I would like to help him out. I have my own special brand of patriation glue. It will adhere to simple patriation, it will hold fast to equalization, it will bond permanently to an agreed upon amending formula. But it has a word of caution on it. It says "Danger; not to be used with unilateral action". Glue will fail to keep nations stuck together if used unilaterally.
Maybe my glue is not so good after all. I doubt that there is a glue that will work on this model we are debating here today. I cannot help but ask, where are all these words of the Prime Minister now? What happened to "aspirations of all Canadians" and "stick together" and "we all have to agree"? Perhaps those were just words to the wind and nothing more.
Then we have the words of the Minister of Justice on that same clear day in May when things looked so bright. What did he say? "But Canada is a federation." Those were his words. He also said: "We must consult the provinces." He consulted but he would not limit the area of consensus. He had the charter of rights in his hand, but in the words of the Prime Minister the charter was non-negotiable. Therefore, if the provinces did not agree with Ottawa, that was too bad for the provinces. That is the Liberal brand of consensus, the Liberal brand of federalism.
Let us take a closer look at that non-negotiable item. When we look at this charter, we must remember who it is for. It is for my friends in Vancouver, Prince Edward Island, Yellowknife and Peace River. Does this charter speak for them? Does it graciously grant them rights they do not already have? Does it make them the masters of government and not the servant? This government wants them to believe that it does these things, but I and the people of Peace River know that they have this right. They know they are not the government's for the giving. This government chooses to pretend that we are the slaves who must submit to their whim.
I and the people of Peace River have no objection to an entrenched charter of rights. What we object to is the means by which this charter is to become entrenched. We do not want this or any charter entrenched if it means sacrifice of the fundamental principle of federalism. On October 17, 1977, as recorded at page 36 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said that the people of western Canada-
-feel that they are not given enough opportunity to participate in setting up a national policy. They feel they are too remote from the central government in Ottawa, and left out of the centre of decisions.
The unilateral entrenchment of this charter is a typical example of what the Prime Minister referred to in that statement. Therefore, I and the people of Peace River country object to this charter. We object to the state being master, graciously granting the rights to the people who are therefore the servant. If the people say to the state that they do not want the state's charter or unilateral action, then the state must not and cannot follow through against the will of the people.

March 13, 1981
The Constitution
The Liberal Party accuses the Progressive Conservative Party of being hypocritical when the PC Party says the charter is desired, that patriation is desired, that equalization and an amending formula are desired, but we will not support Liberal formulas. It is the Liberals who are being hypocritical. They will not include numerous rights in the charter, such as the fundamental right of access to information and property rights, because they say there is provincial opposition. Yet the Liberal formula is opposed outright by 80 per cent of the provinces. If the government is concerned about provincial support, it would withdraw the package completely or agree to the Conservative amendment of the hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Epp). It will not do so due to its ability to speak out of both sides of its mouth.
The Conservatives support the idea of a charter, as do the people of Peace River and, I believe, of western Canada. In fact, I believe the majority of the people of Canada support it. However, there is no support for this unilateral charter. The people want a charter of rights of and for the people, of and for natives, anglophones, francophones, ethnic minorities, women, men, children, the handicapped, property owners, even provincial governments.
This charter is inadequate. The people do not want this charter because there is no consensus and no agreement. If this government supports this package, federalism will be dead and unitarianism will live. We will have a unitary state with unitary attitudes, a unitary Constitution and a unitary amending formula. Although this formula has the facade of consensus, the referendum clause turns the amending formula into a unitary amending formula.
Canadians are asking themselves about the importance of an amending formula. It is the fundamental cornerstone of future development in our political structure, the foundation of the future path of national relations and will dictate our ability to accommodate change. In fact, it will dictate how we will be able to evolve, expand and exist together in harmony as a nation. It will dictate whether or not we will continue to thrive on consensus and co-operation, or if confrontation and division will become the order of the day.
The amending formula chosen, if the path of consensus is the desired one, must adhere to the following very simple principles. First, it must prove practical under close scrutiny. Second, there must be a consensus on the formula itself, because without consensus on the formula, consensus after will be difficult if not impossible. Third, it has to be fair to all parties.
Let us look at the formula we are discussing here today. That formula does not adhere to either condition. Under close scrutiny basic flaws can be seen. First, a permanent veto for Ontario and Quebec is illogical if the population of the west increases as the population of the east decreases. The premise for the reason that Ontario has this veto is the number of people in that province. If that is in fact the premise, then it must also be the premise that if the population is not retained
the veto must be lost, for the reason for granting this veto would no longer exist.
Since the 25 per cent veto formula is applicable to any province that has or had that percentage of the population, it is stacked against the western provinces and is in fact in favour of the central provinces.
The 1976 census showed that Quebec had 27.12 per cent of the population, and according to StatsCan Quebec will be down to between 24.6 and 23.2 per cent by the year 2001. At the same time, the population of western Canada is predicted to rise from 27.2 per cent in 1976 to 31.9 per cent by the year 2001. Thus we can see that the western provinces would be reduced to second-class citizens.
Third-class status would then be conferred upon provinces such as Saskatchewan and Manitoba. That very simply is because the western provinces can veto only if at least two of the provinces having at least 50 per cent of the population choose to do so. Manitoba and Saskatchewan together do not have 50 per cent of the population of western Canada, yet they represent 50 per cent of the western provinces. They are not equal, then, in status to Alberta and B.C., and the west as a whole is not equal in status to each of the central provinces.
The second condition I referred to was the degree of consensus the formula must meet, and again I suggest there is none. The government is implementing an amending formula that does not even meet the very conditions it dictates as the procedure for future amendments. It does not have the support of every province that has or had at least 25 per cent of the population. It does not have the support of at least two of the Atlantic provinces and it does not have the support of any of the western provinces. The Liberals and NDP are thereby giving this House and this nation a first-rate lesson in hypocrisy, because their own formula cannot even pass itself.
An alternative has been submitted by my party which meets these two fundamental conditions. This alternative, which was dismissed by the Liberals and the NDP, treats all Canadians as equals and treats the provinces as equals. It recognizes the larger provinces with the rule that at least 50 per cent of the population of Canada must support any proposed amendment. It also recognizes the eastern and western provinces as strong voices. It is also just in that there has been an amount of consensus with the provinces as to its use. Final arrangements would have to be worked out, but that is not impossible. A deal could be arranged which would be in keeping with the spirit of consensus and co-operation that is so important, and in keeping with the federalist nature of our country. No province would be relegated to second or third-class status. Negotiations between the federal and provincial governments, even though they are not automatically possible, are not impossible, and I believe strongly that with the proper attitude on both sides, attitudes that lend themselves to those two key words "co-operation" and "consensus", our efforts would bear some fruit.
Canadians have traditionally been able to operate within the framework of co-operation and consensus; why not now? In the past the provinces have sat down with the federal govern-
March 13, 1981

ment at the negotiating table and have come to agreements over pacts and have arrived at money agreements, such as various fiscal arrangements affecting the tax structure and revenue sharing, the Canada and Quebec pension plans, medicare and hospital insurance plans, welfare assistance programs, money for post-secondary education, manpower training programs-the list goes on and on-immigration policy and the many other things on which there has been agreement in the past. Why can we not expect agreement now and in the future?
This government chooses to ignore or forget the past. It chooses to go the route that would forever destroy the spirit of co-operation and consensus. Is this, as the government contends, because of the fact that the very nature of our country is changing? Is it, as the Prime Minister says, because agreement is no longer possible? My answer is, the reason agreement cannot be achieved is that this government does not want agreement, it does not want consensus and it does not want co-operation, except in the case of agreement with the provinces on the basis of its specific plans.
I should like to quote again to this House what the Premier of Saskatchewan said, and this should interest the members sitting to my left. He said in a speech to the Dalhousie law alumnae:
The process permits a referendum where provincial legislatures fail to agree to a proposal for constitutional amendment. It is a way to temper provincial intransigence, but not federal intransigence.
The federal New Democratic Party should follow the Premier of Saskatchewan because Premier Blakeney was right in his remarks. The federal NDP should reject this package. It should reject this amending formula and its provision for the referendum. It is a referendum that would allow the federal government to bypass the provinces now as well as in the future, a referendum that would do away with co-operation and the motivation the federal government needs to reach consensus, one that would in fact do away with federalism.
For the reasons I have listed, I and the people of Peace River, the Progressive Conservative Party, eight out of ten provinces and, indeed, the majority of the people of Canada, have chosen not to support the government referendum and amendment clauses.
Let me look at the history of the referendum. We can see it has a rather marked past. It has been used in many cases to abuse the established system of government, whether that be a system of democratic government or the system of co-operation and consensus.
France in 1958, against a background of political instability, under the de Gaulle government, initiated a referendum that gave him the powers of a near dictatorship. Germany in 1934, while the Nazi party served as the force of propaganda and momentum, initiated a referendum that granted Hitler unchecked executive powers and enabled him to establish himself as a dictator. Canada in 1944, under Prime Minister Mackenzie King, initiated a referendum on conscription that split the country into two permanent factions. Had that referendum been avoided and had the government of that day
The Constitution
acted with responsibility, we possibly would not have been left with the legacy of anti-Anglophone and anti-Francophone influences with which we have had so much difficulty dealing in the past.
Now the government wishes to entrench an amending formula complete with a referendum that will enable the government to initiate referenda on its own recognizance. The result would be to divide and conquer the people of Canada. The government would be the conqueror and the people would be the conquered.
It is time to stop and ask ourselves if this Parliament would be doing the right thing in passing this resolution. We are not doing the right thing if we send this document as it stands before us to the British parliament.
In conclusion, quite simply I am trying to say to this government. Let us stop and think about the spirit of our nation, about the backbone of Canada, which is federalism and the spirit of co-operation and consensus. Think about the effect unilateral action will have on that spirit. I submit it will be broken; the backbone will in fact be shattered.
I ask hon. members opposite to ask themselves what will become of Canada without the backbone of federalism, without that spirit of consensus and co-operation. Canada may still exist without it, but would there still exist the will of the people in the west, in the Atlantic provinces and in Quebec, to continue to fight for a better Canada? Or would the fight turn into one of region pitted against region, province against province and people against people? Will the loss of this spirit of co-operation, of the backbone of federalism, not result in division and conflict?
I believe that this government has a clear choice, one of consensus, of federalism, or the choice of unilateral action, of a unitary state, the choice of division. I do not think that choice is difficult. I think a five-year-old can see it, and I would ask this government to stop and listen to that five-year-old. I ask that they listen to the concerns of all Canadians.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Trade)):: Mr. Speaker, Francois Mauriac wrote on one of his Blocs-notes, and I quote:
I remain on the side of those who mistrust the pretexts and excuses invented by the strong to ensure their domination and have us believe that might is right.
Recent history, as far as constitutional moods are concerned, compels us to be guarded, if not outright suspicious when dealing with these issues.
Some people have claimed that the hon. member for Rose-mont has serious misgivings concerning the resolution under review. They are right and I mean to look into them now. They have also wondered how he would vote. That I leave for some other time. But what are these misgivings, Mr. Speaker? Through their elected representatives, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) invites all Canadians to join with him

