1981-03-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette):
That this House, in recognition of the contribution to Canada of Canadians of Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian descent, welcomes their honorary consuls and representatives of their respective communities to the ninth annual Baltic evening on Parliament Hill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I take it the House wants to express sentiments toward this community, but I do not think this is a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43.


VISIT OF UNITED STATES PRESIDENT REAGAN-MOTION UNDER
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on an important matter.
Every member in this House is pleased that the President of the United States of America is visiting Canada next week and will be addressing jointly members of this House and the Senate on March 11. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House, through the unanimous passage of this motion, welcome President Reagan and wish him and his government well, and furthermore encourage him to meet with world leaders, particularly President Brezhnev, in the very near future to initiate negotiations for arresting aggression wherever it occurs in the world; to renew detente and establish a rationale for limiting the world's arms race and to reaffirm world peace and fundamental human rights as the first priority of international relations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMBINES
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of some urgency under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the fact that after eight years of investigation the government plans to hold a public inquiry into alleged price fixing by major oil companies, the timing of which so conveniently and so transparently shifts public focus and blame away from the government over its oil price levy earlier this week, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence):
That the government be condemned for not instructing that appropriate charges be laid against any oil companies found to have contravened any existing laws of Canada and that the minister make a statement on motions as to why prosecutions have not been instituted.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ASTRA TRUST
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas eight people were charged yesterday with conspiracy to defraud the public of $35 million in the collapse of Astra Trust and associated companies; and whereas the collapse of Astra was the first collapse of a federally-chartered financial institution since the depression; and whereas the justice committee of the Ontario legislature has determined that officials of Astra used political influence to gain their federal charter, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That the federal government set up a public inquiry to determine why Astra received a federal charter, how it operated, why it collapsed, who was responsible, what compensation should be paid to its victims, and ways of ensuring such a collapse is not repeated.

March 4, 1981


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on an important matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
Considering that the member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) has clearly stated the position of his party, the Progressive Conservative Party, on linguistic and constitutional policies; considering also that it is the first time this position has been so clearly stated and that it sheds light on the disagreement among the Progressive Conservatives about the French fact in this country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Spadi-na (Mr. Stollery):
That additional copies of Hansard for March 3, 1981, be printed and made available to all French-speaking Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Canadian National Railway Company has adopted policies applicable to Nova Scotia and the Atlantic provinces which threaten the economy of the region. These policies include the removal and the reduction of rail passenger service through VIA Rail, the transfer of ferry responsibility through CN Marine, drastic reductions in the CN Express service, the subsidization of the CAST shipping group of Montreal and the sale of the CN hotel to business interests outside the region. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That this House direct the Minister of Transport to institute an immediate independent inquiry into the activities of the CNR board of directors and management affecting Atlantic Canada and to report publicly on the result.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, in light of the fact that 16 communities located on the CPR rail line between Provost and Camrose, Alberta, have endured with extraordinary patience inadequate quotas for the shipment of grain and gross lack of availability of grain hopper cars, and since there has been apparent discrimination in the spotting of these cars in favour of some communities to the neglect of others, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That this Parliament request that the government take heed of this matter, seek the counsel it deems necessary and recommend a plan of action which gives a satisfactory result.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter which, given government business today, is quite urgent.
Whereas even the inadequate occupational health and safety provisions of Part IV of the Canada Labour Code apply only to certain federally-regulated industries, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That this House advise the government that it would support an amendment to the Canada Labour Code to bring all people, otherwise covered by sections of the Canada Labour Code, under the umbrella of Part IV of the Canada Labour Code.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
March 4, 1981


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of various reports, including the recent study by the Toronto Star, which indicates that cigarette smokers who have switched to lighter brands may be in much greater danger than they think due to the increased consumption on their part, and particularly due to the added danger of cancer-causing additives, more of which are to be found in such brands, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare be instructed by this House to bring in legislation enabling the government to obtain and publish the names of additives in cigarettes and other such substances as are now to be found in various products but which are presently trade secrets because competition is a higher value in our society than human health.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


AIR CANADA
Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I beg to move the following motion:
As Air Canada intends to cancel all flights from Montreal to Ottawa between 8.30 a.m. and 12 noon in its summer schedule, and as passengers coming in to Montreal from the Atlantic provinces and eastern Quebec will have to wait three hours for a connection to the capital of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Jonquiere (Mr. Marceau):
That the Minister of Transport insist that at least one airline provide service between Montreal and the national capital between 9 a.m. and 12 noon.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I feel I have no alternative but to ask the Prime Minister a question arising from the report of price fixing in the oil industry which, you will appreciate, Madam Speaker, none of us have seen because it is only to be released later this afternoon. I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell the House who made the decision to refer this long awaited report, which apparently contains accusations of collusion and price fixing resulting in billions of dollars of presumably illegal profits to the oil companies. Can the Prime Minister tell us who made the decision to refer this to a minor tribunal for a further public inquiry, which may well take another two years? Was this a governmental decision, was it a decision of the director of the bureau of competition policy, or was it recommended to the government by its legal advisers?


An hon. Member:: Jim Coutts.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I expect the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to be arriving incessantly in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Imminently.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: My answer is somewhat subject to the details he may want to bring, but my belief is that it is the director of the combines investigation branch himself who, along with legal officers, recommended that it would be better to refer this matter to the restrictive trade practices tribunal since, as the House knows, it is not always easy under the present Combines Investigation Act to be successful in pressing criminal charges. It is for that reason that we have been attempting to improve the act.


DELAY IN PUBLISHING REPORT
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question must also be directed to the Prime Minister who, I am sure, can explain to the House the reason for the unconsiderable delay in publishing this report, because I am sure the Prime Minister is aware that, more than a year ago, the Clark government had appointed independent outside counsel to advise on what action should be taken on the findings in the report. Those counsel were expected to report to the government within six months, but more than a year has passed since then. What is the reason for this delay? Has the timing more to do with an attempt to ram a bad energy policy down the throats of the Canadian public?

March 4, 1981
Oral Questions
Were the original counsel replaced by the present government and, if so, why?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it seems to me it ill behooves the hon. member to be criticizing the minister for not being hawkish enough when it comes to applying the Combines Investigation Act against a particular industry. The House will recall that it was those hon. members opposite who, not so long ago, were attacking the minister rather ferociously, accusing him of being somewhat hawkish as regards the sugar industry. He certainly did not have the support of hon. members opposite.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: If I remember rightly, that was an illegal action as well on the part of the minister.


QUERY RESPECTING INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Now that we have the minister here, I wish to put to him my final question about the inevitable delay in the procedure now being followed by the government in the matter of the oil pricing report and the very genuine anger that it will create among the general public who, according to the report, have been ripped off to the tune of several billions of dollars on their gasoline and home heating fuel oil bills over the last several years. To the hard pressed car and home owner this is no small matter-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: In the light of these reported illegal massive profits to the oil industry and the oil companies, the government must surely now be ready to announce some new regulations, new legislation, a new pricing policy, to ensure that the average Canadian, the person on the end of the hosepipe, is getting a fair deal. My question to the minister is, where is it?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member, who was the former minister responsible for my department, does not know the responsibility of the Director of Combines and Investigation. The question he asked today is very surprising because it is clearly written in the law that it is the option of the director to decide what route to follow. Indeed I support the director in the decision he made.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I am afraid I was not getting through to the minister. I was not asking him about the past, but about the present. The people have been ripped off by the oil industry; something must be done. What will the minister do in respect of new regulations, new legislation, or a new pricing policy?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have given the hon. member an opportunity to ask an extra question. I would expect him to be extremely brief.


Walter David Baker: I thought he was.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I always am, Madam Speaker. Where is the new pricing policy which will prevent further actions of this type taking place over the next two years, while this matter is dragged out by the government for a further length of time?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I think that the hon. member is jumping to conclusions. He ought to know that pursuant to the act the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission will hear the evidence submitted by the Director of Investigation and Research; but it will also ask the companies involved to express their views. Quite aside from that investigation which is going on, the Canadian government wants to improve free competition in this country, not only between oil companies but in all sectors generally, and to ensure that competition is fair and correct. We have stated that we would soon introduce amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, and I am impatient to see whether the members of the Progressive Conservative Party will lend us their support when the bill is introduced.


PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I want to express our disappointment that the government did not provide members on this side of the House with such an important report in advance of today's question period. It is a discourtesy to the House to have to rely on second-hand information.
Can the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs assure the House that the amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, which he said he will introduce in the next session, will prevent this kind of consumer rip-off from ever happening to Canadian consumers again?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I would like to refer to the comments of the hon. member who first voiced his concern because he had not received the documents he wanted to have. I can assure him that at the same time this afternoon at 4 p.m. all those documents will be made available to all members on both sides of the House, to the news media in the press gallery, and to all interested parties. This seven-volume report will not be made public before 4 p.m. this afternoon because the chairman of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission wanted to follow a procedure whereby documents such as these are not released to the public before the stock markets close.
March 4, 1981


POSSIBLE RETURN TO CONSUMERS OF OVERPAYMENTS
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, as a former member of the parliamentary press gallery, I know about seeing government documents in advance. I just say it was a discourtesy to the House that the press gallery should see it before we did.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Will we consumers just have to lay back and enjoy another two years of being ripped off through price fixing or, if indeed the allegations of wrongdoing are true, will the government arrange to let Canadian consumers get their money back?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I am quite surprised to see that all of a sudden the spokesmen for the Progressive Conservative Party should pose as the great defenders of the consumers. For years they have been known to protect the interests of companies, particularly oil companies, but now that the report of an investigation made under the act is to be referred to a commission or a tribunal, those Conservative members draw conclusions even before the facts are known and condemn the oil companies. I hope their former friends will figure out where they stand and realize that, depending what day it is, they are on one side of the fence or the other.


DELAY IN INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question also relates to this eight-year investigation into a billion dollar rip-off perpetrated by the oil companies. I would like the minister to explain to this House, if he would, why it has taken more than 12 years for the Liberal government to bring legislation before this House which would protect the Canadian people from this kind of rip-off? Frankly, I do not believe he will be able to deliver that legislation within the time-frame.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I realize that the hon. member is new in this House. He does not remember that in 1975 a Liberal government not only introduced but got through a bill to amend substantially the Combines Investigation Act. Unfortunately, due to the slowness of the parliamentary process, which tends to hinder rapid progress, we have not been able to complete the second phase of the act. The questions that I am being asked show that the
Oral Questions
Progressive Conservatives and the New Democrats now agree with my objectives.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Raymond John Skelly: Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, another interpretation might be that the government did not have the jam to put the required parts together-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond John Skelly: The movement here to refer this question to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission is one which is sidestepping the issue. What we really need is protection through strong legislation. I would again ask the minister to give us a date for this legislation. It is more important than many of the issues which are facing the House right now. We want a date.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, this new commitment voiced by opposition members makes me more confident than ever that we will be able to achieve passage of the second phase amendments to the Combines Investigation Act. I shall discuss this matter with my colleague who is responsible for the business of the House who in turn will try to arrange, together with the other House leaders, an appropriate date to introduce these amendments. I hope that hon. members will recall the representations made today when the bill is introduced and that they will help the government ensure prompt passage of the bill.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I hope that the date will be tomorrow, when the minister begins discussions with the House leader.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBILITY OF NEGOTIATING COMPENSATION FOR CONSUMERS
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. Since the Canadian people have been skinned over the last decade to the tune of billions of dollars, will the minister undertake to negotiate compensation for the Canadian people, by having the oil companies provide restitution for the money which they have stolen? If the minister will not do that by negotiation, is he prepared to lay before this House legislation to compel the oil companies to make restitution? There is a sense of justice involved here and the consumers must be reimbursed. The moneys recovered could go into the oil import compensation fund to offset the price increases we are facing now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 4, 1981
Oral Questions


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, as a first step, I would appreciate more support from the hon. member's party for the additional taxes I am placing on the oil and gas industry-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -rather than constant attacks from them about what I am doing.


DETERMINATION WITH RESPECT TO LAYING OF CHARGES
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could put my question to the Minister of Justice, dealing with the petroleum inquiry which for the first time in more than ten years has now been referred to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. Would the Minister of Justice first indicate if the Department of Justice was consulted with respect to whether charges should be laid in connection with this matter; were outside counsel consulted; and if such was the case, was it determined by the Department of Justice that no formal prosecution should continue against the companies involved?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, the Director General at the Department of Consumer Affairs decided yesterday to refer the whole file to the commission involved. There will be a quasi-judicial inquiry. As for the Department of Justice, it has been involved through legal advisers, and it finds the procedure recommended by the director quite acceptable.


COURSE ADOPTED FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could ask the minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs a twofold question, as the Minister of Justice did not answer my question. Was the minister advised directly by his director, or otherwise, by the Department of Justice, that criminal charges were not warranted in connection with the petroleum inquiry? Second, would he now inform the House-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -of the outcome of the uranium inquiry, one concerning the apparent involvement of the government in price rigging itself?


André Ouellet: Perhaps it would be useful for me to remind the hon. member that the director of combines has three courses of action he may follow. One is to terminate an inquiry, report to the minister that he has terminated the inquiry, and cannot find reasons to pursue it. It is obvious that the director did not follow that course.
The second course of action is to refer his findings to the Department of Justice, and ask it to lay charges based on the evidence that he has gathered during the inquiry.


Walter David Baker: Was that done?


André Ouellet: The director has not followed that course.


Walter David Baker: Why?


André Ouellet: Instead, he decided to follow the third course of action which was open to him-


Walter David Baker: You have no evidence.


André Ouellet: -and to refer his findings to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.
The director has three courses of action open to him, and it is in his discretion to decide which one of the three he follows. Under the law, he decided to follow the third one.
In relation to the second question of the hon. member regarding the uranium inquiry, this inquiry by the director is not completed. Obviously, when it has been completed, his findings will be made public.


REASONS FOR ADOPTION OF THIRD OPTION IN CONNECTION WITH FUTURE PROCEEDINGS
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, the director reports to the minister. Can the minister tell us why the director chose that third course, and whether he will pass that information on to the House?


André Ouellet: Yes, I will take the request of the Leader of the Opposition under advisement. I will talk to the director and ask him why he preferred the third option, and not the second.


Some hon. Members:: You don't know?


Charles Joseph Clark: Would the minister tell the House whether there was any consultation between the director and the minister or any of his colleagues in cabinet, or parliamentary secretaries, before the director made that decision?


André Ouellet: I am happy to be asked this question. I was expecting it. I am glad to say that the government has not followed the bad example of the previous government. We did not consult other departments or ministers before deciding to proceed with the decision of the director. In other words, we did not consult other colleagues on the course of action taken. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was not consulted, as the previous government had wrongly done when it consulted the Minister of Transport.