March 13, 1981
The Constitution
in his constitutional proposal and justifies his move by the need to positively affirm the supremacy of the people in the enjoyment of their fundamental rights and assert our national autonomy in our statutes. This move which is in keeping with its underlying symbols and which all Canadian men and women should greet with pride and enthusiasm, having regard to our maturity as a nation, causes only resentment, anathema and what is worse, indifference among those towards whom it is directed.
How could this happen? As a great many other Canadians, I keep asking myself this question with nagging insistence and 1 formulate it at the start of my intervention in this debate which could have provided not only a futile consolation for our upside-down history, but an opportunity for mutual comprehension to those who still believe in tolerance and our collective destiny. Alas! because of the dichotomy created by a concealed antagonism and two opposite visions of our country, as well as the hardening of positions along party lines, the present debate has bogged down in abstruse rhetoric, which is both unfortunate and revealing at the same time.
First proposition. We must realize that past attempts at amending the Constitution by time-honoured methods have failed. Again, how could that have happened, Mr. Speaker? On the one hand, I think that we must definitely impute part of the blame on the protagonists themselves who, for all sorts of reasons, have been unable or unwilling to bridge the enormous gap created by partisanship, regionalism, sectarianism, distrust, mental fatigue, immobilism, egotism and egocentrism.
But in so doing, I feel we would be unfair toward those men. There is not a single woman in the lot of them, who have tried nevertheless to answer the difficult question which we ourselves, as legislators, have to discuss in the course of this debate. I feel part of the blame should also be put on those very institutions that have been used, of which the privileged and typically Canadian vehicle of the federal-provincial conferences, in an effort to reach a consensus. That mere word consensus, Mr. Speaker, sums up the dilemma we face. For, as far as I am concerned, the rule of consensus is precisely one of the main reasons why we are discussing this resolution today, a resolution that sanctions the unilateral vision of the constitutional reform, which the Canadian government decided to bring before us.
Some have suggested methods to better achieve what must be done. There has been talk of constituent assemblies, and I must say the concept really appeals to me in that I find it attractive and sparkling, that of a constituent assembly where persons elected for that specific purpose would, by virtue of their mandate, make a new Constitution, leaving it to the elected representatives to look after the nation's business. However, the problems of setting up a constituent assembly remain the same, in the final analysis, as those we have to solve today. And as things stand at present, I unfortunately no longer feel that the concept of a constituent assembly is that
miracle cure, the panacea to all our ills, the ideal system through which we could solve all our problems.
Others have suggested other techniques, that of a standing, so to speak, provincial conference on the Constitution. The introduction in the constitutional resolution for the next two years of the concept of an annual federal-provincial conference could have been that constitutional entrenchment of the principle; for my part, Mr. Speaker, I would rather a time limit had not been set for that concept, that is, the principle of an annual federal-provincial conference on the Constitution, but that instead it be incorporated into our institutions, our textbooks, even though I may be accused of being slightly masochistic in my approach, since discussing the Constitution annually might be to entrench forever the melancholy constitutional mood of Canadians.
Second proposition. The unilateralism of that process and the temporary sanction of a certain vision of federalism. The federalism of seniority which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) referred to in a brilliant and pithy account coming from a man who in this debate cannot be accused of not having been through the ranks, deserves to be read and reread, analysed, digested and finally, to my mind, accepted inasmuch as that federalism of seniority under which this constitutional resolution is being presented is the only justification for the steps being taken or suggested by the government today.
Now, if it were only a matter of federalism of seniority, I would sit down immediately, and the answer would be obvious to me: I would have to vote no. But the problem is more complex. Indeed, as long as we have not determined, as Canadians, the respective balance offered by those two concepts, those two visions of Canada, that on the one hand, of the pan-Canadian federalism, the federalism of seniority which is that of the Right Hon. Prime Minister and others, and on the other hand, the federalism based on a community of communities of which the provinces are the main protagonists, and which the Progressive Conservative Party espoused in this House and also champions, then I feel it will be next to impossible to solve our constitutional problems once and for all.
On the other hand, if we realize as I do, all things considered, the failure of that pathetic contest last September, of that battle of leaders trying before us or before the television cameras to answers those same questions, as long as that problem is not solved, it will remain for me a constitutional status quo.
We are therefore facing an alternative which is not really one. The failure of September establishes the status quo for all practical purposes-and I will come back to that-namely, that we are ratifying a constitutional bid for power in the name of principles which may be tangent in many respects but which give us some hope of a breakthrough. However, I would
March 13, 1981

like to state again my own views on this matter which indeed amounts to Pascal's wager.
Third proposition. I do not agree with the argument to the effect that we forgo our responsibilities when we ask the parliament of Westminster to make a decision for us.
Once the concept of a federalism of seniority is accepted, if not in essence at least in its application here, it is actually the Canadian people who are dealing with this matter. Along with our colleagues opposite, we represent the Canadian people. And after we have discussed all those issues ad nauseam and made our decision, I feel it would be pointless to ask a foreign Parliament to pass judgment on our decision; it should accept it. This does not necessarily mean that this process is politically fair or not, but as far as its legitimacy is concerned, I think that there is no other alternative once our decision has been made, and the Parliament in Westminster has to agree. Fourth proposition. Some people have suggested that the resolution before us is a valid answer to the referendum commitments made to Quebec. On this assertion, I must say that I readily agree with my colleague the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) in answering no! This is not an answer to our referendum commitments, this is an instrument which the government is acquiring for its own use, for the use of all Canadians, rightly or wrongly, hoping that this new procedure will provide a way out of the deadlock and bring about the changes that Canadians and Quebecers want. However, when one contends that this is a final or even a partial response to our referendum commitments, personally, I do not agree.
Fifth proposition. It has been asserted that hon. members felt, or were actually pressed by considerations of a partisan nature. To be honest, Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, this is not the case. I will do my utmost to explain the decision I will take when the time comes to vote. I resent somewhat the attitude taken by the Progressive Conservative Party when they decided not to vote on the first amendment they introduced. This would have given other members a chance to introduce other amendments which, in turn, could have been debated and voted on in this House.
To sit on this amendment for five weeks will result in just one thing: it will encourage the government into eventually limiting the debate. This is what I regret deeply. On the other hand, if the Conservative Party had agreed to give this House the opportunity to have a vote every three or four days, and decide on the many amendments that would have been introduced by members on both sides of the House, we would not Find ourselves in this cornelian situation as we are now. Mr. Speaker, I for one would have liked to introduce amendments to this resolution, but I will not be able to do so, in the light of recent developments and considering the strategy followed by the Conservative Party.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to come back-


An hon. Member:: Question?
The Constitution


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have had the courtesy, since the start of this debate, to listen to my Conservative and other colleagues without interrupting them, and I would ask the hon. member who just interrupted me to do the same with me.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to analyse the resolution itself and its three main components. First, the charter of rights. We have heard a lot about the constitutional entrenchment of a charter of rights. The least that can be said is that the principle itself does not command unanimity. Some people, including a number of provincial premiers, spokesmen for academic circles and certain members of the House claim that our rights do exist and it is not necessary to entrench them in the Constitution, and there I agree with them. Those rights do exist in Canada and, despite certain unfortunate events in our history, there is no doubt that when it comes to protecting the rights of the citizens the society in which we live is the envy of many others. Other people, including other provincial premiers, this government, members of the House and representatives of the academic world claim on the contrary that the constitutional entrenchment of rights can only give them a certain solemnity which in future will enable Canadians to hail the Constitution in support of their rights.
Both arguments are valid. The fact is that we are studying a resolution which calls for entrenching our rights and, to the extent that it gives more to Canadians than it takes away from them, I endorse it. That being so, it must still be pointed out that Canadian courts have not been unduly favourable to the existing Canadian Bill of Rights. After the spectacular Dry-bones decision our highest court went through a legal desert.
This conservatism of our courts, particularly the Supreme Court of Canada, brings two things to my mind. On one hand, those who claim that Canadian courts will become overly active should rest easy, that is not in the traditions of our courts. On the other hand, those who claim that the courts should not be involved in politics can be reassured by the tradition of legal interpretation of those same courts. In this respect, the Pratte report in Quebec highlighted the difficulties in interpreting Clause 1 of the resolution, particularly its allegedly very vague terminology, more especially clause 1 of the charter which reads as follows, and I quote:
1. The Canadian charter of rights and freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits perscribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Well, Mr. Speaker, this supposedly vague language can be found in a number of Canadian statutes, for instance in the Criminal Code as it relates to search and seizure. So our Canadian courts will not be breaking new grounds when they interpret such a provision. That same provision will undoubtedly enable the courts to carry out the full intent of the legislative will of Canadian legislators within provincial legislatures or within the federal legislature of the Canadian Parliament. But a number of objections have been raised about

March 13, 1981
The Constitution
the charter of rights and I would like to consider now two of the main objections from a Quebecer's standpoint.
First, the restrictions that the charter would impose through the mobility rights which it confers upon the regulations and the statutes of Quebec which govern, particularly in the construction field, the entry of a worker from another province, and second, the transfers between regions within the same province. I would like to say that this provision would apply, of course, only in cases of interprovincial mobility problems, and here I make a digression. I would not want anyone in this debate to accuse me of showing my centralizing or decentralizing inclinations, because as I see it the debate does not fit into that context. I think the debate can be set in the following context by answering three questions. First, what is the desirable balance between, on the one hand, the wish of the provincial units, of the provincial entities, of the provincial partners to develop their own territory and, on the other hand, the need for the central entity to ensure a certain co-ordination of the policies? Second, what is the linguistic balance? And third, which government is best qualified to provide service to the people?
If there is one area where we have to consider these questions carefully, it is certainly the economy, and it is somewhat strange that a provincial government, the Quebec government, made much during the referendum campaign of its wish to join a Canadian economic market without the present political integration, of course, even though economic integration in the European Common Market is much more significant than ours. This led the federal government to table a paper in the last round of constitutional negotiations which was entitled "The Constitutional Foundations of the Canadian Economic Union". I would like to quote from this paper, Mr. Speaker:
In spite of the weaknesses of the BNA Act, the ability of the federal authority to go against the operating rules of the economic union is limited by the fact that Parliament is issued from the Canadian electorate as a whole and any federal government must retain the support of this electorate to stay in power. Thus, any form of discrimination based on the province or area of residence, of location, of origin and of destination in federal practices, laws and regulations must be approved by a majority of the representatives of the people in the House of Commons and may therefore be deemed to be in the national interest. Political and public debates as well as the regular representations made by the provinces concerning the relative equity or inequity of federal policies and programs give nearly daily evidence of the effectiveness of this constraint.
The legislatures are not subject to the same constraints when they pass discriminatory legislation because each of them is accountable only to the electorate of one province. Consequently, the effectiveness of the Canadian economic union relies perhaps too much on the specific distribution of powers between the two levels of government, which on the other hand results to a large extent from a legal interpretation. Thus, when a decree seems to restrict the authority of Parliament as regards interprovincial trade, the provinces can automatically, in view of the lack of special provisions regulating the operation of the economic union, use their legislative powers to divide the Canadian market. When the particular interests of each province determine such a use of provincial powers, the only constraint which can prevent the provinces from acting in this way is the fear that the other provinces may take retaliatory action.
Obviously, this constraint is more effective in the case of less populated provinces or those with a poorer economy.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the economy must be a priority for both levels of government in any attempt at constitutional reform. Having said this, I do not believe that there is really a question of taking away from the provinces to give to the federal government. I am not putting this question in that spirit. On the contrary, the economic issue is perhaps the one where the lack of agencies or entities likely to promote a better co-ordination between the two levels of government is the most dramatic. We have on the one hand the executive of a province and the federal executive, and on the other hand, the provincial legislative bodies and the federal legislative body.
However, as concerns the economy, there does not really exist any institution, Mr. Speaker, which can promote the co-ordination of regional objectives and integrate them within a pan-Canadian concept or vision of our economic development. I think that this question should be placed on the agenda of a federal-provincial conference in the very near future, and having said this, if there is one right in the charter which I believe to be basic and on which I have no sympathy with the objections of the Quebec government, it is certainly the right to mobility. This must be considered a basic right if we want to maintain an economic union in Canada, remove restrictions on the flow of capital and expertise and reduce as much as possible any action that the provinces and the federal government may take in certain cases to promote purely local objectives in relation to a national market. Discussions, on these matters, will have to take place as soon as possible in order to achieve true economic integration in Canada, at least to the same extent as our European partners within their economic community.
The other objection relates to language rights, and my colleague for Montmorency-Orleans dealt with that matter at length. First of all, I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution by providing the entrenchment of language rights suggests a great vision of Canada. Unfortunately, I do not share that vision because basically I agree with what the Pepin-Robarts report said, namely, that as far as language rights are concerned, the legislative action, the main impact, should come from the provinces. We agree in principle; in practice, I should like to point out a number of differences. I feel that this resolution at last gives French-Speaking minorities outside Quebec an opportunity to assert their rights in a restrictive way in some cases, I admit. My colleague from Montmorency-Orleans referred in particular to educational institutions and the fact that although we entrench the rights to those educational facilities the right to control them is not mentioned. That is a very serious problem. However, I think that those language rights, when we entrenched them in Section 23 of the resolution we were mainly concerned with the rights of francophones outside Quebec because, let us be realistic, the English-speaking minority in Quebec enjoys all
March 13, 1981

those rights to a large extent and Quebec meets the conditions set out in Section 23.
On the other hand, my colleague from Montmorency-Orleans put forward the argument that in the very long term, in 15, 20 or 25 years, Quebec could become another Alberta and that as a result of the significant number of Canadians from other regions, even English-speaking Canadians, who would come and settle in Quebec, that linguistic balance could be upset. I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think the survival of the French language in Quebec is an established fact. Since the quiet revolution, since French-speaking Quebecers took over their own economic, social and political levers, 1 think we now have in Quebec a flourishing and growing French-speaking society. On the other hand, there is outside Quebec a francophone community which is having much difficulty, to say the least. If we can give those francophones, through this resolution, the opportunity to gain sufficient strength so that in due time, within their own province, they can assert their rights without a constitutional or federal prop, it's all the better. Meanwhile, if that influx does come ten or 15 years from now, it would always be possible to consider amending the Constitution.
I am much more concerned about the present than the distant future, and though the immediate impact will be negligible on Quebec, according to all statistics available, it could be, hopefully, largely beneficial to the francophones outside Quebec in promoting their aspirations in reaching that degree of survival Quebec has now more than achieved in respect of the promotion of French.
Mr. Speaker, it has often been said that it will be difficult to amend the Constitution, especially in its charter components. Let's be fair and honest between ourselves. I for one believe that if some day the provinces were to decide they prefer to take back all the control and promotion in the language area, I do not see how the central government could object to it, and that amendment which could come up ten or 15 years from now, on the instigation of one province or another, could very likely pass. But, be that as it may, unlike my colleague from Montmorency-Orleans, I do not see in that provision the same implication, the same dangerous aspect as he does, and that is why I do not share his concerns on this issue. I would also have liked to make a detailed study of that Pratte report which stated that the charter will have a negative impact on a multiplicity of laws. Some mentioned that as many as 100 Quebec laws could be affected by the various provisions of the charter of rights and freedoms. Some refer to section 23 of Bill 101. I made my position clear on that issue. Reference is made to libel laws. There again, the Quebec charter of rights ensures the same rights to the freedom of expression as the Canadian charter.
The Constitution
So how could the Quebec government eventually complain that this new right, which supposedly will be entrenched in the new Constitution, will run counter to a provincial provision, when their own charter, which is one of the most comprehensive in the whole Canadian political system, guarantees this same right? Hence, it will be possible for our courts to interpret it in relation to the rights that are guaranteed and to the infringements of certains laws with regard to this charter. There has been some talk about anonymous pamphlets, and the same applies. Reference has been made to freedom of association and Quebec unions. On these issues, it is always the test of reasonableness that will be applied, and I have tried to show earlier that the Canadian courts would probably implement, given their history and their jurisprudence, clearly stated wishes expressed in political circles. There is a whole list of them, but finally, Mr. Speaker, if you consider all those rights that could be affected, that is in a first group, you can already see that the Quebec charter of rights enshrines such a right and that the Canadian charter of rights only gives them a new dimension. Already it is at the provincial level, and then actually, where there is absolutely no problem in allowing Quebec citizens to bring the issue before the courts, the law concerned could eventually be challenged before the courts, but it will be the test of reasonableness that will be applied, given the well-known conservatism of the courts.
The second provision of the charter on which I wish to dwell for a moment is that which deals with federal-provincial conferences and those two scheduled in the two coming years. Earlier, I dealt with this matter at the beginning of my speech. I would simply like to say how important and even essential it is for Canada to review these institutions, and this, on a priority basis. I was shocked and disappointed by the government's about-face on the old Clause 44 of the Senate resolution. Hon. members will remember that under such Clause 44 the Senate would have been given six month suspensive veto on constitutional matters. That provision has now been deleted ifrom Clause 44, and the Senate is now the only Canadian body to hold an absolute veto, at least in theory, on any constitutional amendment. Any other deadlock can be broken one way or another, either by a referendum, through agreements on by a group of provinces. But if by any chance the Senate decided that some provision, some constitutional amendment agreed upon by all partners were not acceptable to them, they are the only body under the Constitution to wield that absolute veto.
Knowing the doubtful legitimacy, to say the least, of that institution in terms of representation, I feel strongly enough about this to state it is odious. And I must suggest that on that provision I would welcome an amendment to reintroduce Clause 44 if I could not do it myself, and also I would hope that in the near future we either withdraw that veto or reform the Senate into a house of the federation, a council of the federation or a house of the provinces, or any other form proposed by
8246