Charles Joseph Clark: Did the director consult the minister before the director exercised his discretion?


André Ouellet: The director, according to law, indicated his intention to me. He did not ask me which of the three courses
March 4, 1981

of action he should follow as it is his responsibility to decide himself. He decided to go to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. He informed me of his decision, and I accepted it. I understood that it was the course of action he wanted to follow, and I supported him in his decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the Right Hon. Prime Minister, to assist him and help his government in not fouling our Crows-nest-that is spelled f-o-u-1.


Walter David Baker: -"ing".


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Justice Emmett Hall said that the Crow rate is essential to unity in the country. In view of the fact that his recommendations are widely supported by farmers, the government of Saskatchewan, and other farm organizations, would the Prime Minister now agree that the time has come to make a decision in support of implementing the Hall Commission recommendations on the Crowsnest Pass rate?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member returns to the same kind of allegation which a fellow member of his party made the other day-that the people support a particular course. I answered the other day, and I repeat that I met a group called the Western Agricultural Conference, which represents many thousands of members, and they advised a contrary course. That is why, on this side of the House, the government is attempting to ascertain what seems to be so clear in the member's mind, which apparently is not even clear in the minds of the provincial governments out there, since some of them support re-opening the Crow rates, and others, particularly in Saskatchewan, support the contrary position. That is why the Minister of Transport, in particular, is busily engaged in trying to ascertain the sentiments of the people in the west.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This is one of the main reasons why there are no Liberals west of Winnipeg.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: You do have the NDP.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I mention that the dissension on the Crow rate comes from a minority, private interest commodity groups, including the Grain Exchange, James Richardson & Sons Limited, and Pioneer Grain Company, Limited.


An hon. Member:: Lloyd Axworthy.
Oral Questions


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I would ask the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that not only did Mr. Justice Hall hear briefs from over 1,400 people in 160 days, but a further survey held very recently of 1,200 prairie grain-producers showed the overwhelming majority said we should implement Mr. Justice Hall's-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should be much briefer in his second question. I would ask him to co-operate with the Chair.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The WAC presentation is something less than Emmett Hall's recommendation. In view of the pandering that his minister and others have done to minority groups, will the Prime Minister, while considering WAC, implement the recommendations of Mr. Justice Emmett Hall instead and get the matter settled once and for all if he wants to really do something about unity in western Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I really find it difficult to accept the assertion of the hon. member that he is speaking collectively for the west, because I met two weeks ago with members of the Western Agricultural Conference. They represent many more members than the National Farmers Union with which I met yesterday and hold a contrary view. He knows that the Saskatchewan government holds one view and that the Manitoba and Alberta governments hold the contrary view.
If the hon. member is correct in saying that that is why we do not have more Liberals in the west, because we are trying to help the west arrive at a consensus on this, then what he is saying is that the NDP do have some members because they are playing to ambiguity, and are often sitting on the fence on this particular matter.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of Justice. As it has been reported yesterday on the news and today in the newspapers that the Quebec justice minister has referred to a report by three lawyers to the effect that the resolution now before the House would affect several Quebec laws, I would like to ask the minister whether his department has conducted such studies in the past, even though according to the report, Quebec laws contained some inequities that might have to be corrected. Can the minister tell the House whether studies have been conducted in this regard and whether there are actually

March 4, 198!
Oral Questions
irregularities which caused problems for Canadians and Quebecers?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, when we have a Canadian charter of rights applicable to all Canadians, the federal government as well as the provincial governments will have to ensure that all statutes are in keeping with this charter. The Department of Justice knows that we shall have to amend several statutes in this Parliament in order to delete from them some discriminatory provisions. And if there are unfortunately 100 Quebec statutes which contain discriminatory provisions, I hope that the provincial government will be more than willing to act rapidly to remove from them every discriminatory aspect.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I should like to turn to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with respect to the report of the director on price fixing. It seems to me that there is a principle of natural justice involved here. The government cannot try to avoid its responsibility by simply saying it accepts the recommendations of the director. There is a question here of an almost Star Chamberish attitude on the part of the government in that it declares that the people are guilty and then allows them two years in which to prove they are innocent. Why does the government not now proceed with the prosecution and get this matter before the courts? The courts are open, the courts are independent, so why can we not now have an adjudication within the proper judicial process? Why does the government not initiate such action at this time?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member was present a few minutes ago.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Answer the question.


André Ouellet: The type of questions that were asked by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth and the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham earlier implied that the facts gathered by the director of combines had to be taken as a reality, have to be accepted-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is what you said.


André Ouellet: -and be taken as if the case were completed. The government did not do that. The government allowed the director to go before the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to present his evidence and allowed the companies to present their own point of view and have the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission render decisions on the evidence presented before the tribunal. I submit that we have not jumped the gun but that it is the colleagues of the hon. member who have jumped to conclusions rather quickly.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the minister cannot attempt to shift the responsibility from himself to the opposition. That will not work; it will not wash. The minister knows that the director must make a report in his annual report on whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution. That report will be handed down today, but the minister did not have the courage to bring the matter before the House by a statement on motions. He did it outside the House.
In view of the fact that the report that will be brought down today-which mysteriously got into the hands of the press- indicates that the director finds details of collusion amongst the oil companies to fix prices, and makes specific recommendations on how the practice can be halted-that is in the report and the minister will have read it-what is the purpose of now referring the matter to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission? What will be gained and what will be the conclusion if the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission does not have the ability to adjudicate on this issue?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is prejudging the case before it is presented.


An hon. Member:: No.


An hon. Member:: You are.


André Ouellet: I submit to hon. members that they should first of all read the report and access for themselves the evidence gathered and then, maybe in the days to come, put questions on a document that they will have received and on which everyone will be in a position to speak, and not speculate in advance as the hon. member is doing.


MARINE TRANSPORT
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport respecting the withdrawal of the Dart Containerline Service from the port of Halifax. The minister now knows the havoc created by this action. He knows that Nova Scotians are blaming the CNR and himself for the action and he knows he is being accused of aiding the Cast shipping group in favour of the port of Montreal to the detriment of the port of Halifax.
When did the minister tell the National Harbours Board, when did he tell the port of Halifax and when did he tell his colleague from the city of Halifax, the Minister of Labour, about the impending action? Why did he not inform the public so that it would know what was transpiring and could take action against it?
March 4, 1981


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend mentioned so many events that 1 do not know with respect to which one he wants me to tell when I was involved. If it is the Dart decision, I was informed the same day that everybody else was, as he was. This is the situation.
This morning I had a very useful conversation with Premier Buchanan on this subject. We agreed to meet next week to look at all aspects of this case, that is, the freight rates, the CN investment in Cast, the National Harbours Board port charges and, the ice-breaking activities of my department. We will meet on Tuesday, I think, when he and I and our officials will look at every aspect of the matter so that we will at least have the facts on which to comment. Sometimes it is useful to have all the facts.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I will take the minister at his word when he says that he did not know in advance about this.
I will say to him, however, that he should check with his officials at Canadian National Railways because they knew of the impending action many months ago when the Dart Containerline Service officials consulted with them, asked these questions, and put this problem to them.
I want to know what the minister is prepared to do now by way of equalizing the treatment of the port of Halifax and the port of Montreal, bearing in mind that the Government of Canada, according to Dart Containerline officials, spends $20 million on clearing the St. Lawrence River for the benefit of the port of Montreal and spends no such amount of money for the benefit of the port of Halifax.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend has just repeated in his second question the elements that I said the Premier of Nova Scotia and I would discuss. The least he can do is to suspend his judgment for a few days. I presume that at the end of that meeting we will issue a communique of some kind to establish what are the facts.
Of course, I was in touch with CN as soon as 1 heard the news about Dart. The president of CN assured me that he had been assured repeatedly by the participants in this movement that the rates for freight were not a cause of the decision that was taken by Dart. Similarly, the National Harbours Board chairman, to whom I speak almost every day, has assured me that the charges in the port of Halifax are lower than those in the port of Montreal. We are trying to establish all these facts and I will present them to my hon. friend after the meeting with Premier Buchanan.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. It arises out of Treasury Board's proposal to designate Canada's air
Oral Questions
traffic controllers. Can the minister explain to the House why Treasury Board chose to ignore the warnings of a six-member Transport Canada committee which stated that designation of all of Canada's air traffic controllers would seriously impair and jeopardize Canada's air traffic services?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, all matters were taken into account at the time the decision was made to seek designation of, I believe, between 1,700 and 1,800, air traffic controllers. That matter is still pending. I do not think the decision was taken without full knowledge of the facts and without due regard to all considerations, particularly the safety of the public.


IMPACT ON SAFETY OF TRAVELLING PUBLIC
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport why he chose to ignore the warnings of his departmental officials on this very important matter inasmuch as the President of the Treasury Board stated in a letter to the president of the Air Traffic Controllers Association that the Minister of Transport has endorsed the position taken by the President of the Treasury Board? It would appear that the actions of the Minister of Transport are clearly not in keeping with the objective of providing safety and security to Canada's air travelling public.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In order to answer the question, Madam Speaker, we should have the complete document before us so that we can analyse it line by line. The document states that safety would be endangered if we followed a certain course of action because the union people would be angry, not because the system would be inadequate. I am sorry I cannot go into the details, but I will be happy to look at the document that I have received. As the President of the Treasury Board said, the decision was based on a number of factors, and that was one among many.


WARNING ISSUED BY DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport is responsible for the safety and security of air traffic services. Given the statements made by his officials, the six-member committee, surely that must cause some anxiety and apprehension in the mind of the minister. If not, it certainly should.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I quite agree, Madam Speaker. The decision was not an easy one to make. There were four options. One was to operate a limited system. That, of course, offered quite a lot of security but also disadvantages in terms of the economics of the country. Another one was to designate the 1,700 controllers. That involved safety factors, which we examined. It is not that long ago since the hon. member was minister of transport, and I am sure he remembers how difficult these decisions are, how balanced they must be.

March 4, 1981
Oral Questions ENERGY


OIL COMPANIES' SHARE OF INCREASE IN PRICE OF GASOLINE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I wish to return to the matter of oil prices. If the minister filled his gas tank on Sunday, as did many Canadians, he found that gas costs two to three cents a litre more. Will the minister confirm these figures, that of the increase, .7 cents was due to the regular increase with the 1981 price coming on stream, .5 cents was due to the Lalonde-Lougheed levy the other day, and 1.5 cents was due to the oil companies charging for so-called increased production costs? Will the minister confirm those figures, and the fact that the oil companies have piggybacked an additional 1.5-cent increase on to the ,5-cent increase which came in as a result of prices going up?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I want first to tell the hon. member that I filled my gas tank only on Tuesday in order to avoid any leak about what was coming.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: You mean the government car?


Marc Lalonde: My own. I want to confirm to the hon. member that several oil companies did take advantage of the increase arising from the $1 increase in January. They doubled the amount of the increase. I wrote to my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and asked that the protection of consumers division examine this matter and advise whether the increases were proper in the circumstances. As far as the total price is concerned, I remind the hon. member that at the present time in Toronto, for example, the price at the pump is still 9.45 cents a gallon less than it would have been under the Conservative budget had it passed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is not a sufficient answer. As far as the Canadian public is concerned, both the Conservatives and Liberals are parties of high prices.


Arnold John Malone: Only the NDP are cheap.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, since he is full of gas today. Will the minister confirm that because of the complicity of his government and previous Liberal and Conservative governments, the Canadian public, as shown by the report he is going to release this afternoon, has lost the equivalent of over $80 billion to the oil companies through overcharges and poor marketing practices? Will the minister tell us, if he is not prepared to bring in legislation, restitution, or prosecution, whether he is prepared to advocate to cabinet public ownership of these companies?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I am happy to report that the mail is moving. I received a letter from my colleague and, at his request, my officials are looking at the matter.
Second, I want to assure the hon. member that the evidence gathered by the director will be presented, and obviously challenged and thoroughly discussed, before the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. The figures he refers to as rip-offs are figures that were allegedly gathered by the director of combines. Obviously they will be tested and the commission will make its findings. We will have to wait until the commission reports before we can be certain of these allegations. If they are true and the commission finds that the consumers of Canada have been ripped off, the government will take its responsibility and act accordingly.
I remind the hon. member that even before the report was made public the government had gone a long way toward Canadianizing this industry. It is to the credit of the government that it has already begun moving in this direction.


GOVERNMENT POSITION RESPECTING INQUIRY FINDINGS
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the concern of the House is whether the government has indeed taken its responsibility with respect to this matter and with regard to the course of action it has taken. The minister is no doubt aware of Section 15 of the Combines Investigation Act which says that the director may, at any stage of an inquiry, including the beginning of an inquiry as is the case today, refer any record, etc. to the Attorney General to see whether an offence has been or is about to be committed against the act, and for such action as the Attorney General of Canada may be pleased to take. The obvious question is whether this has been submitted to the Attorney General and, if so, when. If it has been submitted and advice was obtained by the director, what was the advice? What is the state of affairs? It appears to the House that the minister is most inconclusive with respect to the intentions of the government on this matter.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, the hon. member referred to Section 15 of the act. The director decided to act according to Section 47. He exercised his option and the matter is now before the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.


Walter David Baker: The question is whether that is the appropriate option under the circumstances, and what will be the outcome. It appears in his report that there are many actions started which are ultimately dropped. If an offence has been committed, the companies should be charged. The minister has not answered my question. The question is
March 4, 1981

whether the Attorney General of Canada has given his advice to the director and/or the minister, but particularly to the director, as to the appropriateness of the action. If he has not, will the minister undertake to look into this matter and report to the House so that we can have the whole picture?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, the director has decided to refer the matter to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission under Section 47 of the act and the hon. member should know that it is a proper course of action for him to take. That is his own decision. That does not preclude the possibility of referring some aspect of his findings to the Department of Justice at a later date.


Mr. Nielsen:: Nor does it now.


André Ouellet: It does not preclude this at all. But the decision of the director to go before the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission at this time is a decision which I respect, and I support him in his decision. If at a later date it is decided to refer the matter to the Department of Justice, it will then be the decision of the Attorney General of Canada to decide whether or not prosecutions will be laid before the courts.


Charles Joseph Clark: Why has that not been done?


André Ouellet: I am not going to intervene on this question in advance. It is a matter possibly to be dealt with at a later date.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: I have before me from Wednesday and Thursday last a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) alleging that the premature release of information from the 1981-1982 estimates constituted breaches of privilege of the House.
I want to be clear on this point. The hon. member was not referring to the fact that the estimates were released to the press in a lock-up held on the morning of February 25, 1981, because that was the subject of another question of privilege by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) upon which I ruled that day. Nor was the hon. member referring to the minister's briefing of opposition critics, which I understand took place at the luncheon also on Wednesday. The premature release to which the hon. member refers is a wire story which was available on Canadian Press wire at about 17.30 on Wednesday which, in turn, derived from a press advance which was annotated for release "possibly at 3.45 p.m. eastern standard time on the same day."
I do not think we need go into arguments with respect to the facts. There was a lock-up; there was a press advance; there were print and electronic media stories on the contents of the estimates for some hours prior to those estimates having been
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
tabled in the House. These things are not really at issue. What is at issue is whether or not the premature release of the estimates constitutes a contempt of the House and, therefore, a breach of parliamentary privilege.
In the course of the consideration of the matter on Wednesday and Thursday last, many assertions were made, particularly to this effect. Much argument was offered on the substance of the issue. Analogies were drawn between the estimates, on the one hand, and the budget, on the other. The issue of cabinet secrecy was discussed. There was also reference made to one of our own precedents of December 12, 1979.
Certain hon. members drew attention to the Dalton case, now a well-known British precedent on the issue of budget secrecy. The House should note that while an inquiry was undertaken by a select committee, the issue was not dealt with at Westminster as privilege.
Again, the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) offered an argument based on the conventions of cabinet secrecy. I have examined that argument carefully but I could not find in it any link between those very important conventions and the law of privilege. No matter how important the principle of cabinet secrecy may be-and I acknowledge the force of the hon. member's argument in that regard-the Chair has no duty to uphold that principle as it has to uphold the law of privilege.
Furthermore, the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) asked me to consider the consequences of a situation in which estimates were never tabled but simply published in the press. I do not know that I can consider that hypothetical case, except to refer the hon. member to his own assertion that-and I will quote his words-"until the estimates are formally filed, they are nothing more than a mere document. People who act on information in documents before they are filed do so at their own peril."
Finally, it was alleged that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) failed to take proper precautions in connection with the lock-up to guard against premature release. I cannot become involved in that argument. The minister must take his own responsibilities as, I am sure he does, and I do not sit in judgment upon the manner in which he or any other member fulfils his responsibilities.
In conclusion, I have simply dealt with the arguments offered by members in attempting to assist the Chair in finding whether or not a prima facie case of contempt had been committed. No argument was offered relating to the specific privileges set out so clearly in Chapters V, VII and VIII of the nineteenth edition of Erskine May, or those citations in Chapter X dealing extensively with breaches of privilege and contempt.
Therefore, I must conclude that a prima facie case has not been established as a result of which I could allow priority to the motion offered by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton.

March 4, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Rae


MR. RAE-ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES AND MISLEADING ANSWERS BY MINISTERS-MINISTERS' RESPONSIBILITIES FOR RIDINGS-RULING BY MADAM SPEAKER
Madam Speaker:: Again last Wednesday the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) on a question of privilege raised the matter of what he felt was a discrepancy between the answers which the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) had given to him on February 19 and the answers given to him by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) on February 18 respecting an earlier question of privilege which the hon. member had raised on February 18 relating to the appointment of ministers of the Crown responsible for individual ridings.
While the debate ranged over the field of representation within the cabinet of provincial, regional and constituency interests, 1 am charged with the responsibility of determining whether any statement of facts constitutes on its face sufficient evidence of breach of privilege or, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) put it, "whether there is enough of a case" that I should give the matter priority and ask the House to decide whether it should be sent to committee.
Everyone who participated in the debate seemed to agree that there was a tradition, and indeed a necessity, for the interests of regions to be represented in the cabinet. The concern of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, however, is that there was a representation contained in a letter sent to one of his constituents by the Solicitor General stating that he was responsible for the riding of Broadview-Greenwood in the cabinet, and that the Solicitor General gave one explanation of that letter while the Minister of Finance gave another. The hon. member in effect says that there is a discrepancy between the two statements and that there yet remains what amounts to interference or implication that the Solicitor General represents the riding of Broadview-Greenwood in the cabinet.
There was a full debate from all sides on this matter and during his intervention the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated that the only intention was to continue the tradition that the interests of regions of Canada were represented in cabinet, including those regions not represented in Parliament by the government party.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood will appreciate that while some forms of representation could amount to a breach of privilege or contempt-for example, May's nineteenth edition at page 147 tells us that to represent oneself to be a parliamentary agent without possessing the necessary qualifications would amount to contempt-before any representation could be considered by the House as privilege, there would have to be evidence of something being done quite clearly improperly. It is trite to say that while a member is elected to one riding, he represents the whole country. Can one deny that each member of the government represents all of Canada in cabinet, even though his or her departmental duties normally relate to a particular department? How that representation is done, however, is another matter. What has
happened here is that the choice used in this case has occasioned the hon. member to raise what is really a grievance rather than a matter of privilege.
During the course of debate on the matter it was suggested by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and for that matter the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that when the Prime Minister was advising the House that hon. members could get assistance from the regional representative in the cabinet, apart from departmental ministers, the Prime Minister may have somehow changed the form of the question period and that henceforth members may not only direct questions to the departmental minister but also to the regional minister in order to get some kind of assistance.
I must state very clearly in this regard that members will appreciate that, even if a document is tabled or if a statement is made in the House, this does not in itself alter the rules of the House, and that those rules will continue to be applied during question period as was traditionally done according to rules and practices of the House of Commons.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of Privy Council):: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, concerning the address which the President of the United States will deliver before this House next Wednesday, I have consulted the spokesmen for the opposition parties and we are agreed as follows:
That the address of the President of the United States, Mr. Ronald Reagan, to be delivered in the House Chamber on Wednesday, March 11, 1981, before members of the Senate and the House of Commons, together with all introductory and related speeches, be printed as an Appendix to the House of Commons Debates of that day and form part of the records of this House; and
That the President's speech, attendant and related remarks be made available to the media for transmission in the usual way by the House of Commons broadcast system.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
March 4, 1981

Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I gave Your Honour notice this morning about the matter, which is related to one on which you have ruled, but, since you did not specifically rule on the submission 1 intend to make with respect to the householder sent out by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), I want to raise it with you and ask you to consider it.
I have in my hand a copy of the parliamentary householder going out under the name of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre. On the inside of the cover page there is a picture of the hon. member. It says, "John Evans presenting a government multiculturalism grant."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: My first conclusion from that was that the minister politically responsible for the riding of Ottawa Centre was clearly falling down on the job since in my riding it is the minister responsible for Broadview-Greenwood who does the handing out of cheques and not the individual member of Parliament. My first conclusion was that clearly there is a minister who is not doing his job in Ottawa Centre. I think it should be drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that some of his ministers are not living up to their political responsibilities.
I want to raise this question in all seriousness in the context of a decision which was referred to Your Honour, but to which I have not seen Your Honour refer, and that is the decision of Mr. Speaker Jerome given on December 10, 1979, as recorded at page 2180 and 2181 of Hansard, with respect to a related question.


Mr. Stollery:: He was fired a week later.


Bob Rae: The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) says he was fired a week later. I think that shows the respect for occupants of the Chair held by members of the Liberal Party.
I simply want to refer to that judgment and the problem in that case and relate it to the problem in this case. I remind Your Honour that the problem in that case was that the government of the day had established a series of committees which were House committees but which were composed entirely of members of the governing party. Members of the opposition were denied access. Those committees were partially paid for out of public funds.
I want to refer Your Honour to some things Mr. Speaker Jerome said. He said that while he would not rule on the actual question of privilege, he did want to refer to the practice which was involved. He referred specifically to the practice. He said:
i refer to the practice of supporting from public funds a committee composed of members of any one caucus.
Privilege-Mr. Rae
Then he went on to say:
The support of public funds, where applied to parliamentary activities, ought,
I think, to apply across the floor of Parliament, particularly so since-
Then he went on to say something else, but the critical point was that the support of public funds, where applied to parliamentary activities, ought to apply across the floor of Parliament.
Furthermore, on page 2181 Mr. Speaker Jerome is reported to have said, and I quote:
-in my opinion the greater wisdom would be to ensure that in every case where this is done, where public funds are used to support such a committee even if it is an informal committee, such a committee consist of members of more than one party in the House. I think that is a wise practice to follow.
It seems to me that by analogy something is happening here which reflects on my ability as a Member of Parliament to have access to information with respect to public funds, that members of the governing party have a privilege and a right which is denied to me as a member of an opposition party, that members of the government party are being publicly funded, that the publicity for these activities is being publicly funded and that the publicity for these activities is directly related to householders sent out under the guise of being non-partisan publications which are supposed to provide information. All Members of Parliament distribute them, and yet the kind of publicity that is granted to hon. members opposite is not granted to members of the opposition parties.
I want to make quite clear why I resent that implication and also why I think you, Madam Speaker, have an obligation to provide protection to members of the opposition when they find themselves in this position. I think Your Honour has an obligation, if not to comment on whether a question of privilege is involved, to follow the ruling of Mr. Speaker Jerome and at least comment on the wisdom of a practice whereby members of the governing party are given a right and a privilege with respect to public funds and parliamentary publications which is not granted to any member of the opposition.


Erik Nielsen: Denied.


Bob Rae: Not only has it not been granted but, the last time he was involved in this House with this question of privilege, the Prime Minister explicitly said he allowed that kind of thing to go on. He says it is a practice which he regards as a good practice. The Prime Minister gave two reasons for saying it was a good practice. He said it was a good practice because it was important that the presence of the federal government be known when grants are being handed out.
I want to put clearly on the record why I reject and resent that argument as much as 1 reject and resent anything I have heard about this since I have become a Member of Parliament. That argument implies that to be a good federalist one has to be a Liberal. That is something which goes to the very heart of this country. There are no second-class Canadians in this House of Commons, there are no second-class patriots in this House of Commons and there are no second-class federalists in this House of Commons. I think a remark like that by the Prime Minister goes to the very core of what it means to be a

Privilege-Mr. Rae
federal Member of Parliament. There is no reason in the world why the governing party should be able to take unilateral credit for grants and programs which are under the authority of the Parliament of Canada while other Members of Parliament are denied that same right.
The Prime Minister says this is the real world. Let me tell him about the real world of politics in my constituency. The real world of politics in my constituency is that when there is an opening of a senior citizens' building I am not allowed on the platform because I am not a member of the governing party. That is the real world of politics. Do hon. members not believe that the residents of my constituency resent that implication and resent what happened?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Suffer.


Bob Rae: That is why it seems to me if Your Honour is not prepared to find that there is a question of privilege involved here, Your Honour should at least very carefully consider the nature of the practice involved whereby public funds are being used in a totally partisan way and whereby members are told that the only condition under which they will be allowed to take the federal case to the people of Canada is if they happen to be members of the Liberal Party of Canada. That is a corruption of the political process, but it is also an insult to every opposition member of the House.
With respect to this particular question of privilege, Your Honour has a specific case here in which we are told that the practice with respect to the information which we receive as Members of Parliament regarding grants given out in our ridings is different for a member of the Liberal Party than it is for a member of the opposition.
With respect to the wisdom of the practice, I remind Your Honour that when this same practice was brought to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), she fired her assistant who was said to have been responsible. I would simply like Your Honour to consider very carefully and comment on a similar practice whereby a mul-ticulturalism grant is given out in the riding of Ottawa Centre, and it is the hon. member for Ottawa Centre who takes the credit for the fact that the grant is going out, but when a multiculturalism grant is given out in the riding of Broadview-Greenwood, the Member of Parliament for Broadview-Green-wood is not even told it is happening. If that is not a discrepancy, an abuse of process and a practice which affects my rights, not as a member of the New Democratic Party but as a Member of Parliament, then I suggest I do not know what is. If we cannot appeal to Your Honour to comment on the wisdom of this practice and to see that this kind of abuse does not go on, to whom can we make such an appeal?


Madam Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) rising on this question of privilege?


Walter David Baker: Yes I am, Madam Speaker. I listened with open ears to the argument just made,
and I have to cast my mind back to about a year or so ago in order to judge the crocodile tears of the hon. member and his complaint about being left out of the decisions of the Liberal Party; decisions on which he may be left in now. But I do not want that recollection of mine to detract in any way from the importance of the issue he raises and which was raised before.
You will recall, Madam Speaker, I had undertaken to write you about the judgment of Mr. Speaker Jerome telling you about the practice which had been adopted on another day on a matter which he considered improper at that time on the basis of precedents, although he was wrong. He felt compelled to comment on that alleged impropriety in order to protect members of the House. There were other members of the New Democratic Party who were involved at that time. I was going to bring that comment by Mr. Speaker and that precedent to your attention, Madam Speaker. However, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) has saved me the necessity of doing it by mentioning precisely the precedent and the judgment to which I referred at that time.
The practice to which he referred is one which should not exist in the House of Commons. I do not know whether that is the grant which is alleged to have lain around in the office of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) before he was ready to present it. I understand it had come through the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), as the political minister, and was lying in the hon. member's office. Although this may not have been the same grant, it was one of the cases. This is the kind of practice that should be frowned upon. The Speaker's role-and I say it with respect-is to keep order, but it is also to protect the proprieties which should exist between members of the House of Commons. No government, regardless of its stripe, can make fish of some members and fowl of others. That is the kind of practice being referred to by the hon. member.
The precedent which I wanted to draw to your attention, Madam Speaker, has now been referred to, and this will save me the necessity of making the argument. I think that anyone who listens to this debate would be moved to suggest that, although such conduct is not illegal-no one would ever argue that-it is most inappropriate and should be condemned. I say with respect that it should be condemned from the Chair.


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I rise to try to clarify to some extent the accusations which have been made, both by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) with regard to this case. It is not the only case, because I have done this on a number of occasions, and I will tell you, Madam Speaker, exactly what I have done.
In dealing with my constituents I come from time to time across a group of people who tell me they have made an application to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Fleming) or to another minister for a grant under a particular granting program. They want to know what the status of that grant is and when the cheque will be coming if it has been approved. I come back to my office and call the minister
March 4, 1981

involved, asking him whether he has received a grant application, whether it is in order, whether it has been approved and, if so, when the cheque will be issued. In the case to which reference was made relating to the picture, I was asked to do that. I then committed myself to my constituent, who is a member of that organization, to check into the matter. I called the minister's office and the minister said that, yes, in fact, the grant had been approved and the cheque was being processed now. I asked him where the cheque was because those people were badly in need of the funds-it was an organizational grant for some $41,000-and I asked whether we could get the cheque to them as fast as possible. The minister said that he was preparing to present that cheque but, if it was urgent, I could deliver it to them. I said, "Yes, please", and then I called the organization and said, "Will you please pick up the cheque in my office, or we will put it in the mail", to which the organization said clearly that they preferred to have it sooner rather than later and not risk it being sent by the mails-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leslie Evans: As a result, the secretary-not the president or any other official of the organization-was sent to my office by the organization, and I delivered the cheque on that very same day it had been delivered to me by the minister-


Erik Nielsen: With the cameras and the press present.