March 13, 1981
The Constitution
either the province or various groups, to ensure better representation in the upper chamber, at the regional level and at the legitimacy level.
Concerning the amendment procedure, my colleague from Montmorency-Orleans studied the question. In my view the basic question is that the Victoria charter enshrines a perpetual Quebec veto, and I must indicate on this matter that I have a rather regional approach. Despite submission by the Quebec government that there exists in any case a convention under which no constitutional amendment can be approved without Quebec's agreement, there is no such obligation either in fact, in practice, in law or in our books. Under the Victoria charter it would finally exist. I need not remind my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that for Quebec this is vital, considering that famous difference referred to on language, cultural and other levels, to have at least on these questions-and eventually some veto might be considered for those matters only, but this is another story-to have a final veto as I said on any amendment depriving it in effect of the tools needed to promote its own difference at the cultural and language levels.
Further, I understand very well the frustration of some of my colleagues from other provinces that do not have that veto. In that respect, the Victoria formula is not perfect. But the alternative is a consensus, some other type of formula. In any event, the provinces-and this in my view ultimately justifies the proposed amending formula-will have two years to agree among themselves on an acceptable formula. I listened with interest the proposal made by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) in his contribution. He was then advocating a regrouping based on population rather than a regrouping on a regional basis. A group of provinces which would account for 25 per cent of the population anywhere in Canada would then have a veto right. I must admit that I very much agree with this formula, which is in my opinion a better arrangement than the one suggested here which has a purely regional basis. Let me give you one simple example, Mr. Speaker. Let us assume that Newfoundland has jurisdictional problems concerning its offshore resources, would it not be logical for this province to join in a common front with Alberta and Saskatchewan, for instance? On the other hand, British Columbia, faced with fishing problems, could join in with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
In summary, regional considerations are sometimes artificial. I like the formula put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton East. With respect to the referendum, I believe, or the deadlock-breaking mechanism, again I shall be voting against amendment put forward by the Progressive Conservative Party. Why? Because I believe there must be some kind of constitutional deadlock-breaking process. Besides, I would certainly agree to give all the provinces an equal right to resort to the referendum process should there develop a deadlock. In fact, as you know it, Mr. Speaker, insincerity knows no such preferences that it should always be on the same side.
I am about to conclude, Mr. Speaker. At the very beginning of my speech, I referred to the Pascalian wager; that is, whether unilateral action on the one hand and the temporary consecration of this seniority federalism on the other hand were justified in the present situation. As far as I am concerned, the Pascalian wager goes along the following lines: Should I vote againts it, or in other words, should this resolution be defeated in the House, we shall be going back to the September conference, to the failure of constitutional talks, and being a realistic man, I do not agree with those who say that the exercise can be started afresh. The bona fide commitment which followed the Quebec referendum did not succeed in overcoming these problems, in bringing about a consensus. I do not see how we could succeed now. On the other hand, this constitutional bid for power, Mr. Speaker, can lead to either one of two things: either it fails and the bitterness created by this proposal would therefore put us right back to square one. And then, we will have as well a failure on our hands. So, and that is my contention, Mr. Speaker, this "coup de force", will bring about a change. How will that be effected? Within two years, we will have an amending formula which will be either good or bad, but that is not the point. The point is that we will have an amending formula which can be used to improve things. By then, we will have the will to use that new tool to make changes be it only to react against the negative attitude of some people about the content of the formula. This is my view, Mr. Speaker, I have no other choice.
My colleague from Montmorency-Orleans said that he would rather have the status quo than the resolution. I say that this resolution is better than the status quo and that is why, in spite of very serious reservations, I will vote for it. In closing, I would like to add a few comments about Clause 133. I know that some hon. members from Ontario on this side of the House have serious reservations about the lack of a provision in the resolution, making 133 applicable to and enforceable in their province.
It is to be hoped, Mr. Speaker, that the election soon to be held in that province will give those on the provincial political scene a more generous view of the voters they wish to win over, and that they will not resort to hiding behind a hypothetical backlash for the purpose of discarding their responsibilities. In this regard, I congratulate Mr. Hatfield for his action, which I believe to be such that it will contribute to the progress of the constitutional debate. Mr. Speaker, I shall close with a quotation. As you know, the Quebec members of this House have been accused by their fellow Quebecers of being traitors. As much as I accept such criticisms-somewhat like an artist will accept any criticism, whether good or bad-I still find them hurtful and painful. I therefore want to close by quoting from remarks made by the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) on October 21, 1980, as reported on page 3892 of Hansard:
Compromise, said the late Hon. Guy Favreau, is "the meeting point between the thoughts of two intelligent beings". As John Kennedy wrote in "Profiles in Courage":
March 13, 1981

Compromise does not mean cowardice. Indeed, it is frequently the compromisers and conciliators who are faced with the severest tests of political courage as they oppose the extremist views.
The content of the resolution before us is a compromise between those who wanted more and those who wanted less and those who wanted both more and less. It may not fully satisfy every one of us-or any one of us for that matter- but it should be accepted, in my view, by the greatest number of people as a first step.
1 have learned throughout the years that to compromise with others, one must first compromise with himself. 1 cannot ask others to give if I remain ungiving in my own first choices of means toward an end which I share with others.
So, I am compromising, as I should.


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, like hon. members who have spoken before me, I am pleased, proud and even a bit humble about participating in this debate. I suppose my main worry is that at this point almost everything has been said and most of the substantive points have been addressed by those who have gone before me. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I feel I can offer some new points of view and perhaps reinforce some that have been expressed by my colleagues.
I share the concern expressed by many about why we are doing this now, why are we spending so much of the very important and very limited time of the House and its members in debating the Constitution when there are so many other issues critical to the well-being of the country. I think of our beleaguered economy, our disgracefully high unemployment and our energy situation, among others.
From the replies to questionnaires that I sent out in my constituency, it is clear that the issue of most concern is none of the foregoing, and it is certainly not the Constitution. As a matter of information, it is the threat posed by the Garrison diversion project in North Dakota.
In the first caucus meeting of our party after the constitutional proposal was presented last October, I argued the point that the government was using this issue as a whitewash in order to divert attention from the fact that it had no answers for the more important and more immediate concerns of Canadians. Since neither I nor my party call the shots in this House, we had to play the constitutional game. I do not think I need point out just how outstanding many of my caucus colleagues were at playing this game. The package before us today is vastly superior to that which was presented last October. In no small part that is due to the fine work done by my colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Before I address the substance of this package I should like to put some of my background thoughts on record. As a springboard into this dissertation, I should like to quote the final sentence of the speech given in this debate by my friend, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar). He said: "Only together can we build a great nation."
The Constitution
What are we doing when we construct a constitution, Mr. Speaker? The Oxford Dictionary defines a constitution as a body of fundamental principles according to which a state is governed. That is a little bland. A constitution is, or should be, a body of principles upon which we build a nation. The BNA Act of 1867 was such a document. So was the American constitution of some 200 years ago. Will this document of 1981 be the same? I think the answer is both yes and no, the difference lying in what kind of nation we want to build.
Permit me to digress a little, Mr. Speaker. At the turn of the century, the prime minister of the day, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, whom I considered to have been not a bad sort even though he was a Liberal, said that the twentieth century would belong to Canada. And well it should have and could have, Mr. Speaker, had it not been squandered by successive Liberal and Tory governments. These Liberal and Tory governments allowed our natural resources and our industrial 'complex, our very economic well-being, to be pillaged by non-Canadian interests to the point where today we are the most foreign controlled of the so-called western economies.
My vision of what Canada should and could be is very different from what Liberal and Tory governments have made of this country.
Let me take you back to 1967, the year of our centennial as a nation. I graduated from university that year, the first class of the post war boom babies to do so. We were in the ascendancy. At about that time, those of us under 25 made up about half of the population of North America. We marched to the drum of the new left, seeing this as the natural evolution of the world our forebearers had built and our parents had fought to preserve. We recognized the incredible potential of Canada and planned to be part of the development of that potential. If the first 67 years of this century had not really belonged to Canada, nobody could have convinced me or my peers in 1967, that the next 67 years would not belong to us.
As well, 1967 was a year of nationalistic fervour. We put our country on display to the world and the world gave its approval. I recall all too well making the trek from Winnipeg to Montreal on two different occasions, once by thumb, once by car, to see Expo. I remember my pride at singing O Canada in the middle of the evening in a then popular bar on St. Catherines Street. Everyone in the place put down his beer, stood up, and joined in the singing. It was great to be a Canadian that summer. We had common bonds. We visited our brothers and sisters across the land, getting to know and appreciate the differences in our lands. And we had the future by the tail. Canada would finally claim the twentieth century as its own.
All this while, I was not even a Canadian citizen. Even though I had lived here all but the first year of my life and knew no other place, I had been born in Australia, and although a Canadian in fact, I was not by law. That changed in the spring of 1968 when I swore allegiance to this country.
It was in these years of the late 1960s that I started to develop my vision of Canada. At that time, the then prime minister, Mike Pearson, just before he left office, started a new

The Constitution
round of constitutional reassessment, another move to repatriate the BNA Act. This round started by Pearson is just now reaching its culmination.
I mentioned earlier that my vision of Canada is vastly different from that which has been created by our inept governments of the last century. In the same manner, my vision of the ideal constitution is equally different.
I also said earlier that a constitution should be a document upon which to build a nation. I do not see any evidence in this document for building the kind of Canada I would like to see. I should qualify that and say that I do not see enough evidence in this document for building the kind of Canada I would like to see.
There are some historically important measures in it. I refer specifically to the provisions for equalization, to the bill of rights and its guarantee of rights to women, to the handicapped, to multicultural groups among others, to the recognition of the duality of this country, and to the recognition of aboriginal rights. I consider these to be major points. And for these important reasons I will support this package. But at the same time, it is still a capital "L" Liberal document. I for one do not want to build a capital "L" Liberal Canada. Were I drafting a constitution for Canada, I would reflect more the philosophy of Thomas More than that of Machiavelli.
I would include all of the specific points I just mentioned. But rather than institutionalizing a nation built on laissez-faire capitalism, I would want to be able to build a nation based on egalitarianism. Canada has that potential.
Consider the size of our country. Consider the incredible wealth we have here in minerals, oil and gas, forestry and human resources. There is no reason why in a land such as Canada one particular man should be able to cover his driveway in crushed meteorite because it is not dusty while another man, such as one man in my riding, lives in an underground hovel covered with logs and earth. You can bet that is dusty. There is no reason why Indians in northwestern Ontario should be forced to live on mercury-polluted fish, or why a man is forced to sleep on the streets in Vancouver. In Canada, there is simply no excuse for this.
In constructing the Constitution now, we are laying the foundation for building the Canada of the future. I still believe in the potential of Canada that I had in mind in the 1960s. I believe that we can and must build that kind of nation. The question remains whether this Constitution gives us a good enough foundation to do that. I think it goes only part way.
I have serious reservations about the process we have all been following in this particular act of constitutional construction. I do not refer necessarily to unilateral action. While on the one hand I might have preferred an approach that was not unilateral, I can accept, intellectually, the need and the legitimacy for such unilateral action. I will return to this point in a few moments.
In the opening of his comments, my friend, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) said:
I have listened to many points of view, and I have found it sometimes difficult to determine exactly how much of what is being said is real, how much is partisan, how much is misinformation. I assume it is all said honestly-
I agree with his sentiments up to the last point. I cannot assume it is all said honestly.
If all of us in this process had been dealing honestly, we would not have the conflicts and divisions that we see today. If what we all said had been real, non-partisan and informed, we would be much closer to agreement than we are today. I speak not only of the members of this House but also of members of the Senate, members of the provincial legislatures and of the many academics, journalists and others who have offered their thoughts on the subject.
In this House, I have seen members of the party to my right act in what I consider to be only partisan interests. Out of the House, I need only refer to the ads placed in newspapers throughout the country by the Conservative Party pandering to the prejudices of many.
I have seen the government members opposite act in what I consider to be nothing more than self-serving cynicism. To me the need for including guarantees of rights for women, the handicapped and natives should have been self-evident, not just so hon. members could secure a few more votes.
I have seen some members of the Senate-a body which, as constituted at present, I consider to be unjust and perverse- balk because their already unjustified power was to be slightly reduced. I have seen provincial premiers act purely in selfinterest, not in the interest of the country as a whole. One is reminded of Mark Antony's address to the Romans. In part it read:
They that have done this deed are honourable:
What private griefs they have, alas, I know not,
That made them do it: they are wise and honourable,
And will, no doubt, with reasons answer you.
We know full well that Brutus, Cassius and Casca were not honourable men. I fear that a more fitting epithet for many of us involved in this process might be in the last lines of the same speech when Mark Antony says:
Now let it work. Mischief, thou art afoot,
Take thou what course thou wilt!
In recent years, and more so in recent months, we have heard much of western alienation. Let us not kid ourselves, it does exist. While I cannot subscribe to the methods used by many western Tories and by many western oil interests in their approach to the matter, as a westerner, I know full well that this alienation must be addressed very soon. The address cannot be made only in economic terms. It must be made in terms of the distribution of power and, more important, in terms of attitude.
For example, in 1867 and 1870, just after lands which are now the prairie provinces were bought from the Hudson's Bay Company, Louis Riel, the Metis, and the Scottish settlers at Red River were forced to take action in self-preservation when
March 13, 1981