John Leslie Evans: At the same time I called our own caucus research people and asked that a photographer be sent there for that purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leslie Evans: The point is that if you are concerned about your constituents, then you make it a practice of finding out what are your constituents' needs, and if they have a concern, you look into it for them. I did just that, and I have no regrets whatsoever. In fact, I will continue to do the same thing in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I would just like to speak for a moment on this subject and refer to a statement by the hon. member from the NDP who said that if this is happening it is a corruption of the political process, or something to that effect. Naturally I would agree with those remarks. Apparently it is happening because he has produced evidence in one case, and I am sure there are others who can produce similar evidence. However, I believe in fairness-and this is probably the first time I will have said anything good about members on the other side of the House-


An hon. Member:: Easy.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I must be sick today. Perhaps what is done in my constituency could be adopted as a model for other constituencies. For example, the Minister of State for Trade (Mr. Privilege-Mr. Rae
Lumley) came down to speak to the chamber of commerce in my constituency last week and announced the allocation of grants for the city of Brockville and the town of Gananoque. He then made the statement that these grants were due directly to representations made by the member for Leeds-Grenville. I thought that was being very fair. I would like to say that there are two sides to this coin.


An hon. Member:: They are afraid of you.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: In any event, I suggest that if all ridings could be treated the same as mine in this regard, there would be no complaints, but apparently they are not. The answer is that if all cheques for these grants could go through the sitting member, regardless of his political affiliation, that may well resolve the problem. For example, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin)-whose attention was drawn to this-was involved in a similar situation. She made a statement at that time that in the future she would forward cheques through the sitting member regardless of politics. Someone cut that off somewhere along the line. I think if that practice were followed, and the other ministers did the same thing, no one would have cause for complaint.
I agree with the member for the NDP that we are all here because the people in our own ridings elected us. We are here, whether we are Liberal, Conservative or NDP, to represent all the people in the riding, and when a cheque is presented, it is not a Liberal Party gift, it is not a government gift, it is a grant which is allocated, supposedly, regardless of the politics which exist in that riding. That is the way it should be.
Perhaps I should sit down now. I said too much that is favourable about the government, which I never should do.


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, I will not prolong this discussion for long, but, since I seem to be involved to some degree, it might be useful if I participated in the discussion for a moment.
I would like to argue, if I may, that, of course, this may well be an airing of a grievance by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), but it is not a legitimate question of privilege. I do not believe, and I think the case has been made by others on similar questions of privilege in recent weeks, that the members' privileges to perform in this House and to perform for their constituents are being abrogated.
I wanted to make something clear which I think has been passed over. As the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, I must make decisions on all grants and contributions. It is finally my neck on whether I decide in favour or against on the establishment of policy, subject to cabinet concurrence, and so on. As such, when any grant or contribution goes to any particular group of Canadians or to a constituency, I am responsible. I could lose my job, I could be fired or I could be criticized by any member of the House if I have not performed that duty in a proper manner.

March 4, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Rae
If I am responsible for the decision making on that grant, surely 1 should be responsible for the decision on how that grant reaches a group of Canadians. I am subject to grievances, concerns or attacks here for the way I do that. However, it seems to me natural enough, as a minister in a government on this side of the House, if I cannot deliver a grant to a particular group, to ask a colleague to do it. It is very foolish and very naive if someone suggests that that is inappropriate.
I take on the responsibility. We are political parties in this House. I am open to criticism at any time by someone from another party that I do not have the right to deliver that cheque or ask somebody to do it on my behalf. However, I want to put that into context because I think there has been some misunderstanding. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) pointed out earlier in a similar discussion with the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, different ministers have different approaches to this particular issue. I am just trying to be open and candid about my approach to my particular responsibility.
There was a misunderstanding in my office of policy in the sending of cheques. If I or a colleague on my behalf delivers a cheque, particularly when an event is taking place, and it is done with a note, as is the practice in my office, it seems to me it is done in a non-partisan manner; I am sure I will hear some hee-haws on the far side to some degree. But it is done on my behalf. We wish them well; we hope they will be successful; we ask them to live up to Treasury Board requirements in accountability.


Some hon. Members:: Hee-haw!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: As predicted, they have reacted, Madam Speaker. At any rate, it is my view of my ministerial responsibility that if those cheques cannot be presented by me-and I am often invited to do that-or a colleague on my behalf, then I should send them directly. It was a misunderstanding in my office which allowed that incident to happen in the Broadview-Greenwood riding.
In the case of a colleague who came to me, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), he asked that I accelerate the presentation of the cheque. Was it going through all right? Were there problems? They needed their money; the event was coming up; he pressed me on that. I telephoned and asked, "Is there any problem? Where is it?" It was brought over.


Mr. McKnight:: And you gave him the cheque.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Yes, I gave him the cheque, or he called them and they gave it to him in the office.
I make no apology for my colleagues; I am responsible. I do not expect hon. members on the other side to lean over backwards in kindness to me in carrying out my duty. I expect them to be vigilant. Some may be surprised that I say so, but there are elements of politics, party controversy and confrontation in this House. I am a member of the government. I am one of the representatives of this particular party on the
government side of the House at this time. I am responsible for the decisions I make on grants. I am open to any criticism by any member. If I live under those conditions, I think I have the right to select who I believe can best represent me when there is a cheque to be presented; I had to make a decision on that matter.


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I should like to take just a moment to underline the terms in which the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) addressed this issue to Your Honour and to underline the fact that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) agreed with that position.
Neither of these members has argued that there is what we would call a prima facie case of privilege on which Your Honour would have to rule in that respect, but they have argued that there is a clear analogy between what has been done now and what was done in the latter part of 1979 which produced the statement of Mr. Speaker Jerome.
He said clearly that he did not feel he could call it a question of privilege, but that there was something upon which he needed to comment because it was a case of public money, money voted under the authority of Parliament, being used in a way to bring advantage to one political party. I would urge very strongly that Your Honour study that decision or statement by Mr. Speaker Jerome and give some weight to the suggestion that there is a strong analogy.
I am very sorry, as we all are, that the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House is away from Parliament because of illness. I wish he could be in on this discussion because it was he who raised the question of privilege in the first place, back in 1979. It was supported by quite a few others; a lot of time and thought were put into it. Most of us think that the comments of Mr. Speaker Jerome were very well put and that perhaps similar comments should be made again.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I see that you are about to make a ruling. Since my colleagues opposite acknowledge that there is no question of privilege involved, I would simply ask that you settle the matter so that we may go on to the orders of the day. There is absolutely no basis for a question of privilege. They have referred to a ruling made by a former Speaker of the House. With all due respect, I must say that the Standing Orders are there, but it is not up to the Chair to make them. Madam Speaker, your responsibility is to apply them. The grievance has nothing to do with a rule or a practice and I submit that we ought to proceed with the business of the House.


Madam Speaker:: Indeed I was about to say that I will take the matter under advisement. I only want hon. members to note that those who rose in this debate referred to a practice. But our practices are not always the object of specific rules for
March 4, 1981

the House. Just the same I will review the matter. However, a practice is something which lends itself to very different interpretations and the House will understand that I would be in a very bad position to give an interpretation of it in light of the Standing Orders of the House.
However, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) recalled a precedent of the former occupant of the Chair.
1 believe 1 remember that precedent. It has to do with public funds which allegedly were spent for so-called parliamentary committees or caucus committees. He commented at length on the way we should look upon the expenditure of public funds for the establishment of parliamentary committees or caucus committees. I am not sure an analogy can be drawn between the two situations, but since the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood is usually so logical in his arguments I cannot simply dismiss the serious argument he has made before the House. Therefore I will examine this question.
As regards that part of the intervention of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) wherein he urged me to reflect upon a comment made by my predecessor, I want to say to him that the first time he spoke about that I was somewhat ill at ease because, after all, I had just made a ruling and I had the impression that under the request to reflect further upon a precedent or a ruling made by my predecessor, the hon. member was very careful but I had a vague impression that he and some of this colleagues were questioning one of the rulings I had made.
Again today he has asked me to reflect and comment. I want to tell him right away that I will refuse to comment on hypothetical situations. And if in a given circumstance my predecessor deemed appropriate to make comments rather than a ruling, personally I would hesitate to comment on situations which are not clearly put to me for a ruling to be made. Still, the comment which was made will certainly assist me in the consideration of the question of privilege which has just been raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to comment on your remarks and your ruling in any adverse way. I am rising on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). There should be no misunderstanding in the mind of the Chair, as there is none in mine, that he was addressing himself to a specific question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae). It was specific enough; it was not a hypothetical matter.
Second, he invited the Chair to comment on the propriety of the specific question raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, as your predecessor had occasion to comment and did in fact comment upon a similar question which was raised. There should be no misunderstanding, which perhaps the Chair might have had, about the intention of the hon. member
Supplementary Estimates
for Nepean-Carleton when he made his presentation on this specific matter.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, naturally I concur with the statement made by my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I want to make it clear, Madam Speaker, that I was not asking you to reconsider a judgment which you had made just previously. I listened to the judgment. I suppose many counsel who appear before judges from time to time can be unhappy with the decisions but not disagree with them. Or, perhaps I wished the Speaker might have decided otherwise, but I recognize the rules of the House of Commons, that your word is supreme in these matters. My comment was not directed at your previous ruling. I want to make that absolutely clear.


Madam Speaker:: I want to reassure the hon. member that what I was saying in French was and perhaps there was something lost in the translation while he was asking me to reflect on a commentary that is, the last time, I was a bit uneasy. I was referring to that in order to tell him now that, in general, I would not be inclined to comment on hypothetical situations. I am not referring to this one today. It is clear to me that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton was speaking precisely about the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I would like to table a letter that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) sent to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) following a reply he gave him during question period.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (C), 1980-81 REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEES
[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (C) of sums required for the service of Canada for the Fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, was presented by Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Madam Speaker to the House.
[Stage Direction]
March 4, 1981
Supplementary Estimates
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was wondering if the President of the Treasury Board could indicate if he intends to make a statement with respect to the supplementary estimates which have just been tabled.


Yvon Pinard: That is not the practice, no.


Donald James Johnston: No, Madam Speaker. There is no lock-up and no statement with respect to these supplementary estimates.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Orders 58(15) and 59, 1 move:
That the Supplementary Estimates (C), 1980-81, tabled this day, be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows:
Madam Speaker, since this is a very long motion which has been shown to the other House leaders, and which merely follows the allocations made with the Main Estimates and the previous Supplementary Estimates, may I suggest that Your Honour put the question as if it had been read?


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture Agriculture Votes 5c, 20c, 25c and 50c To the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture Secretary of State Votes 15c, 20c, 30c, 35c, 45c, 55c, 70c, L76c, 85c, 90c and 100c
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence External Affairs Votes 10c, LI7c, 20c, 25c, L30c, L40c and L45c National Defence Vote 10c
To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Finance Votes lc, 17c and LI8c
Industry, Trade and Commerce Votes lc, 7c, 8c, 10c, 20c, 25c, L32c, 56c and 65c
National Revenue Votes lc and 5c To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry Environment Votes 5c, 15c and 25c Fisheries and Oceans Votes lc and 5c To the Standing Committee on Health. Welfare and Social Affairs National Health and Welfare Votes lc, 15c, 25c and 30c To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes lc, 15c, 20c, 30c, L35c, L56c and 61c
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Justice Vote lc Solicitor General Vote 5c
To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration Employment and Immigration Votes lc, 5c, 20c and 25c Labour Votes lc, 5c and 10c
To the Standing Committee on Management and Members Services Parliament Vote 5c
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates Governor General Vote lc Parliament Votes Icand 10c Privy Council Votes 5c and 15c
Supply and Services Vote 5c
To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works
Energy, Mines and Resources Votes 5c, 15c, 50c, 65c, 70c and LI07c
Public Works Votes 5c, 10c, 20c, 25c and 40c To the Standing Committee on Regional Development
Regional Economic Expansion Votes lc, 10c, 45c and 50c To the Standing Committee on Transport
Transport Votes 10c, 15c, 36c, 65c, 70c, 75c and 92c


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Is the hon. member for York-Peel rising on a point of order?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No, Madam Speaker. I am rising to speak on the motion. The reason I wanted to speak on the motion is that we have not seen the Supplementary Estimates today. Unfortunately, that is due to the fact that we had no lock-up, that we had no previous opportunity-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is the hon. member not aware of Standing Order 59 which says-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We have a Speaker's ruling. She is hearing me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The standing order says this should be decided without amendment or debate.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No. I have been recognized.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member sought the floor on a point of order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is probably quicker than I to recognize that the hon. member was debating. If he is debating I am afraid I cannot hear him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He said he was not on a point of order, that he wanted to speak to the motion.


Madam Speaker:: Is the hon. member for York-Peel now rising on a point of order?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes, Madam Speaker. My point is that if we review the motion which is now before the House proposing that various things be referred to standing committees, the one item which is not referred to is the Treasury Board estimates, because presumably there are no Supplementary Estimates (C) touching on the Treasury Board. I think this is most unfortunate because it will mean that we have no opportunity now to question the minister. He has declined to make a statement in the House. Presumably these are the last estimates he will be tabling with respect to spending for 1981.
The thrust of my point of order is simply to request if the government, through the House leader or perhaps through the President of the Treasury Board, would consider having a special reference made, for example, to the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee of his Main Estimates so that we could have a final, if you like, discussion and inquiry with him in respect of the 1981 fiscal year estimates.
March 4, 1981


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the alleged point of order raised by my colleague is actually a question, a request on his part for us to consent to include in Supplementary Estimates (C) an item which would allow him to question the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) in committee. I remind him, Madam Speaker, that the procedure established for the consideration of supply provides that the main estimates be sent to the various committees for three months. We have just tabled the main estimates for the coming fiscal year. So, if the hon. member wants to ask the President of the Treasury Board questions relating to the estimates for the year which is about to end, 1 think he has had ample opportunity to do so in the appropriate committee. In fact, since we have had two elections in less than a year, he has had nine months instead of three to do so. Now, we are not forced to do so; as he has said himself, no item relates to the Treasury Board in Supplementary Estimates (C) and we do not have to include such an item. We will consider his request, but as I said, he has had more time than usual in the last year. Even though we have complied with the Standing Orders, I will nevertheless discuss his request with the President of the Treasury Board and report to him in due time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, if I may speak again on the same point of order, which is prompted by the House leader's comments. He says he will accept my word that the Treasury Board estimates are not referred to in Supplementary Estimates (C) which have just been tabled. It is not my word, it is his own motion. If he has not read his own motion I find it most amazing that he is proposing it.
My second point. Madam Speaker, is that the estimates he is referring to are next year's estimates-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the hon. member is entering into debate. His point of order is not justified.
I must ask the House if it is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion of the President of the Privy Council.


Walter David Baker: On a very short point of order, Madam Speaker. Can the President of the Privy Council assure the House that the references are in accordance with the usual practices and that there is nothing unusual about the committees to which the various items would be transmitted?


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Madam Speaker. In so far as 1 know everything is in accordance with usual practice. I assume my colleague had the opportunity in advance to look at the motion, and with his experience he would know that it is in accordance with practice.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Order Paper Questions

[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. 22, 1,001, 1,971, 1,982, 2,060 and 2,090.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: What are the names of all persons who authorized the commencement of the Featherbed File including any person in the RCMP, the public service or any government branch and the name of any person who ordered the file to become dormant or made the decision that it become dormant in 1974-75 and specifically, did the fact that the file was first raised in the House of Commons by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville at the approximate time the file became dormant have any connection with the state of dormancy?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: The names of all persons who authorized the commencement of the Featherbed File including any person in the RCMP, the public service or any government branch are kept confidential for reasons of national security, pursuant to the government's policy on access to information. The name of any person who ordered the file to become dormant or made the decision that it become dormant is also kept confidential for the same reason.
The fact that the file was first raised in the House of Commons by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville had no connection with its state of dormancy.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did RCMP Commissioner Robert Simmonds deliver an address, lecture, etc. to Toronto members of the RCMP and, if so (a) was it delivered at the Jarvis Street Divisional Headquarters in Toronto (b) how many members attended the address and how many remained until he had concluded his remarks?
2.	Is there any indication of a morale problem in the RCMP Toronto area?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. RCMP Commissioner Robert Simmonds attended a general meeting of south western Ontario area command security service members on February 8, 1980, at which he did address the members.
(a)	The meeting was held at the RCMP "O" division headquarters, 225 Jarvis Street, Toronto.
(b)	Approximately 240 members attended this general meeting. Approximately 232 members remained until the meeting ended, the other members had to leave to facilitate previous transportation arrangements.
7892

March 4, 1981
Order Paper Questions
2.	There is no indication of a morale problem in the RCMP in the Toronto area.


Mr. Knowles: 1.	In each month during 1980, how many persons were in receipt of the spouse's allowance provided under the Old Age Security Act and how many were (a) male (b) female?
2.	In each month during 1980, what was the average amount paid to the younger spouse where both spouses were alive and what was the average amount paid to the surviving spouse where the older spouse had died?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1 and 2. Please see list below.
Number of Persons in Receipt of the Spouse's Allowance Provided Under the Old Age Security Act 1. Number of Spouse's 2. Average Amount Paid to Allowance Recipients Each Spouse's Allowance Recipient		
January, 1980	79.071	SI 64.09February	80,350	168.82March	81,024	168.54April	71,016	170.90May	75,562	162.16June	80,122	163.91July	82,571	181.27August	83,095	180.16September	83,563	178.40October	83,497	185.32November	83,957	186.48December	84,333	186.10
Note: I (a) and (b). Information to indicate the sex of spouse's allowance recipients is not available on a regular basis. However, information compiled for the month of June, 1980 only, indicates there were 6,834 male and 73,288 female recipients of the spouse's allowance.
2. The average amount paid to spouse's allowance recipients is not available broken down to show average amount paid to the younger spouse when both spouses were alive and surviving spouse where the older spouse had died.


Mr. Knowles: 1.	What was the total amount on the books of the pension funds of the Canadian National Railways as at December 31 (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980?
2.	What rate of interest was earned on such funds during (a) 1978 (b) 1979
(c) 1980?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the funds during the year ended December 31 (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980?
4.	What amount was added to the funds from employee contributions during the year ended December 31 (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980?
5.	What amount was added to the funds as regular or current contributions by the Canadian National Railways during the year ended December 31 (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980?
6.	What amount was added to the funds in any other way by the Canadian National Railways during the year ended December 31 (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980?
7.	Is money owed to the above funds by the Canadian National Railways and, if so, how much and what arrangements are being made to meet such debt?
8.	What was the total amount paid from the above funds in pensions during the year ended December 31 (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
1.	(a) $1,815,514,274;
(b)	2,073,487,974;
(c)	2,419,762,284.
2.	To calculate the yield we have used the Statistics Canada formula, under which the investment is deemed to be opening investments plus closing investments, less earnings, divided by two. On this basis, the yield is:
(a)	7.89 per cent;
(b)	11.22 per cent;
(c)	12.75 per cent.
3.	(a) $128,113,932;
(b)	201,508,600;
(c)	264,587,072.
Net
4.	(a) $56,619,429;
(b)	64,522,094;
(c)	69,582,060.
5.	(a) $135,637,393;
(b)	139,664,761;
(c)	141,201,135.
6.	(a) $20,050,500;
(b)	45,751,900;
(c)	41,741,700.
7.	At December 31, 1980, Canadian National Railways owed $6,573,652 representing December items. This amount was paid in January, 1981.
8.	(a) $140,376,729;
(b)	155,402,954;
(c)	169,429,815.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce taking special steps to promote the quantity of bananas imported annually?
2.	Are any agencies, such as the National Research Council, at the request of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, studying the question as to whether bananas could be grown in large quantities in Canada in artificially created climatical conditions with the use of such things as solar energy?
3.	Is it the policy of the government by promoting the growth and importation of bananas that Canada become known at some future date as the world's largest banana republic?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. No.
March 4, 1981

2.	The department has not requested any such studies from any agency.
3.	It is not the policy of the government to promote the development of banana cultivation in Canada.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Was a decision taken in 1980 to co-ordinate the activities of several ministries in Canada's embassies in other countries?
2.	Was the decision intended to reduce the number of personnel in the embassies and, if so, how many positions were cut?
3.	Was there a prior study to ascertain the extent of any possible communications problems between ministries that might result from such a decision?
4.	Which ministries with personnel in embassies in other countries were not covered by any co-ordinating activity, if any?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. No. Co-ordination is the responsibility of the head of post who is held accountable for the programs of departments in his or her area of jurisdiction. This is recognized and accepted by all departments concerned and is not altered by the Prime Minister's decision on consolidation of the foreign service announced on March 20, 1980.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.


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


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask when we might expect an answer to No. 681. This question has been on the Order Paper for several weeks. It should not be a difficult question to answer. I would like to get this information in connection with studies carried out in Banff National Park at a reasonably early date.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I will try to get the information as quickly as possible. I cannot guarantee any particular date for any given answer, but I will do my best.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 40 is acceptable to the government. I ask that the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers stand.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 40 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions for Papers


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 40-Mr. Herbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all regulations and instructions in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, concerning the publication of tender calls for construction work, including all references to the amount and form of deposits that may accompany such tenders.
Motion agreed to.
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Briefly, Madam Speaker, I would like to refer to motion No. 38, which is a notice for the production of papers in regard to an air crash some years ago, which 1 put on the Order Paper for very valid reasons; the accident resulted in the death of a minister of national defence.
I was advised subsequently that the papers were missing, both by the National Archives and the Department of National Defence. Subsequent to that, I was contacted by the Privy Council office, which said that they had apparently been located. The papers are quite voluminous. The Privy Council office has made photocopies and is prepared to furnish them to me, but has pointed out that to do so would require that they be translated into both official languages, which is estimated to take approximately eight months and would obviously cost the taxpayers a great deal of money.
It is not my intention that this should happen, and the Privy Council office has suggested that if I am prepared to withdraw the motion, it would furnish photocopies of all the papers to me without having to go through the procedure of having them tabled in the House. So if the parliamentary secretary could assure the House that that meets with the approval of the government, I would be quite prepared to withdraw the motion later today.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, this is the first knowledge that I have had of any arrangements being made between the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) and the Department of National Defence. I will consult with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne), because any document to be tabled in the House must be tabled in both official languages, as you well know, Madam Speaker. However, if a compromise can be worked out between the hon. member and the department, then I am sure that will meet with the satisfaction of all members. I will get back to him later.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: It was not the Department of National Defence, although I realize that the ultimate responsibility might lie there, but it was the Privy Council office which made the proposal and dealt with my office. I suggest that the parliamentary secretary talk to the appropriate officials in the Privy Council office who have proposed this solution.


David Michael Collenette: Yes, I will undertake to do that. It is obvious that the hon. member has better access than I to some officials in the Privy Council office.

March 4, 1981
The Constitution


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise with regard to motions Nos. 42 and 43 which were filed January 21, regarding correspondence, telegrams and communications between cabinet ministers and/or their present staff and Amax Limited, and any correspondence, telegrams or communications exchanged between Mr. John Aird and cabinet ministers and /or their past or present staff regarding permits for Amax Limited at Alice Arms.
I recognize that some of these documents do in fact exist. There has been a substantial period of time enabling them to be put together and presented to me through the House. My concern is that the mining company now proposes to start dumping on April 1, just a few weeks from now. The Chairman of the scientific panel that was struck by the government, Dr. Winston Mayer, has now resigned, and it is extremely important that these documents be provided as soon as possible. I wonder if I could get a date? I had filed to have them provided by March 2, 1981. I think a couple of months should be sufficient time. I wonder if I could have some direction as to whether or not those will be available prior to the mine starting to dump on April 1.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any of the circumstances arising from this notice of motion for the production of papers, only the fact that it is on the Order Paper. As I said in reply to the hon. member opposite, who questioned me about getting answers to questions, I cannot guarantee any particular answer will be given on any given day because of the time it takes to prepare such answers; but I will look into this particular matter.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
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.
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to conclude my remarks of last evening on the constitutional debate.
Since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his government have been in power, and this has been much too long, Canada has suffered. Our economy has suffered. We have massive unemployment, inflation and high interest rates. We
have had metric conversion and gun control imposed on us, along with a bilingualism policy not necessary in many areas of Canada. We have had an energy program imposed on us that reduces greatly our chances of energy self-sufficiency and leads us steadily down the road to socialism. We are still waiting for a budget to deal with the real issues facing Canadians.
We hear the need for the government constitutional proposals from a party that has done much to cause division and bad feelings across this country, from a party that cannot be said adequately to represent the various regions of Canada yet seems intent on forcing unpopular programs on the people. We hear reports of public deception by the Prime Minister and his government when they are apparently less than candid with the people of Canada. Many Canadians fought and died for our country and our system and they and their ancestors and the free world allies would likely be a little skeptical if they were told their system needed change by someone who perhaps did not take the opportunity to really stand up for his country at the time.
Mr. Speaker, the present government, on its record, has not earned the right even to consider unilateral patriation of an amended Constitution. The provinces and the people of Canada have had enough abuse from the present federal government, and any attempt by it to do something so controversial with something so very important must be viewed with suspicion.
Canada is a lot of things to a lot of people. It is our home. Few of us would want to leave here for anywhere else in the world, and at the same time many from other countries want to come and do come here to live in Canada. Canada is renowned for freedom, fair play and respect for the rule of law. Canada is ten provinces and two territories with a host of people from all backgrounds spread from sea to sea. We have an abundance of resources and much hope for the future. We have come a long way and we have a bright future ahead. Much of what we have today and our potential for the future stems from what we had in the past. That is a good system, an enduring system that is based on a constitutional monarchy and a democratic parliamentary system of government.
All of the good qualities that make up Canada did not happen in 54 years or 114 years, but evolved over centuries with the help of precedent, borrowing from systems that have been proven over time. We enjoy our rights. Through the parliamentary system, the common law and the Crown, we must ensure our time-honoured system of government prevails to serve us for the future. We must protect our system from slipping toward a socialistic system of government, as some feel we are heading towards. We must ensure that Canada does not become a unitary state as some feel we are heading towards. We must oppose these ideologies and work to preserve and improve the parliamentary federation we have now.
We must not forget that the government serves the people; it is not that the people serve the government. At least, that is how it has been in Canada and the free world and is exactly what we should work to preserve. Rights are not granted by
March 4, 1981

any government but are created with the individual human being as inalienable rights. The people always have these rights regardless of how different governments approach them.
We have inherited a strong heritage in our system that respects and enforces rights and freedoms and, whether written down or not, we must ensure that we continue to observe these in the future. We must guard against those whose ideologies are suspect and who want to change Canada, whether for their own self-interest or the interest of a larger over-all philosophy in opposition to that of our traditions.
This can be done gradually under a smokescreen of rhetoric and charisma and that is exactly what Canadians must not be fooled by. Look back and look ahead and then look at the last 12 or 13 years our country has been under the spell of the present Prime Minister. Think of the self-imposed rush to change our time honoured Constitution and ask, "Why?".
Mr. Speaker, we cannot be in a blind rush to let the present government do any more real or potential harm to the future of our country. I am pleased to be part of a system which wants sincerely to maintain and build a better Canada by building on our present system and its strengths, not by unilateral and divisive change for the sake of change.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution and I am very pleased that we are, at long last, bringing our own Constitution under our own control inside Canada. I believe that most of my constituents support this course of action as well. I am, therefore, honoured to take part and to make my contribution in this debate today. I believe in a strong Canada and I believe we need a strong federal government to have a strong country.
During Quebec's referendum campaign almost a year ago, a most impressive array of prominent people made pledges to people there about Canada's future. Members of Parliament, provincial premiers, municipal and local leaders, volunteer associations and service clubs, churches and schools, and private citizens all joined together to tell referendum voters that Canada is a vibrant country, a country ready to change, a country ready to remove irritants and a country ready to restore to everyone the full benefits of national unity.
Our debate today is a natural continuation of that campaign and of those pledges. We are acting on those promises. We are recognizing in these initial steps that we need the symbolism of self-control in our political life. We need the protections and the limits contained in the charter. We need the flexibility and the promise for change represented by the amending formula.
People in my part of Canada do not automatically associate this Constitution with that referendum, but, once reminded, they recognize we did indeed make promises that we must now fulfill. We know that honest people who voted with the majority for Canada now want us to hold up our end of the bargain. We also know that there are others who voted with the
The Constitution
minority against Canada who are waiting in ambush in case we stumble or fail.
In a broader sense, people everywhere know that our work now is summing up a long and sometimes tedious history, a history of debate going back 50 years. Let us look at this summing up. Let us look at what we are offering. Our governments will continue to follow the guidelines contained in the old BNA Act. We need to alter these relationships very soon to get rid of the irritations created by an old fashioner document. We are not doing that, however, at this stage. Those refinements can come in the future after specific concrete negotiations. It is enough for now to settle on these familiar foundations.
These needed changes will happen soon, however, because we will be able to negotiate knowing that amendments are possible. The formula we are proposing offers everyone adequate safeguards. On the one hand, changes will be so politically challenging that the federal government will be forced to find suitable compromises. On the other hand, we will have enough flexibility to ensure that every provincial government sticks to the point during the negotiations and seeks the same compromises and the same balances. This gives us the chance to focus our future negotiations and to know that change is possible. Each side has some clout, so neither side can risk negotiating in bad faith. We have the opportunity to bring renewal and progress to our federation, to adapt to the future in good faith.
I believe in a strong central government for Canada. The alternative proposal for an amending formula put forward by the official opposition would greatly weaken the federal government.
Our formula allows debate, decisions by each province, regional and provincial approval, and then approval and application right across the country. Their formula would allow different proposals to have a different impact in different provinces, the famous checkerboard effect. Some critics have made a strong, emotional case for this idea and have argued that everything from traffic laws to pension reform is already in a checkerboard across Canada. That argument, especially with those kinds of examples, avoids the real point in this debate.
There are some rules that have to apply to everyone in Canada. We are looking at the fundamental rules of the game, not at minor regulations like automobile speed limits or negotiable government programs like pensions. The constitutional rules are so important that everything else stems from them. They must be the same everywhere. They cannot be ignored anywhere.
I cannot support, for example, any checkerboard or any opting out plan that can turn on or turn off my personal rights in different provinces. My freedom to worship is not a light switch that can be flicked on or flicked off by a provincial legislature. A handicapped person needs protections just as much in Ontario as in Manitoba. A woman's rights do not change just because she happens to be on the west coast instead of the east coast.