an influx of Upper Canadians felt that since they had bought the territory, they could take over the properties of those who had lived there for half a century and more. That was example number one. This plundering has continued for more than a century. It must stop now if we are to build the nation of the next century which many of us envisage. This Constitution could have addressed this situation much better. What this constitutional process of 1980 and 1981 needs is some visionaries.
I find it ironic that in his introduction of President Reagan in this House on Wednesday, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke of the Polish people using both revolution and evolution in working out their own destiny, the irony being that his own document for Canada's destiny contains nothing revolutionary and not enough that is evolutionary at a time when Canada cries out for a creative, peaceful revolution. It is basically a dull document.
In 1981, Canada needs the vision of men like John A. Macdonald, George Etienne Cartier or George Brown, or for that matter Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. With all due respect to the excellent and hard work that many members of this House put into our Constitution of 1981, I have seen but one person whom I consider to have vision in the process of nation building. I am referring to my friend, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq who has the decided advantage of representing an entire race, the Canadian Inuit who will now be able to participate fully in building their own place in the Canadian nation.
Had the government been adventurous and adopted a daring visionary approach in drafting this Constitution, Canada would have been much better served.
In these few opening comments I have tried to outline briefly my vision of Canada and my reservations about the ability of this Constitution to allow us to attain that vision. I have said that I would have liked to have seen a much different type of package. But I recognize that my desire is limited by the fact that this is a Liberal document. I also recognize that it is a document which has been improved greatly by the work of many opposition members and of many Canadian individuals and groups who participated in the process.
Let me say at this point that I have long believed in the need for our country to have its own Constitution. Since my childhood I have been interested in politics. As a youngster in elementary school I knew that Canada did not have a Constitution. I certainly did not understand the full ramifications of what a Constitution meant, but I knew that we would be better off with our own Constitution. I well remember in my third year political science course reading about such things as JCPC and learning that until 1949 the ultimate court in Canada was not even in our country, that it was a judicial council of the Privy Council of England. I wondered why this was the case.
I am quite receptive to the idea and I favour patriation as soon as possible. It is for this reason that, although I recognize the many limitations of this package, I also recognize its many strengths. I will, therefore, support it.
The Constitution
I should like now to address a few comments to those strengths. First, I want to comment on the matter of unilateral action. I mentioned earlier that intellectually I can support both the need and legitimacy for such action. I also mentioned that I would have liked to have seen a broader base of support. I do not think there is any argument on that point. All of us would like to have seen the premiers and the Tories support the package. But I cannot support a need for unanimity. So long as the premiers insisted on unanimity, the prospects of ever patriating the Constitution were hopeless. To suggest at this time that we go back to the provinces to make one more try for such unanimity is to dream in technicolour. I certainly cannot agree with the premier of my province, a person of whom I have not been especially proud throughout this process who, during his speech in London, was asked by a British Labour MP if the requirement for unanimous consent by 11 governments is not somewhat exaggerated. This Labour MP asked where in the world there is a federal system that requires unanimous agreement. According to press reports, Premier Lyon replied, "The answer to that question is, in Canada". I find it rather amusing that the party of John A. Macdonald, the Progressive Conservative Party at both the provincial and federal level, should be screaming and weeping for unanimity.
The party to my right is using its weapons, rather dubious poll results, which might indicate the majority of Canadians are against patriation. If old Sir John A. had used that approach, if he had waited for unanimity among the colonies and had asked for a popular mandate, where would we be today? 1 will tell you one thing: we very likely would not be living in a country called Canada as we know it. I refer hon. members to an article in the Winnipeg Free Press of February 13 of this year written by a former history teacher of mine, named Lovell Clark of the University of Manitoba. I quote some passages from it:
If Premier Lyon's requirement of unanimity had prevailed in the past the Dominion of Canada would certainly not have been created in 1867, and if not then, perhaps never-
Anyone who knows anything about the crucial events from 1864 to 1867 which culminated in the creation of Canada realizes that the movement for union of the colonies was not a mass or popular movement. It was rather the work of a creative minority whom we refer to as the Fathers of Confederation. At Quebec City in October, 1864, the Fathers drew up the seventy-two resolutions which, with little change, became the British North America Act of 1867. It was very much a Canadian document.
The Quebec Resolutions were not the result of a compact among provincial governments, as is often erroneously alleged. To begin with, the provinces of Quebec and Ontario did not exist; they were created by the same act that created the Dominion of Canada. Instead, there was the single colony of Canada, a union of Upper and Lower Canada formed in 1841. The maritime colonies were represented by members from both the government and opposition benches of their legislatures.
It was no part of the intentions of the Fathers to submit the Quebec resolutions to the people for approval. If they had done so there is little doubt that the proposals for union would have been soundly defeated. The resolutions were debated and approved by the legislature of Canada, but they were never even laid before the legislatures of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
In New Brunswick the government of Premier Leonard Tilley was forced into an election on the issue and was badly beaten. An anti-Confederate government

March 13, 1981
The Constitution
replaced it. Thus the people of New Brunswick were the only ones ever consulted about the confederation proposals and they left no doubt of their opposition. Premier Charles Tupper of Nova Scotia did not dare to lay the resolutions before the legislature, so unpopular were they-
What finally brought about the creation of the Dominion of Canada was the perseverance of the Fathers of Confederation and external pressures from the United States and Britain.
War was imminent with the United States because of the northern states feeling their oats, having defeated the south, and because of the Irish-American Fenians. The article continues:
The role of the British government was of decisive importance in the achievement of confederation. Union would better enable the colonies to defend themselves ... Publicly, the British government made widely known to maritim-ers its "strong and deliberate opinion" that union of the colonies was "an object much to be desired."
Privately, the lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick was told in no uncertain terms that he was to work zealously to promote confederation. This he proceeded to do, taking advantage of the Fenian menace in the spring of 1866 to turn the anti-Confederate government out of office by means that were of dubious constitutionality. In the ensuing elections the pro-confederation forces were returned to office, but not on the issue of confederation.
The lieutenant-governor of Nova Scotia, who had opposed confederation, was replaced by a Nova Scotian hero of the Crimean War with instructions to vigorously promote it. By these and other means, the reluctant maritimers were dragged into the union.
It was only after the passage of the British North American Act through the British Parliament in March 1867 and the creation of the Dominion of Canada on July 1, that the Fathers submitted their handiwork to the judgment of the people. In the elections for the first Parliament of Canada the confederation coalition, now headed by Sir John A. Macdonald, won a majority in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, but was disastrously defeated in Nova Scotia ...
The premier of Nova Scotia, William Annand, and Joseph Flowe led a delegation of provincial and federal representatives to London to demand that the British government "release them from the toils of confederation into which they had been dragged against their will", which of course was clearly the case... the British government absolutely declined to allow Nova Scotia out of confederation.
I would like to ask any of the members to my right whether they think that confederation was such a bad deal, the confederation that was brought about without the kind of unanimity for which they ask for. I would like to say to my friends on the right "I'm sorry, you may be right to want a broader base of support, but you are not right in insisting that we must have unanimity."
While I much prefer old John A. to the person who fills that seat today, John A. was just as bad at ramming things down folks' throats.
I should like now to turn my comments to some of the other points in this package. I would like to comment on the amending formula, the so-called Victoria formula. On balance, I suppose it is as good as any of the formulas for amending the Constitution that have been put forward. I can agree with the notion that we divide the country into four regions and have a veto and a particular vote on future amendments, but there is one point that I find troubling. As a westerner, it puzzles me a bit. I must point out that this is probably the main complaint I am getting from constituents in my riding. It refers to the fact that in the western region we still have the requirement that two provinces representing 50 per cent of the population have
to agree to future amendments, whereas in the maritime sector this is not the case.
This was changed to accommodate Prince Edward Island. The people in my province and the people of Saskatchewan wonder why this same accommodation cannot be made for Manitoba and Saskatchewan. It is a small point. I have been told that the reason the maritime provinces got this concession was that their premiers requested it and the reason the western region did not get it was that the premiers of the western provinces did not request it.
This is not constitution-making; this is political gamesmanship. It is a small point that reinforces my earlier point about western alienation. If this government really wants to address western alienation, they should look at these very small points. It would not take very much to give the same concession to the western region with regard to the 50 per cent population rule.
I must point out that I find very distasteful the Conservative approach to this question. They recognize it is a bit of a problem, but to print ads in newspapers across western Canada which, as I mentioned earlier, really pander to the prejudices that try to create a hatred among westerners for central Canadians is simply not a way in which I would like to build the future of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: That accusation is not so, and you know it.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Read this. I should like now to make some comments on the equalization and the provincial resources parts of this Constitution. I will only say a few words because others in this caucus have addressed this issue and we are all in agreement on it. I consider both of these to be very important issues. They are very important steps that can be used to build this nation which I envision.
The resource amendment will allow the provinces to consolidate their base, to use their non-renewable resources as a base upon which to build a secure and diversified economic structure. The equalization formula is one that is very important to this party as a democratic socialist party, where rich parts of the country assist the poorer parts.
There are no arguments that some provinces are wealthier than others. For this reason we believe in the constitutionalizing of the concept of equalization. We consider it to be a major step at this time. In the type of Canada of which I spoke earlier, the need for such entrenchment would be irrelevant. Once Canada becomes the truly egalitarian state that I visualize, equitable distribution of wealth will be a matter of course. May I call it four o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being four o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper, namely public bills, notices of motions, private bills.
March 13, 1981