March 4, 1981
The Constitution
When we describe the charter of rights in this resolution, we are talking about fundamental freedoms. We are telling all of our governments, in city halls, in provincial legislatures and in this Parliament, that there are boundaries beyond which governments cannot go. We are saying that governments, not individual people, are limited. The charter we want must apply everywhere, not just in a few places with those who happen to find agreement convenient.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Glenn Fisher: We need to keep our principles straight. We need to go back to our bedrock; our freedoms are too easily threatened. Protection is needed. That is why our charter is not going to be checkerboarded across Canada; our rights cannot be checkerboarded. Canadians, not just some Canadians, not just a few Canadians, all Canadians, enjoy the same rights.
As 1 mentioned a moment ago, we have a responsibility to act now. We also have the authority to act. We have heard a lot of rhetoric uttered about the process that we have used and about its effect on our goals. Some people have argued that we must have much greater support from the provinces for our actions. They seem to feel that the provinces are our equals, or that they are somehow even greater in importance than the federal government. They claim that our initiatives, our process, will tear confederation apart. I believe the opposite. I believe that we must act now. Our actions on this resolution can only strengthen our country. The federal government must be more than just one extra voice among the different governments in Canada, especially on constitutional matters. Action on the Constitution is our obligation. The final decision belongs here, in the Parliament of Canada.
Of course, we do have a partnership in confederation. Our provinces do have independent and respected roles to play. They do touch parts of our lives that should not be affected by the central government. Their views, accordingly, must be heard in a fundamental debate such as this. When the provinces refuse to act, however, or when the partnership breaks down, then we must act ourselves.
We should see each government's role properly, not in some artificially inflated fashion. The provinces cannot extend their independence into a veto. They cannot demand that we turn our consultations, our interdependence, into the last word in the debate. Alone, or as a block, the provinces can give us valued insights. They cannot, however, simply add up all their jobs and all their claims and then conclude-as they have done-that the final word and the final decision is theirs. This Parliament must still receive more than provincial advice. We must take that advice. We must then add it in with other reactions and consider a wide variety of national pressures. We must use our own judgment and come up with our own answers.
In this debate, the provinces have been challenged to change federal actions by offering a better case. They have had plenty of opportunity to participate in the changes that are happening. Instead, they lost sight of the great national need and they pressed only for the sake of their local satisfactions. They saw the same marvellous opening to act as we did, to create change at long last, but they suggested only more delays as their alternatives. They have been given their chances over the past year, and over the past 50 years to improve our national life. Now, when we act and accept this opportunity, we are being called arrogant, insensitive and one-sided.
Well, we were elected, to all sides in this House, to take this responsibility and not to abdicate it or to assign it away to some poorly defined coalition, whether that coalition be a premier's group or a collection of private individuals. The job is ours to do. In fact, if we do not act, if we back away from the job, then we will be signalling a terminal weakness in the federal government. We will be seen as unwilling or unable to act and to lead the country. We need a strong central government in Canada. We need federal leadership.
I believe we have assumed our responsibilities and that we have acted very, very well. When federal leadership has been needed, we have provided it. Members from all political parties can point to some aspect of this Constitution with pride in their contributions. Contrary to our critics' views, this process has succeeded.
We have brought this discussion to the whole country. Through debates in this House and in the committee, constitutional change has become a truly national issue. There has not by any means been agreement, but everybody has had a full opportunity to be heard either here or in committee. Everybody has had a voice, and television has helped to take these voices to the public and to make them extra effective. Judging by my mail, opinions have become well informed and very firm. People who write or who stop to talk to me on this issue feel their views are worth expressing and that we are listening. I want to repeat, in conclusion, how pleased I am to be a part of this debate.
We are taking the first steps to give ourselves the proper tools for our government. We are bringing our Constitution to Canada, giving it the vital limits in the charter and making it possible to bring renewal in the future.
We have to start using this tool right away. At the beginning of my comments, I referred to the Quebec referendum as a great motivation and a great commitment to satisfy. I could, as easily, have added remarks about remote northern territories, about clashes between the resource and the consuming provinces, about disparities between the rich and the needy regions and about dissatisfactions and imbalances between populated and rural areeas. We obviously have to go now to those people who have deep differences and deep grievances and start to repair our national unity.
We have taken these first steps and, in doing so, we have made the next, bigger steps easier ones to take. We know how change will happen. That clears away the debris and lets us focus on what change is best for all. We must shape our institutions and our governments to fit our new needs. In the past, we have been paralysed by our lack of proper tools. Now
March 4, 1981

that we have given ourselves the equipment, we have to get on with the rest of the job.


Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, like others, I am very proud to be taking part in this debate. I have felt for a very long time, in fact pretty well all my life, that one of the most important gaps in the Canadian Constitution, the British North America Act, has been the lack of a charter of human rights and freedoms binding on both federal and provincial legislatures. Therefore, when the constitutional proposals were introduced last fall, it was with particular pleasure that I noted there would be such a charter in this proposal.
It was, however, very discouraging when reading the fine print of the charter to discover how hastily conceived it had been and to what a large extent it had neglected the real needs of many Canadians. Indeed, in my speech in the House of Commons on October 23, I pointed out in particular that the charter, whatever its intent, did not guarantee women's human right to equality. It had used the very same phrases, such as equality before the law, that had been used in both common and civil law traditions and in the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights, which had been interpreted to mean equality in the administration of the law but not equality in the law itself and the very substance of the law. There were other deficiencies in the original proposals. That one, however, was so enormous that no woman in the country, or indeed any other group which had not hitherto been equal, could feel equality was being guaranteed.
Over the past several months one of the most exciting developments has been that Canadians have spoken. A very large number of Canadians have spoken to the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada, or have written submissions to it. When people say that this Constitution, and particularly this charter, is not being made in Canada, I really have to laugh. Not only is it being made in Canada by this Parliament, even more important than that, all the amendments introduced in January by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) were proposed and pressed by the people of Canada and their various important groupings, both provincial and nationwide.
Perhaps those of us in Parliament and in the legislatures tend to forget that a democracy consists of more than us, that there is perhaps not just two orders of government of vital importance in our democratic society, but a third order. This third order intervenes usually between elections, because the people themselves fundamentally guide us at elections. This order consists of groupings of individuals, economic groupings, cultural groupings, groupings based on ethnicity, religion or sex. These are powerful, dynamic and democratic groupings of people whose points of view we, as legislators and parliamentarians, ignore at our peril. It is from this part of our democracy we have been hearing in the past several months.
The wisest thing the government did was to allow television coverage of the constitutional hearings and an extension of
The Constitution
time for briefs to be presented, both orally and in writing, to that committee. The authors of these briefs and submissions, these representatives of Canadians, are the ones who have had more to do than any of us with making this charter much stronger and better than that originally proposed. It is a very good one. These are Canadians who have done this. Even I was taken aback by the strength of their voices, particularly in the case of the briefs concerning women's human rights to equality and by the general agreement among all the groups on what amendments were needed. We are not talking about just a few Canadians having been heard, we are talking about groups representing thousands and thousands of Canadians.
May I remind the House that on the issue of improving the charter, so far as women are concerned, excellent far-reaching briefs were heard from the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women; the National Action Committee on the Status of Women; the National Association of Women and the Law; Indian Rights for Indian Women; the Canadian Committee on Learning Opportunities for Women; the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League; the Native Women's Association of Canada, and many more. These were just some of the groups who appeared before the committee. They represented women, and men too in some cases, not only as national organizations but as the umbrella group for many provincial and liberal associations.
In the written submissions, we heard from a large number of provincial status of women action committees, committees of women for constitutional change, many business and professional women's clubs; The Catholic Women's League, Federated Women's Institutes of Canada, the National Council of Women of Canada, and through it the provincial and local councils of women; the National Council of Jewish Women of Canada, several provincial advisory councils on the status of women and, in some cases, municipal ones; the Vancouver Status of Women submitted an excellent brief; Women for Political Action; many branches of the YWCA as well as the National YWCA; several university clubs; a number of research centres; and a number of women's centres, including one very close to my riding, namely, the Port Coquitlam Women's Centre. This is only a partial list of the voices heard of Canadian women who wanted to see the charter entrenched but who wanted to see the best possible one entrenched. They did it. It is their charter, just as it is the charter of groups for other parts of the charter who were heard, whether it was the disabled and the handicapped, the aboriginal peoples, or representatives of our multicultural fabric. They too are responsible for, and share in, the creation of this amended charter, so I hope we will not hear any more about this charter not having been made in Canada by Canadians.
There was significant improvement in almost all 50 clauses of the government's constitutional proposals when the Minister of Justice brought his amendments forward in January. There were very significant improvements; there is no question about that. There is equally no question that further clarifications could be made. Further strengthening of certain clauses in the

March 4, 1981
The Constitution
charter could be achieved. Again I am talking today primarily about those parts affecting women.
A number of valuable clarifications and strengthenings were proposed by the ad hoc conference on Canadian women and the Constitution, about which hon. members have heard a great deal. There was a tremendously successful meeting in Ottawa the weekend of February 14 attended by over 1,000 women. 1 will not go through all the groups in Canada that have endorsed the recommendations of that conference, but once again there are literally dozens and dozens of them. This reflects the keen interest and participation in the creation of this charter of Canadian women.
I hope all hon. members will read very carefully the further suggestions made by the ad hoc conference. These are all now available to all hon. members. I hope hon. members will look particularly at three of the suggestions because the women themselves would like to see them highlighted in the charter.
The first suggestion is that there be a general statement, either in Section 1 or perhaps in Section 25, that the rights and freedoms set out in this charter be guaranteed to men and women equally. This should be an overriding statement, making it clear, in case there is any doubt in Section 15 or anywhere else, that the rights apply fully, completely and equally to women and men alike. This is important for all women but, perhaps I should say, particularly important for native women. It is something on which I think there is agreement on all sides. I know it is one of two amendments we proposed in the constitutional committee which the Conservatives were willing to support.
I am therefore very hopeful that if the Conservatives do not propose it as an amendment, or if we do not get the opportunity to propose it as an amendment, the Minister of Justice will bring it in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: The two others I would like to mention were not supported by either of the other two parties when the New Democrats introduced them in the committee. However, I think several members on the government side were willing at any rate to look at them very seriously. One is the use throughout the charter of the word "person" rather than "any individual", "anyone" or any of the other words being used. The word "person" should be used throughout the charter.
The other one has to do with Section 15(2), the affirmative action section of the equal rights provisions. The suggestion is that affirmative action programs which are to be allowed- indeed, encouraged-should relate to disadvantaged groups. It is not necessary to include individuals. In fact, it might be dangerous in some ways if we did.
The whole purpose of Section 15(2) is to ensure that the equality rights set out in Section 15(1) do not prevent any law, program or activity which has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged groups. However, unfortunately it says "disadvantaged individuals or groups" and thereby makes it possible that a single individual, as happened in the famous
Bakke case in the United States, could get some advantage that the group of which he was a member already had in abundance, and thereby prevent an individual in another group from being able to be advantaged by an affirmative action program. One has to look at the condition and situation of a group as a whole, and if a group as a whole is advantaged then the fact that a single member of that group is not should not give him or her something special. When one looks at the group as a whole and discovers it is disadvantaged, then it is the group as a whole for whom the affirmative action program should be undertaken.
I stress this because the women I have talked with and with whom other Members of Parliament have talked as well-and there are many from all over Canada-feel that to ensure that the intent of the charter is carried out so far as women are concerned and, indeed, other disadvantaged groups are concerned, it is vitally important to make this deletion from Section 15(2).
A moment ago I mentioned that the New Democratic Party had during the course of the committee actually introduced all but one of the amendments which are now being proposed by the ad hoc committee on women and the Constitution, and we would be more than happy to introduce them all again, but this may be procedurally extremely difficult to do. If it is, I can only urge the government, and specifically the Minister of Justice-I am afraid I have given up on the minister responsible for the status of women-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: -with all the power at my command to seriously consider highlighting those three amendments I have mentioned and to look seriously at the others as well.
I am somewhat comforted because hon. members will remember that on February 20 in the House I asked the Minister of Justice about this possibility. He said, "It is not possible to have a perfect charter." These are the points of the women. Then he said, "If there is a possibility of more improvements, we will do our best to study all aspects of them". On an earlier day, on February 16, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that the additions, clarifications and further amendments are "probably very sensitive and worth-while additions." I say to the government: do not wait until the Tories support these amendments. I do not think they are going to do so, except for the one I mentioned first. They are paying lip service to them. Quite honestly, I have found no evidence that they are going to support them, let alone introduce them, although I encourage them to do so and I hope they will.
Unlike the people of Canada who have spoken, there are many parliamentarians and members of provincial legislatures who think we should wait until we have the Constitution back home with an amending formula before we start working on a charter of fundamental rights and freedoms. I become very upset when I realize that what these proponents are asking for
March 4, 1981