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all orders preceding No. 66 stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


RAILWAY ACT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moved: that Bill C-266, to amend the Railway Act (movement of Western Grain) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on a bill on which 1 have been working since November, 1978, at a time when the Canadian grain economy and the grain transportation system were facing a serious crisis. The lack of freight cars and poor performance by the railway companies was costing the farmers and the Canadian economy hundreds of millions of dollars in lost grain sales.
The record of the Canadian Transport Commission in regulating the grain transportation system is, in my opinion, abysmal. It had the power to end the back hauls on Canadian National and Canadian Pacific between Calgary and Edmonton years ago. It had the power to require the railways to interchange traffic for Churchill and Prince Rupert years ago. It has had the power, under Section 262 of the Railway Act, to require the railways to provide rolling stock and locomotives to ship farmers' grain. However, the Canadian Transport Commission has done nothing about making the railways live up to their statutory requirements to carry all traffic offered for carriage. I submit that the people of western Canada have little faith in the Canadian Transport Commission when it comes to grain movement, albeit it has now established a western Canadian office.
Some time ago, in fact in February, 1979, I initiated an application to the Canadian Transport Commission asking it to hold public hearings in western Canada to determine if the railways were giving grain transportation suitable priority, as required by law. I made the application then but no hearings were held, while the grain crisis at that time continued to cost the people of western Canada a lot of money. On April 24, 1980, the Canadian Transport Commission answered my application by saying that the purchase of hopper cars by the provinces and the federal government relieved the railways of their responsibilities. The Railway Act says in Section 262 that they shall offer suitable accommodation for all traffic. The CTC decided that someone else, namely, the provinces and the federal government, not the railways, should fulfil an obligation which, under the law, belongs to the railways.
Grain Transportation
I do not accuse the CTC of bad intentions, but it has been unable to understand the problems facing grain transportation. The Canadian Wheat Board has the advantage of being right on the spot, right on top of things, and knowing where grain sales are being lost and where backlogs occur. It knows where the grain is.
Since the CTC has said it will not deal with or regulate the railway companies in respect of grain movement because there is public investment in the hopper cars, there is now a regulatory vacuum which has to be filled. I suggest the Canadian Wheat Board is the logical candidate.
Actually, the idea for Bill C-266 came from a recommendation of the Hall commission. Mr. Justice Hall recommended, as appears at pages 538 and 539 of his report:
Throughout the hearings there was almost universal support for the Canadian Wheat Board ... there is no doubt that the board is accepted as the producers' friend.
Again to quote Mr. Justice Hall:
The commission recommends that the Canadian Wheat Board play a more prominent role in the total co-ordination of grain transportation. Grain movement co-ordinators at Vancouver and Thunder Bay should become Canadian Wheat Board employees and be given extended powers over the ordering and placement of grain cars destined for those port areas.
I welcomed the creation of an over-all grain transport co-ordinator by the former Minister of Transport, my friend the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), but I disagree with the creation of that position outside the Canadian Wheat Board. The Hall report said it should be part of the Canadian Wheat Board.
There are obvious reasons why the Hall commission recommended the Wheat Board be given control of grain cars and co-ordination. When the board is negotiating a sale, it will have first-hand knowledge and control of the transportation in order to maximize returns to the producers. The board can co-ordinate marketing objectives with ship arrivals and rail movements, and the board knows where the grain is and where it must go.
What does my bill do, Mr. Speaker? It has two aspects. It gives the Wheat Board the power to require railway companies to supply locomotives and rolling stock for grain movement. It updates a section of the Railway Act regulating grain movement.
Back when the act was originally written, most grain went to Thunder Bay, so this section 266 applied only to Thunder Bay. My bill, C-266, would extend the regulatory power to Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Churchill and it does not affect Section 262, the general accommodation section. It is pure coincidence that my bill has the same number as the section, Mr. Speaker.
My bill deals specifically with grain movement. The power in this section of the Railway Act has not been used frequently. In fact, in 1916, the Board of Transport Commissioners required the Canadian Northern to supply 1,200 cars and 36 locomotives to carry grain from the Goose Lake district to the Grand Trunk Pacific at Saskatoon, and required the Grand

March 13, 1981
Grain Transportation
Trunk to haul the grain from Saskatoon to the Lakehead. I am not aware that the section has ever been used since.
By updating the section to include all ports, and by engaging the activities of the Canadian Wheat Board, this section could be used in any future grain crisis with positive effect.
The most recent crop year saw an improvement in grain movement because of the additional hopper cars provided, not by the railroads but by the taxpayers. If, as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) indicated, the CNR or CP started rationing transportation capacity to blackmail the people of western Canada, the Canadian Wheat Board under the provisions of my bill could step in with this new section to stop any such nonsense.
I want to give a couple of reasons why I believe my colleagues in this chamber should support this bill. It has two parts, first it gives the Canadian Wheat Board power to co-ordinate grain transportation as recommended by the Hall royal commission, and, second, it updates the section of the Railway Act dealing specifically with grain movement to include Churchill, Prince Rupert and Vancouver as well as the Lakehead.
Now, even if some hon. members cannot agree with all parts of this bill, I would ask them not to talk out the bill but to let it go to the committee on Transport where we can find common ground and at least make some changes to which a majority of the committee, if not all, can agree.
While transportation of grain by rail is relatively smooth at the moment, this new section can deal with new problems that will undoubtedly come up as the railways scrap more of their rolling stock or go on strike against the statutory grain rates. This section could have prevented the Churchill shipping season foul-up in 1980 when the railways refused to interchange traffic until it was too late.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government and official opposition will agree that this matter needs to be pursued further in committee and by the government, and that the kind of powers not presently enforced by the CTC when it comes to grain movement should be transferred to the Canadian Wheat Board and be extended, not only to Thunder Bay, but to the ports of Vancouver, Churchill and Prince Rupert.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to lend my support to this bill, and while I have some reservations about everything that the Canadian Wheat Board is doing today, I like this motion, provided it does not interfere with the work of the grain co-ordinator. If responsibility is divided, it will be difficult to put your finger on anyone when the system breaks down. Someone has to have the over-all responsibility and, as I understand the work of the transportation co-ordinator, he should be co-ordinating the work of the CTC, Canadian Wheat Board, pool elevators and the railways in order to service the farmers.
Under the present act, the authority of the company is limited. The CTC has the authority to order the railways at a certain time of year, as follows:
-after the close of navigation on the Great Lakes and before the next harvest, and grain in certain sections or districts cannot by reason thereof be marketed-
That provision does not appear in the amendment, and I agree with that.
If the CTC is to have certain authority, then it should have it throughout the entire grain-moving season, not just when certain things break down. So the amendment is far more wide-sweeping and is designed to move the grain which is something to which we have to direct our thoughts, programs and administration very much more than we have been doing.
I would like to suggest to the government that one of the major concerns of people in the west is this apparent lack of interest in moving their grain. Every year we have bottlenecks and problems. Any ordinary business has to have a cash flow, and that includes farmers. They have to have cash coming in to keep operating. When they have a quota today and the elevator is jammed, the grain is not moving, they have to find other ways, because they do not have a payday every two weeks or every month on the farm, particulary grain farmers. This problem is very frustrating, not only for the farmer but for his family.
Recently I held a meeting in the Lomond district of my riding where close to 100 farmers appeared. The elevators there were jammed full and the farmers could not deliver their quotas, so in order to get the cash flow they had to haul it to another elevator where there were cars but no grain. Surely that is a matter of co-ordination.
If there are cars at Cluny and no grain, and the reverse at Lomond, it does not seem very difficult for someone to co-ordinate that and avoid putting the farmer to the expense of hauling his grain an additional ten, 20, 30 or 40 miles. It is pretty frustrating for these farmers.
So I arranged a meeting as I felt the authorities should know what was going on. The farmers were not going to be abusive; they just wanted to move their grain. I invited representatives of the Wheat Board, the CPR, the grain co-ordinator, representatives of the wheat pools and the Departments of Transport and Agriculture. The federal and provincial Ministers of Agriculture and the federal Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) took an excellent view of this. At this meeting the farmers were able to get some information and the authorities were told of the farmers' concerns.
What most annoyed me, however, was the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board was the only one to refuse to send a representative. They took the attitude that they held meetings when they wanted to and there was going to be a meeting in the Vulcan area, 50 kilometres away, the following week, so they would not bother attending this meeting. The ministers found time to have someone there, as did the CPR. The deputy co-ordinator was there. I was very disappointed in the Canadian Wheat Board. Surely this organization, created by the farmers, should have been the first one to say: yes, we want to
March 13, 1981