is nothing. We will never, or not for 100 years perhaps, get a charter protecting our fundamental rights and freedoms if we wait until later. Women of Canada have said to me and to many others that if this is thrown into the battleground of federal-provincial conferences, we do not believe the 11 first ministers are going to give us our equality; we have no faith in it at all.
For example, if we look at what has happened in the United States we find that women there have been trying to get an equal rights amendment since 1924 and have not succeeded yet. Nor do I think that a constituent assembly is likely. I would like to see it, but I think it is unlikely it will come about. It is certainly not part of the Canadian historic tradition.
I would also like to make the point that at least some of us who read Canadian constitutional law believe the question of fundamental rights and freedoms is not part of Section 92(13) on property and civil rights. A charter of rights and freedoms is not a matter which can vary from one part of the country to another. It is something that is not strictly under provincial jurisdiction. The most important cases in the 1950s and 1960s-I am thinking of the Jehovah Witness case, the Ron-carelli and the padlock law case-which had to do with civil liberties, freedom of speech, freedom of worship and freedom of assembly, or some aspect of our fundamental freedoms, denied that those freedoms were part of property and civil rights, and therefore under provincial jurisdiction. All those cases saw those rights as something that all Canadians must have, regardless of where they live. That being the case, we should look at the few cases there are concerning our rights and freedoms in Canadian jurisprudence.
In some ways, I suppose, it could be argued that it is amazing there are any such cases, since we have not had a charter of rights. Even the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), I think, is coming to the position that rights and freedoms are not something that you have, maybe, in Quebec but not in Alberta, or vice versa, they have to be everywhere. There are a few significant cases from which it becomes clear that substantially it is no infringement of provincial jurisdiction at all. I wish we would stop talking as if we thought it was an infringement of provincial jurisdiction to have a charter of rights and freedoms entrenched in our Constitution.
Another argument one sometimes hears is that, with a charter of human rights and freedoms, we are replacing legislative supremacy by judicial supremacy. There is no doubt there will be more litigation, but may I remind the House-I am sure that members do not need this reminder, but may I do so anyway-that the courts have been interpreting our rights and freedoms under the common law, or under the civil law in the province of Quebec, for years and years. It is not a matter of the courts not interpreting our rights and freedoms all this time; they have been doing so under common law or under statutory law. As I pointed out a moment ago, even under the BNA Act, in a few monumental cases they have been interpreting our rights and freedoms. We are not going from something called legislative supremacy to judicial supremacy. There will be more litigation, there is no question, but the
The Constitution
important thing which this charter has made a major effort to do since the people of Canada were heard from is to ensure that a clear signal is given to the courts about what freedoms and rights we want to have protected, and, above all, in the area in which I am particularly interested, a clear signal has been given now, I think, that we want equality for men and women in the very substance of the law itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: A moment ago, I spoke about the people who say "wait until later" and I argued that we will wait forever. There is a lot of talk about the amending formula. No doubt it is somewhat more flexible than the rule of unanimity which, of course, would be a complete straitjacket, as we all know. The proposed amending formula is somewhat more flexible. It asks for an amendment to the Constitution to be supported by regional majority, and it divides Canada into four regions. Personally I think it is still pretty inflexible. Any region will be able to veto any amendment. As I say, it is not as bad as unanimity, of course, but I do not see how anyone can think it will result in very many amendments.
That may well be as it should be. But some people would argue that a federal system, particularly relating to the division of powers-and the charter has nothing to do with the division of powers-should not be too flexible; it should be really tough to get an amendment. I think it will be very tough, indeed, and 1 do not see much likelihood of many amendments getting through quickly. Therefore, those who are putting all their hopes on amendments coming through are misplacing their hopes.
I should like to say a word or two about the amending formula. A good many of my constituents are very interested in and concerned about the amending formula. As I understand the Constitution, the proposed amending formula, whereby there must be a majority in each of the four regions to support an amendment, is not necessarily the last word. If the legislators, premiers and all of us come up with a better alternative formula during the two years after the proposals are patriated and when unanimity is required, it is my understanding the people of Canada could then choose between the regional majority formula and whatever alternative was presented.
I, for one, will work very hard to have a five-region formula established in Canada. I know I will have lots of support from my British Columbia and northern colleagues in the New Democratic Party. We in British Columbia feel very strongly that British Columbia is a distinctive region and that we constitute a fifth region of this country. If there is to be a different amending formula, as an alternative to the one proposed now, many of us will work toward having a five-region formula. I do not know whether we will have the support of other provinces. If we are to present an alternative to the one in the constitutional proposals which we are patriat-ing, certainly it must be agreeable to the other provinces. It is

March 4, 1981
The Constitution
our job as representatives of British Columbia to see if we can make it possible. In any event, I remind the House that there is an opportunity in the two years following the patriation of the Constitution for us to get cracking, put forward our alternative amending formula and try to do a selling job on other parts of the country.
In conclusion, I emphasize how important the whole process has been, particularly the hearings of the constitutional committee which allowed, permitted and encouraged Canadians in all walks of life to have an input in the charter of human rights. As Canadians I think we can all be incredibly proud of that achievement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: It is for this reason we all know in our hearts that this charter, particularly the amendments as a result of the input of the people of Canada, and the amendments we still hope will be made, is a charter created by Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Pierre Gimaiel (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, may I first be allowed to say how happy I am to see the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) occupy the chair, and I hope that the people of the Madawaska Republic will appreciate the fact that it is the duty of their representative to make sure that our standing orders are being observed.
I will now come to the heart of the matter, Mr. Speaker. I feel privileged to have the opportunity to discuss today in the House a matter of the utmost importance for our country, for all its inhabitants and perhaps still more for our children. This great debate on the Canadian constitution began some years ago. We have now reached the stages of implementation. A great many things have been said throughout the years, but very few things have been done. This government has now decided that the time has come to set in motion the appropriate mechanisms which will enable our count to renew itself and to continue to be one of the finest countries in the world. It is obvious that this debate could be lengthy. Presently, we are considering an amendment dealing with the referendum introduced by the official opposition. This amendment, as many others which could be moved by that same party, is only an excuse to extend the debate.
I cannot say that I have any complaint about that, Mr. Speaker, because as the debate proceeds we get to know the different positions held by the various parties in the House. The clearer the positions, the better we can see what hon. members really have in mind. This is important, because a country consists of a group of human beings living in a specific geographic area, goodwill and good relations rather than confrontations are essential among its inhabitants whatever their differences may be. I have to add, however, Mr. Speaker, that I am extremely disappointed by comments I heard in the House because they pained and shocked me but the more I
consider them, the more they pain me rather than shock me. I am referring to the statements made last evening in the House by the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart). I would like to quote a few. Here is what one can read in the official English version of Hansard on page 7858, and I quote:
Many of my colleagues have pointed out the history of this great Canada: the Quebec act of 1774, the constitutional act of 1791 and Lord Durham's report. They recognized the fact that the Quebec act and the constitutional act gave to French Canadians rights which were the most enlightened of their time. Unfortunately, no one pointed out that the Durham report recommended the union of Upper and Lower Canada and the use of one federal language, English. Had this been adhered to, we would not be having this acrimonious debate in the House today.
I shuddered when I heard those first words, but when we think about it we realize that there is room for interpretation. So I said to myself that perhaps the hon. member did not mean what he said. A few lines further I read another sentence and that one meant a lot of things:
The bilingualism and biculturalism policies of this government have served only to act as an abrasive in English-speaking Canada.
I heard those words spoken here in the House where 284 sitting members represent millions of Canadians in the best interest of each and every one of our fellow citizens, and in all serenity. I heard those words spoken here in this House.


An hon. Member:: Unbelievable!


Pierre J.J. Georges Adelard Gimaïel: It is sheer nonsense!
Did one French-speaking member in this House recall all the hardships which francophones have had to put up with in this country over the past 100 years? Canada is a beautiful and great country because there were men who could understand one another. Some francophones have made tremendous sacrifices to be Canadians. That is why our country was built in harmony and with understanding and mutual respect, and I know that anglophones as well had a part to play, I know that there were anglophones who worked hard to build this country.
1 also know that they have shown respect for their Frenchspeaking fellow citizens, but I think that in the debate we are holding now there is no room for nasty political partisanship, particularly when it smacks of racism, if we are to concentrate on building the country. I would be interested to hear the hon. member for Simcoe South say that he was voicing the opinion of all his constituents when he spoke in the House last night. I am sure that such is not the case and I would point out to him and to some of his colleagues that when he has the floor in the House he is not expressing the views of the Progressive Conservative Party but those of hundreds of thousands of people whom he represents here. That is his job and that is what he is paid for. I want to quote another sentence, and that one does not leave room for interpretation:
National bilingualism is unnatural, undesirable, unwelcome and it is one of the central causes of national disunity.
We hear those words which bring us back to the days of Lord Durham who had been sent to Canada by England so he
March 4, 1981

could look after our problems. As a member of the House I am asking myself what do the people I represent here want me to do. Do they want me to build a new country or to try to initiate a power struggle throughout Canada so that English-and French-speaking Canadians will be for ever arguing with one another? That is not what the people want.
I come from a 100 per cent francophone constituency, where the people are proud of what they are, proud of this individuality, proud of their language and of their property, proud of their culture. However, above everything else, they love their country. What they love most of all is to be able to get along with those with whom they live. What they love most of all is the peace that they can offer their children. What they love most of all is the peace they have enjoyed all their lives. Mr. Speaker, it is not with such speeches that we can provide this security for Canadians. Since the beginning of this debate, the positions of each party have become quite clear. The New Democratic Party said: Fine, we agree to patriate the Constitution and we agree with the charter of rights-indeed, they worked quite hard to have this charter amended-ans we also agree on the amending formula. However, there are certain things that we would like to see and that we feel are important for those we represent. We would like certain things in the area of energy, and so on.
I respect such a position as it is based on the wishes of the population. However, I am having serious doubts about the position of the Progressive Conservative Party. First of all, we have been told that the Conservatives were against unilateral patriation. Then, we were told that they wanted patriation, but without the charter of rights and without the proposed amending formula. We were told that they wanted to amend the charter of rights and were opposed to patriation. They also proposed amendments to the status of women and many other provisions. Then, they asked which formula was the right one. They said it was the Vancouver formula. Last weekend, it proved to be the wrong one, since a two thirds majority is sufficient to have an amendment passed. This formula includes the two third majority rule as well as opting-out and opting-in provisions, and we saw at the last Tory convention the results of a two third majority with opting-in and opting-out provisions. It is clear that their party is out of whack. But let us be serious. In this context, I must conclude that everything the Conservatives now put forward as their position is simply aimed at obstructing our work.


An hon. Member:: They are divided!


Pierre J.J. Georges Adelard Gimaïel: On a point as serious and as basic to our country as language and the bilingualism policy, I am asking one thing, and it is simply this: If the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Simcoe South does not reflect that of the Progressive Conservative Party-


An hon. Member:: Shame!
The Constitution


Pierre J.J. Georges Adelard Gimaïel: -I ask the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) to do what his predecessor, the Hon. Bob Stanfield did in the case of the then hon. member for Moncton, and to expel the hon. member for Simcoe South from his party!
I would like to say this to hon. members in English. I would like to ask the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to do what is necessary, as the former leader of the opposition, Bob Stanfield, did when he expelled the member for Moncton because he did not support the view of the party with respect to the bilingual policy in Canada. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to do the same thing with the member for Simcoe South, if he was not expressing the view of his party. I ask him to do no less than that. Then we will know the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre J.J. Georges Adelard Gimaïel: If he does not do so, this means the member for Simcoe South expresses the view of his party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre J.J. Georges Adelard Gimaïel: I am pretty sure, however, that he will not do that, and I should like to explain why. First of all, is not the hon. Leader of the Opposition the man who, during a visit to Chicoutimi, signed the famous petition which the Quebec separatist government had been circulating throughout Quebec for the past six months?

Is he not the man who signed the petition the Quebec government made and circulated throughout the province for the last six months? Yes, they did it in Chicoutimi. The Leader of the Opposition did that.

Is it possible for us to say at this time that this party indeed has a policy promoting a bilingual and united Canada? No! In this respect, I should like now to direct my remarks especially to my own constituents. As residents of the Lac-Saint-Jean riding, you have certainly heard Quebec Premier Rene Levesque make the following statement: "We are indeed lucky to have the Progressive Conservative Party fighting for our interests in the House of Commons." If that is what you mean when you talk about fighting for the interests of Quebecers in the House of Commons, Mr. Levesque, just keep on babbling and try to convince everybody that you yourself are fighting for Quebecers.
I,	for one, can tell you that I am proud to be here to represent my constituents and to help build our country instead of trying to break it up as you are doing, Mr. Levesque. Let me tell you that I need not associate with people who make speeches such as this one to convince the people of

March 4, 1981
The Constitution
the Lac-Saint-Jean riding that I am working for them. Mr. Speaker, I feel the time has come for Quebecers to be told the truth about what is going on with regard to the constitutional renewal we are now launching. In Quebec, we have been accused of selling out the province, of betraying Bill 101, of changing the Constitution unilaterally, of everything imaginable. That has been said about the 75 Members of Parliament from Quebec, all the while insisting that we are acting like sheep. That is important.
There is one thing I want to tell the people of Quebec right now, and especially the people of my riding and that is that, as hon. members of the Government of Canada, we are not really changing the Canadian Constitution but preparing the context needed or desirable to change it in fact. This means, in simple terms, since I am an ordinary man, that we are in the process of asking the British government to send us back our Constitution so that 11 first ministers, the ten provincial premiers and the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) can sit around a table and discuss what changes are necessary so that our country can better meet the needs of the Canadians of today and those of tomorrow. At the same time, we tell our friends on the other side of the river or the ocean: Enshrine a charter of rights in that Constitution. You may say: But why a charter of rights? Very simple. Renewing a Constitution is renewing a country. It may even mean changing all the rights, all the laws that govern Canadians.
In that context, as representative of the 80,000 citizens who live in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean, I shall never accept that 11 first ministers, even if they are great Canadians, including the Right Hon. Prime Minister, should play around with the Canadian constitution and change it without first making sure that the fundamental rights of the people I represent are protected by a charter of rights enshrined forever in the Constitution. Of course, that is not perfect. But those who tried to achieve perfection at one fell swoop, do you know what they do in life? Nothing at all. Perfection cannot be achieved at first go. In addition, both a referendum formula and an amending formula will be included in the Constitution to prevent any systematic deadlock. We are not going to spend another 20 years of our life quibbling over that, wondering where we are going, what we are going to do. We have to find a solution to the Canadian constitutional problem. Our Constitution just has to be renewed because, as we know, when it was drawn up, there were no television, no airplanes; transportation even by road was much slower.
So many things have changed in this country. And so quickly. That is all we are about to do. To those who shout rape and treason, and those who come up with all sorts of arguments saying that we are betraying Quebec, I say that for the first time in the history of Canada, the rights of francophones to education in their own tongue, to their language, recognition of the French fact will be enshrined in the Constitution of Canada and no one, no prime minister, no government can change that without the consent of the Canadian people. Is that not a step forward?
I have seen very frustrating things happen in my riding, among others. We have all heard of the notorious petition which I mentioned earlier, the solidarity movement or whatever, which has been going around Quebec for the past six months. The signatures were to be gathered within a month and sent to all of us members from Quebec, challenging us to act according to the will of the people. I have seen how they operate. The people responsible for this petition tried first of all to go everywhere. When that did not work they went to the schools, but that did not work either. They asked the FTQ to help them and, like any good union they agreed and said, "Yes, Mr. Minister, we will do it." The FTQ had people sign it. But that did not work either. People were forced to sign. They were told to sign. No, thank you. Sign. After trying ten times, people signed. People were also told that if they did not sign, they were not genuine Quebecers. How great! What does that mean? That seems to imply that there are two classes of Quebecers. I am beginning to wonder about those two classes of Quebecers. I will give you an example.
If I had to choose between being a fake Quebecer like the Minister of Justice who went to Washington two years ago and addressed the World Bank, in French only, and being a genuine Quebecer like the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Levesque, who two months after being elected delivered a speech entirely in English in New York, I would choose the former. He spoke two words in French: Saint-Felicien and Baie James, two projects, by the way, which he considered as political balloons before coming to power. I personally prefer being a fake francophone who speaks French in Washington than a genuine one who speaks English in New York. For sure. If being a fake Quebecer means deciding, like the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) did with his colleagues, to purchase F-18 fighters which will bring $1.5 million to Quebec, I prefer being a fake Quebecer rather than a genuine Quebecer like Rene Levesque who buys $11 million worth of buses from General Motors in the U.S. rather than from Bombardier, in Quebec.
I would rather be a fake Quebecer in that context. We do not need arm-chair Quebecers any longer. The drawing room days are gone when the intellectuals, the intelligentsia, were luring everybody in the province of Quebec, saying we all were going to rebuild this country, and perhaps by putting everything aside we were going to build another country which would be much better, a much better home to live in. Even if we have to keep outside in the cold for another ten years there would be nothing to it. We are going to build another country afterwards. Those days are over; all that silly talk is over. It is time now to act. Now we have people who sit down and discuss.
March 4, 1981