know what the problems are. But no, a second invitation to Senator Argue and the Canadian Wheat Board met with refusal. They would not come to hear about the problems. I do not think that attitude is what the farmers want from the Canadian Wheat Board. In the beginning, the Canadian Wheat Board was created by the western farmers in order to solve problems, to move their grain and to give them the best possible price. As the hon. member noted, the Canadian Wheat Board still has tremendous support from Mr. Justice Hall whose opinion I value. He said that there is almost universal support for the Canadian Wheat Board. In the minds of many farmers, however, the Canadian Wheat Board is becoming too big. If it becomes a monopoly created by farmers, it is just as bad as a monopoly which is not created by farmers. I think there must be some change of thinking on the part of the Canadian Wheat Board very soon. It should realize that it should be securing and reflecting the thinking of the greatest possible number of farmers. It has a tremendous job to do. In my opinion, the closer the board is to farmers and the grass roots, the better job it will do.
The meeting was held, and some of the difficulties were resolved. The CPR gave some suggestions which were accepted by the farmers. With respect to the Cranbrook situation there were two very cold wintry weeks spent in the mountains in December. During the two weeks of the setting of the date and the meeting, a tremendous amount of grain was moved from the elevators at Lomond. The farmers started to get a little cash in their pockets. In my view, that co-ordination could have been done without the necessity of calling a meeting, but I was thankful it was done and is still going on.
There are other difficulties, including the rebuilding of the road from Milo to Lomond, which is an important factor, so that full loads can be hauled with hopper cars. This will be important.
In view of all the money which will be spent to rehabilitate, I urge that the line to which I have referred be considered along with the other two lines for which allotments have been made for 1981.
The grain which can be hauled from various places must be co-ordinated. There are elevators, different types of grain and different grades, and in my view a co-ordinator has a very important job.
Another reason I support this bill is that it mentions Churchill and Prince Rupert. I have not been to Churchill, but according to the information I have secured from farmers and through reading, there are times when Churchill could carry a much larger volume of grain. We should be using Churchill to a much greater degree than we are, particularly those who are within reasonable distances. I refer to Saskatchewan, perhaps Manitoba and some parts of Alberta. But where that access is closer, we should not be routing grain to Thunder Bay or Vancouver if it can go to Churchill and get into the markets of the world.
Grain Transportation
The Canadian Transport Commission has an important role to play in the movement of grain. It has been letting farmers down to a considerable degree by not taking a very active and alert interest in the movement of grain all the time, and not just when matters are at issue. There is also a role for the co-ordinator to play. The legislation under which the CTC works is important. I think the important change this bill would make would be to give the CTC a little more authority. If this authority were to hamper in any way the work of the co-ordinator, that could be discussed in committee and worked out.
By having members of this House from all sides who are knowledgeable in grain matters discuss them and work out a program, we might be able to do something really splendid for the movement of western grain. That is the object the hon. member had in submitting this bill.
If we could move more bushels of grain and get more cash flow into the pockets of farmers and producers, the better this country would become. There is a saying in the west that when farmers are poor, everybody is poor; when farmers are having hard times, everyone in the community is having a hard time. A farmer spends his money when he has it. He buys clothes for his wife and children; he buys cars; he buys trucks. He spreads his money around, and it circulates. When he does not have money, many businesses feel that depression as well.
I urge hon. members on the government side of the House to support this bill and send it to committee. There is nothing to be lost, and there is a tremendous amount to be gained by finding new and better ways to move grain in western Canada.


Mr. Maurice Bossy (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I may not be a western farmer, but I have been in the farm business all my life. 1 believe I understand the needs of the western farmer and the many representations which have been made concerning transportation of grain in the west.
One of the great qualities possessed by the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is persistence. He never gives up, I understand, and with incredible determination he continues to find new and strange ways to gain greater control over the operations of the railways.
Bill C-266 is a perfect example of this persistence. Curiously enough, it turns out to be an amendment to Section 266 of the Railway Act. Section 266, as it now stands, gives the Canadian Transport Commission the power to direct the railways to move grain east after the seaway is closed and before the next harvest. This is quite a specific power.
As I see it, Bill C-266 would do two things. It would transfer that power to the Canadian Wheat Board, it would extend the scope of the section to cover grain movement throughout the year, and include movements to Vancouver, Prince Rupert and the port of Churchill. In essence, the section would apply to all western grain movement.
There are some other less significant changes proposed in this bill. For example, the hon. member wants the Canadian Wheat Board to be able to tell the railways to supply "the necessary cars and engines" as well as "furnish all facilities

March 13, 1981
Grain Transportation
within its power". To me, this seems a bit redundant, but it is not something on which I want to dwell.
I suppose the question we must ask is why we need the amendments. Is the Canadian Wheat Board better suited than the CTC to tell the railways how to allocate this equipment? By suggesting these amendments, the hon. member implies that there is a need to exercise this power over the railways. Is there?
The other question is why we should broaden this section to cover all western grain. I grant that the hon. member has a point. One could legitimately ask: if we will have power over the railways on grain movement, why restrict it to the eastern movement for only part of the year? I suppose there are historic reasons why Section 266 of the act is the way it is. But given the principle that we will tell the railways what to do in relation to grain movement, one might as well give oneself full powers. It is this very principle about which the hon. member is so persistent. He never misses an opportunity to let out the battle cry of his party to nationalize the CPR.
Not long ago, the National Farmers' Union was in town. It wanted the government to nationalize fully both the CPR and CNR and to run them as public utilities. At that time I did not notice the hon. member for Regina West in the vicinity. Perhaps he recognizes that there is a problem with this approach, but he still calls for greater control over the railways.
Approximately two years ago, I understand, the hon. member tried another tack. He applied to the CTC for an investigation of whether the railways were violating Section 262 of the Railway Act in relation to grain movement. This section is very relevant to this discussion because it indicates that, in general, the railways must provide suitable accommodation for the loading, carrying, unloading and delivery of all traffic offered for carriage. If they do not, the CTC can order them to do so. By all appearances, it is a sweeping power which applies to all commodities and, hence, to grain.
At the time Section 262 was tested in the Supreme Court of Canada in 1959, unfortunately for the hon. member, the Supreme Court ruled that the section did not impose an absolute duty but only a relative one, so far as reasonably possible, for the railways to respond. The court looked at other factors, particularly the financial position of the railways. I hope one of my colleagues will have a chance to go into the relevance of this case in more detail.
The CTC, in its wisdom, rejected the hon. member's application, citing the Supreme Court case and, incidentally, the numerous efforts of the federal and provincial governments to improve the grain transportation system.
Naturally, that did not stop our persistent friend from Regina West. He was back again this session with motion No. 5 on the Order Paper which we debated once and may have the pleasure to debate again.
I have to admit that the hon. member, as well as being persistent, is at least consistent. Motion No. 5 indicates among other things:
-make the railways fix up their tracks and buy hopper cars, and give the Canadian Wheat Board more power to control grain movement.
The message in Bill C-266 is very much the same. It is too bad that it also runs into the same problems.
If I may be permitted a brief comment which is somewhat relevant to this discussion let me say that one might have the impression that the government is determined to block the hon. member's crusade for better service from the railways. This is not so.
A few weeks ago, the hon. member won an appeal to the CTC to retain a particular passenger service in the Sudbury area, and only last week a report from the Standing Committee on Transport dealing with express services was debated. If the hon. member had been here to participate, he would have heard the minister recognize how valid his concerns were regarding express services. He would have heard how the minister insisted on certain conditions being fulfilled before allowing the railway to proceed with its plans. Also he would have heard the minister ask the House to adopt the report, which it has.
So the government is by no means opposed to measures which improve the performance of the railways, as long as they make sense. I submit that the reason the hon. member lost his case under Section 262, the reason he was unable to obtain support for his motion No. 5, and the reason why this bill cannot be accepted is that it does not make sense.
Bill C-266 would transfer the power in question from the CTC to the Wheat Board. How is the Wheat Board equipped to handle the administrative aspects of such a responsibility? The Wheat Board has direct power over three specific grains-wheat, oats and barley. I know one of the hon. member's colleagues would like that power extended, but for the moment it is not.
On the other hand, railways handle hundreds and perhaps thousands of commodities daily. With improved productivity in recent years, rolling stock spends less time in yards and more time on the move. The CTC, with its national network of offices and inspectors, monitors this dynamic system. Of particular relevance to this discussion is that the CTC's newly established western office is widely considered as a valuable addition.
Transferring powers under Section 266 would not exactly emasculate the western CTC; I cannot really claim that. The point I am trying to make is that the Wheat Board really could not make rational decisions in this regard with its present structure. One could argue that the Wheat Board should be endowed with extra staff for this purpose. But does this make sense for a seldom, if ever, used provision?
If the Wheat Board had this power, how could it actually exercise it? Much as my hon. friend wishes this were so, one cannot snap one's fingers and produce the right number of hopper cars and engines at a given place in the country; that is
March 13, 1981

impossible. There is enormous potential for dislocation if some rolling stock is suddenly redirected. While the particular grain transport need might be satisfied, there would, in all likelihood, be delays in other traffic. I would like to hear the reaction the member for Regina West gets when he makes this sort of proposal to the coal, sulphur, or potash producers. These products are equally important to the west.
I will put all partisanship aside and say that when the Tories were in power, they had the right approach to problems of grain movement. They realize, as does this government, that because railways were losing money on the movement of grain, they were not able to invest in the grain transportation system as much as was needed. I suppose the member for Regina West realized that too. After all, he wrote a letter to The Globe and Mail which was published on February 26, which reads:
An overwhelming majority of western farmers agree that the railways should be compensated for their losses.
But until this takes place-and we hope it will be soon-the solution is not to bully the system through a piece of legislation into doing something of which it is not capable. The solution is co-operation and co-ordination of efforts. The Wheat Board, the grain commission, the grain companies and pools, the producers, and the CTC all have an interest with the railways in moving the grain. This is why the Tories appointed the grain transportation co-ordinator. We think the office has done a good job and that the spirit of co-operation is there.
The best example of what this has achieved is our record export performance last year, which was up 20 per cent from the previous year. This year, unloads at terminals are running 4 per cent to 5 per cent ahead of last year. In fact, the terminal elevators are brimming over and waiting for ships. This sort of picture does not seem to call for Draconian legislation which would upset the distribution of responsibilities between the different parties involved in the system.
Last November there were complaints about country elevators in southern Alberta being clogged. No doubt this is the sort of situation which this bill is expected to address. But would it? As amended, Section 266 would obviously apply, and the Wheat Board would have to decide whether to order the railway, in this case the CPR, to provide equipment. If the CPR did provide the equipment instantly, would that have done any good? The problem, as it turns out, was a labour dispute in Revelstoke to the west, which was affecting not only grain but all commodities. It was not a lack of willingness or any sort of corporate blackmail on the part of the CPR.
In the end, each party acted rationally. The Wheat Board, seeing that the grain was not moving, restricted the delivery quota. It would not have made sense to make farmers drive to a full elevator only to turn back without leaving their load. As an interim measure, the CPR managed to move a considerable amount of the grain east to Thunder Bay until the labour dispute was resolved.
Grain Transportation
I would venture to say that most problems can be tackled this way, by understanding the situation and capitalizing on the opportunities. Applying a heavy-handed legislative club would not have solved the Revelstoke problem, nor would it solve other similar cases.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, the difficulties which were experienced some years ago, which caused us to lose potential grain exports, have been overcome for the time being. They were not overcome by legislating the operations of the railways; they were overcome by financial assistance by governments but, even more important, by a co-operative attitude and a will to make the system work.
The job is far from finished, if we are to meet the grain export targets we have set for ourselves. But it is the positive and rational attitude which must prevail. I do not think that this bill is a contribution in that direction.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pleasure to speak on this bill, which involves a subject that is important not only to the western wheat farmer, as the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has acknowledged, and important not only to the economy of the whole of western Canada, but to the very heart of the economy. That is to say, our agricultural base-our oldest economic base in Canada. This is the reason so many people came from other countries to Canada.
Wheat has been one of our greatest exports. Our fundamental and economic existence would be something vastly different from what we presently find it to be if we did not have a prosperous agricultural community based in western Canada. Therefore, I do not think any of us should underestimate the importance of the subject which we find before us. I say this humbly as one from the east who knows how much all Canadians have benefited from the strength of western agriculture in our country.
The approach we are being asked to adopt by the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is to take power from the Canada Transport Commission and give it to another regulatory body, the grain commission. I am not sure if this type of meddling through giving the power from one agency to the other will be the solution. I am not even convinced that the member for Bow River, who spoke in support of the bill, is sure that it will be the solution. His comments were to the effect that we should at least refer it to the committee so that we can discuss it further. I think that is a fair representation of what he said. I really do not think that is good enough. We, as responsible legislators and Members of Parliament, have the obligation to come up with reasonable and workable solutions before we can ask other members in this House, as representatives of their constituents, to begin to come to grips with fundamental problems.
All of us are concerned that the maximum amount of grain be transported to and from our ports. This has been a concern of the hon. member for Regina West for a number of years. For example, in 1979 he made an application to the CTC to try to have Section 262 apply in respect of the handling of

March 13, 1981
Grain Transportation
grain. At that time, the CTC rejected the application of the hon. member for two very solid reasons. First, the CTC indicated that the government had already been talcing measures to try to cope with the problems of grain transportation; it had appointed a grain transportation commissioner. Second- this is a very important legal argument since it goes to the heart and philosophy of what the hon. member is proposing which is why members on this side feel it is unworkable-the application went against the fundamental philosophy of what we feel our boards, agencies and railways should be doing.
The CTC rejected the application based on the A.L. Patch-ett & Sons Ltd. v. Pacific Great Eastern Railway Co., a 1959 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. In interpreting Section 262 of the act in question, the court said that the duty of the railway to furnish "suitable accommodation" is not an absolute duty but is one which must be considered in the context of all the other obligations the railways are called upon to fulfil. In other words, the railway does have an obligation to transport grain. The Lord knows that we need those railways to do that. But what happens if their cars are tied up elsewhere? What happens if they can do it only at great economic loss? That is to say, you cannot force a railway, under all circumstances, to do things which are unreasonable.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The law says you can.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: This is what the law has been, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada.
I believe this recognizes the fair combination of what we are trying to achieve in terms of our economic direction. It is an economic direction that recognizes that private enterprise, with its concomitant profit motive, is really the engine of our economy. It is really the incentive which helps individuals to go out and make this a stronger economic country. We do not believe, as does the hon. member opposite, that everything should be nationalized and that we can set up boards and then dictate what they should do in every situation. We still believe that there is room in our economy for the spirit of free enterprise, which necessitates profit. It is this delicate balance that we seek to maintain and it is one which would be offended if this were to go through. In particular, we would be offending the spirit of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Patchett case. Another problem arises in this situation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We are on section 266 now.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The hon. member for Regina West says, quite correctly, that we are dealing with Section 266 now and not Section 262. In 1979, however, the hon. member went to the CTC with a pig in a poke and was rejected. Now he comes back to us with a pig in a poke and says it is something different. This is the very same type of provision and the same type of approach with which he is asking us to deal at the present time.
One can invoke the name and the excellent report of Mr. Justice Hall who called upon us to take responsible measures
to deal with the question of grain handling. This government is cognizant of that attitude. Unlike the hon. member for Bow River, I do not agree that the member of the other place who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has been derelict in his duties. I would ask the hon. member to speak with the westerners with whom the minister has worked so closely, with the people in Saskatchewan, and with the co-operatives with whom he has been working on a national energy program to help them diversify their investment portfolio and have a greater stake in our energy program. He has been working hard to obtain new transportation facilities.
As every member of this House knows, the government has entered into a co-operative enterprise to provide over 2000 new railways cars for the transportation of grain in this country. In the last election we made a commitment to add increased trackage and we are not ashamed of that. We are happy to work with the farmers and to see that they have the transportation facilities necessary to get their grain to market.
I cannot accept the criticisms levelled by the hon. member for Bow River at our commitment to ensure that western farmers are adequately and properly given their just desserts and the recognition they deserve because of the role they fulfil and have fulfilled for so many years in this country.
There is another, technical reason why we should look again at Section 266, and this goes back to the Supreme Court decision. Section 266 imposes a specific obligation, as was intended. Therefore, in the words of the Supreme Court of Canada, it would override the general obligation that would prevail in any particular or limited situation.
The hon. member for Regina West recognized that Section 266 gives a very large power to the CTC, but he said it was invoked only once, in 1916. It appears that it was invoked in a desperate situation. Section 266 is still on the books. We might ask why there have not been more applications under Section 266. Is this an indication that perhaps what we are doing here is just a little bit of word smithing, substituting one administrative agency for another, without it having any real impact or giving any benefit. We have power under Section 266 to act in an emergency.
I should like to point out that I think we will have a problem if we implement the amendments proposed in this bill. One of the problems which could arise would be the conflicting obligations that might be imposed on a railway. If the hon. member's proposal were accepted, the Wheat Board could supposedly commandeer any car, any railway trackage, any locomotive to move grain at any time it decided to do so. Would it have to decide on other priorities? What would happen to the potash industry? If the cars, the shipping facilities, the dock facilities at the Lakehead or Vancouver were all tied up by potash, what would the position be then? Why is the Wheat Board in any better position to decide on the priorities of the railways than the railways themselves as represented by the Canadian Transport Commission? It has, as commissioners, representatives from all sectors. It can hold public hearings and is delegated to represent the public inter-
March 13, 1981

est. It has an obligation, not only to deal with wheat but with all transportation needs in the country.
We do not want the nightmare of having two boards, both having jurisdiction over where the cars should be at a particular time and who should have priority. Such matters must be settled by the body delegated by Parliament to have responsibility for settling the bigger issues, all of which have national and international importance.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this bill, as far as I can see, is simply legislating schizophrenia on the railways. Surely there are sufficient agencies with responsibility for grain transportation without adding another.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The hon. member opposite has indicated that he has a question. I would be delighted to receive any questions he might have at the close of the debate on this issue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am asking for the question to be called.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I am always willing to respond to the questions of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I have found them to be relevant and pointed. I
Grain Transportation
defer to his experience in this House and welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter with him in public or in private when I have completed what I think are essential remarks dealing with the philosophy of the matter before us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us have the vote.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: At this time I think what we want to do is continue with the thrust of this government, which I am proud to support at this time. It recognizes the role of the farmer in western Canada, the importance of this to the economy, and the necessity for us all to join in that enterprise to ensure that their goods get to market. This is a co-operative effort involving the railways. It is an effort which is going to involve the ports, and one which must be considered in the context of all the transportation needs of western Canada.


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

March 13, 1981


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
(See p. 8227)
Le President	Chambre des communes
The Speaker	House of Commons
Canada
OTTAWA March 4, 1981
The Hon. Stanley Knowles, M.P.
Room 632, Centre Block House of Commons Dear Colleague:
I refer to the Motion which you introduced in the House of Commons on December 19, 1980, to the effect that employees who worked extended hours during the December 18-19 sitting be paid extra compensation.
I am pleased to inform you that the process of confirming the names of the employees concerned and arriving at an equitable compensation formula, has now been concluded. Accordingly, some 192 employees will be receiving extra compensation later this month, based on the following formula: up to 5 hours overtime $25. (36 employees)
5 to 9 hours overtime $50. (63 employees)
9 to 12 hours overtime $75. (21 employees) over 12 hours overtime $100. (72 employees)
Accompanying the cheques to employees will be a letter from me extending the thanks of the House to them.
You should note that the regular House of Commons provisions for overtime pay applied automatically to these employees, with the exception of Table Officers, Hansard Reporters and Pages. The latter two categories benefit from time off during prolonged inter-sessional periods. Thus, extra compensation as a result of the motion introduced on December 19th last will be paid 95 employees, over and above the overtime pay they have already received in accordance with the prevailing overtime regulations. Ninety-three of the remaining 97 employees will continue to benefit from time off during prolonged inter-sessional periods.
The preceding information is offered in order that you may appreciate that provisions already exist to compensate House of Commons employees when they are called upon to work extended hours.
I trust the foregoing will prove useful to you in the event a similar occasion to that of December 18-19 presents itself in the future. Thank you for your continued interest in the wellbeing of House employees.
Yours sincerely,
Jeanne Sauve
[Stage Direction]

Monday, March 16, 1981