The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) is often blamed for not having held consultations. But I saw what happened last summer. After Quebecers had given their answer to the referendum held by the Parti Quebecois, after Quebecers had said no, one of them, the same one who built Bombardier, the same man who built Canadair, stood up and said: "Let me deal with that, Pierre. I do not like the subject, I have never wanted to build a career around it but let me deal with it. I shall go and see the premiers, we shall see what they are made of." He went around and met the premiers and what answers did he get? Mr. Sterling Lyon, the Premier of Manitoba, came to Ottawa and said he did not want a charter of rights. In 1980, a charter of rights, ugh! There is no use for that, it is simply insulting the people. There is no need to protect the rights of the citizenry but the rights of the provinces should be written into the Constitution. Let us protect ourselves, but the citizenry needs no protection.
We have to understand what is happening. We want an answer from Alberta but we just had it. The best way to be a Canadian is to say to the Canadian people: You need oil? We will no longer sell you any because you are not paying us the right price.
I remember reading in history books that if eastern Canadians had reacted in the same manner in the past Canada would not be the strong country it is today, it would not have survived.
A fact remains, it is impossible to believe that the premiers meant business at the bargaining table. They did not. Their political strategy was quite simple, namely to attack the Canadian government, to debate the constitution issue in order to focus public attention away from the provincial opposition, to be on hot lines or appear before the TV cameras with representatives of the Government of Canada because when people have to vote they can only vote for them because their opponents are the provincial parties, never the Liberal Party of Canada. But in this great debate, the provincial parties have not had their say because such were the rules of the game. That is over now. We have now come to the bottom line. We are now creating the necessary conditions in which a change can be made.
Later, the provincial premiers will come and sit with the Prime Minister of Canada and will build a new country on behalf of all Canadians. And in this regard, I can assure you, my constituents, that my deepest thoughts are for you and most of my work here is directed toward safeguarding your interests. That is why I attended more than 15 sittings of the committee on the Constitution and why I want to watch closely what is happening, because whatever happens in Canada in the years to come, whatever changes are made to our Constitution, I can swear to you that nobody will ever fiddle with your basic rights, nobody will ever deprive you of what your fathers and ancestors have fought for, because the responsibility you have invested in me is precisely to protect
The Constitution
those rights, and this is what I am doing along with my colleagues. On their behalf, I simply say to you that if we vote for this resolution, it is because our country's future is built on success, on change, and because we, as your representatives in Parliament, are ensuring that your interests and those of your children are protected.
In this regard I say to the government which is now involved: Go ahead! This country will be more beautiful because some honest and stouthearted men have worked on behalf of the anglophones, the francophones and the native people as well as of all the others who have built this country and helped to make it even more beautiful and more honest. I would ask my colleagues in the opposition to think more about their constituents instead of being concerned with an as yet undefined position for which their party is trying to drum up support.


Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise on this occasion and take part in this debate. I know that Mr. Speaker will take it with appropriate good humour when I say I have been waiting this afternoon for some time. I must say that this has given me the opportunity to hear three very interesting speeches, two from my friends and colleagues on the government benches and one from a British Columbia friend and colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett). I think hon. members will agree that in all the speeches there was a combination of thoughtfulness, passion and certainly a very great amount of conviction. I see some of my friends on the government side nodding in assent.
The hon. member who wins the prize for passion this afternoon, of course, is my friend the hon. member for Lac Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el) who certainly left us in no doubt about what he thought on this subject. I am not sure whether my hon. friend dealt with some of the other matters of very great concern but he left me in no doubt about his feelings which are very sincerely held.
I may be forgiven if I point out that the speech of which he complains sounds suspiciously familiar, and I had a chance to look at it. It is similar to speeches made by the former member for Crowfoot who later, because it was politically advantageous to the Liberal Party, was brought into the bosom of the Liberal cabinet. I know that my good friend will not mind if I point that out. It may give him a chance to make another speech.
The speech of the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) was restrained and concentrated on one aspect of the debate, the charter of rights, as did the speech of the hon. member for New Westminster. That is a legitimate subject in this debate but, while I think the charter of rights is very important, and I am sure hon. members will agree that with other hon. members I worked very hard to make it a better

March 4, 1981
The Constitution
charter of rights than it started out, it is not the only aspect of this debate.
Before I get into that subject, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention a couple of other matters that give me great pleasure. The first is to offer my congratulations to the co-chairmen of the joint committee on the Constitution on which I had the privilege and responsibility of serving. I think especially of the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal) who throughout the proceedings exhibited a great deal of competence, justice and fair play. In fact, he was so objective I thought when it came his turn to speak in the House he might adopt some of the views we had expressed to him. We found that he had other things on his mind, however, and cut off from the constraints on his almost quasi-judicial position, he managed to find something to say in support of the government's views on this particular measure. That did not surprise me but I think it ought to be recorded that while I do not agree with what he said after he ceased to be a co-chairman, with others I compliment him on his very fine deliberations on behalf of all of us as co-chairman of that committee.
I want also to pay a tribute to one of my colleagues, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). I think all hon. members will agree that he conducted himself throughout the proceedings of the constitutional committee with dignity, competence and a measure of patriotism to which all of us aspire and can understand.
I want to say something else because there are honest views held in this chamber and in this country which are very different views. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) had the courage on October 2 last to say that not everybody agreed with the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) package and had the courage to say no. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has been proven right in that fundamental decision over and over again during the weeks of deliberations that have taken place. Certainly he has been right about the reaction of the Canadian people.
One of the things that plagued this consideration of a new constitution has been the fact that many members of the public have been critical of politicians for acting like politicians, for being partisan. A letter which appeared in The Globe and Mail on February 24, 1981, had this to say:
Much of the debate in the House and elsewhere is blatantly partisan, and (possibly wrongly with the more sincere presentations) gives the appearance of being more concerned with the paramountcy of different levels of government than it is with what a new constitution will or will not do for the people of Canada.
The citizen who wrote that letter has every right to his opinion but I have to say in answer to that citizen and others who have written in a similar vein, being equally critical of all sides, that these deliberations were placed in a highly partisan cockpit. That was the decision of the government. It was a stacked deck. The package was imposed unilaterally in early October on the Canadian people and was not a consequence of 53 years of discussion and deliberation.
It behooves members of the Liberal government who claim that this is something we have been discussing for 53 years to
go through the record and see how much has been discussed for 53 years. They will find very little. It is true there have been discussions about an amending formula but until recently we never heard about a referendum, a charter of rights and other things being discussed. The elimination of the power of the Senate as the last defender of the provinces was never discussed. The shibboleth that this has been going on for 53 years and has to be settled by July 1 is just that, a shibboleth. I would ask all fairminded members on the government side, and there are many, to keep that in mind. I would ask them to pay attention to the fact that although it is true there were meetings, the public was not involved in those meetings until this party, with the help of some members of the New Democratic Party, opened up the proceedings to television and radio.
Most of the discussions that have taken place between the federal government and the provinces were held in secret, as were the documents. It is a mistake to say that we have been debating this publicly for all these years.


Mr. LeBlanc:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I happened to be the press secretary who opened federal-provincial conferences to television with Mr. Pearson in 1968. Since that time most federal-provincial conferences have been held in front of the television cameras.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, may I answer the minister by saying that some parts of them have been public.


Roméo LeBlanc: Most of them.


John Allen Fraser: Some of the key parts were not, however. Why are all the arguments taking place about what was agreed upon and what was not? Most of it, or a significant part of it, was not done publicly. Until a few months ago, most people would not have known what the Victoria formula was all about so let us not pretend the Canadian public has had a long period of involvement.
Let us look at the atmosphere which existed when discussion on the resolution began. As I said, it was placed in a highly partisan cockpit. The wonder is that hon. members rose to their duty and the occasion, and that it was as civilized as it turned out. Remember, and I say this to the public which is watching, this was a highly partisan operation.
In the first place, it was created by closure in the House of Commons. That is not a very good way to start a debate about the way we ought to improve the basic laws under which we live. At first, radio and television coverage was not allowed. It was only allowed after tremendous opposition on the part of the Conservative Party and some members of the New Democratic Party. The committee was not allowed to travel. If some members from central Canada wanted to know how people in the west really feel, why did they not travel? I would hate to think it was because someone did not want them to find out. They would have learned a lot. Some of them have not learned yet.
March 4, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: The members are not travelling now. They are sitting in Ottawa. If anyone thinks people in western Canada believe that Ottawa is listening to them, they are wrong.
Then there was the ridiculous time limit of December 9. After a tremendous battle, that was extended. This must be the strangest committee or joint committee which has ever been established. They voted to limit the number of experts on the subject being discussed who could appear before the committee. This has been a highly partisan debate. If anything, it has been a highly partisan structure.
Let us look at what the other place is doing. The Senate began its debate, because it is controlled by government members, before the House of Commons finished its debate. That is surely a most extraordinary bit of conduct on the part of the Senate.


John Leslie Evans: It is not unusual at all.


John Allen Fraser: The hon. member says it is not unusual. I cannot imagine a debate on the fundamental laws of our country taking place here and proceeding at the same time in the Senate. That is incredible. The debate should have taken place here and then the Senate, exercising its prerogative, could have taken a look at what we had done.


Mr. Blais:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


John Allen Fraser: You will have your chance to speak later.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The hon. member is suggesting that the joint resolution ought to be dealt with first in the House of Commons and then in the Senate, seriatum. Is he implying that in terms of the joint committee, of which he was a member, he wanted the Senators excluded?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: That is not a point of order.


John Allen Fraser: It is not even a good question. I will go down the list of the Senators from the province of British Columbia. Senator Bell was asked to vote on whether the senate should proceed while we were still debating. That Senator was not there. Senator Lawson said it was perfectly all right to go ahead with the debate. So did Senator van Roggen, Senator Williams, Senator Perrault and Senator Austin.


John Leslie Evans: I rise on a point of order. Unless I am mistaken, I believe it is out of order to refer to proceedings currently going on in the other place.


John Allen Fraser: The hon. member just proved my point. Apparently we in this chamber are not allowed to make reference to what is going on in the other chamber because it is going on at the same time. You want to close us off with closure, close us off with no TV and radio, and time limits and now with a
The Constitution
procedural rule, you put us in a Catch 22 position. The hon. member just proved the point I am making.


An hon. Member:: We only get 20 minutes.


John Allen Fraser: Somebody on the government side says they only get 20 minutes. That is something worked out by their House leader. If they are complaining about the time they are allotted, they should complain to their own people.
Let me give another classic example of the partisanship which existed. What happened on the question of property rights? The committee was clearly promised by a minister of the Crown that a property rights amendment by the Conservative party would be allowed. That was overruled a few days later. If anyone wants to know how partisan this has been, they can look at the words of the Prime Minister when speaking in Vancouver. Despite all the efforts of the NDP, even though they were misguided, to try to co-operate with the government, the Prime Minister said this:
"We've managed to split the NDP right down the middle between those who love freedom and justice more and the Liberals less . .. and those who hate Liberals more and love freedom and justice less".
An extraordinary statement in an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press said:
That statement stinks of everything that is wrong with Mr. Trudeau's approach to the Constitution: its arrogance, its narrow partisanship and its sheer dishonesty.
I think I made the point that the debate on this resolution started off in a partisan manner. It has maintained a considerable degree of partisanship since. If this is going to be done by one party with a majority, rather than go through any kind of forum, it will be partisan. I am sorry if the public is upset about it, but the public ought to know why this is so.
What is the real issue in this debate? The issue is whether what we are doing is being done in the right way another, if so, is it the right answer. Mr. Justice O'Sullivan, one of the dissenting judges in the Manitoba case, said this:
-the Attorney General of Canada ends up in the proposition that a political party, if it forms the majority of both houses of the Canadian Parliament, has the power to amend the Constitution of our country as it pleases.
That was basically the position of the government lawyers in the court. In addition, it is the position in this, the highest court, with the vast majority of government speakers. Somebody referred to the province of Quebec and the promises made to that province during the referendum. Was that the promise made to the province of Quebec? I ask hon. members on the government side, especially those from the province of Quebec, whether that province was told during the referendum debate in that province that the federal government would come to the House of Commons and ask for the right to unilaterally change the Constitution of Canada? There is not a member in this House from the province of Quebec who can answer yes to that. They know the answer is no. Of course, Quebec was never told that. If that had been the basis of the campaign a few months ago to keep Quebec in confederation, the vote would have gone the other way.


Walter David Baker: What did Ryan say?

March 4, 1981
The Constitution


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Ryan did not appear before the constitutional committee. He did speak to the press gallery, pointing out how dissatisfied he was with the process and how wrong it was. He said something else that was interesting, and which cuts through to the problem in this debate. He said that western separatism is more dangerous than Quebec separatism.
When I returned to the constitutional committee a few hours later, I was asked to comment on Mr. Ryan's statement. I said 1 would. I said we had been here for a half a dozen years telling everyone that, but nobody would listen. The difficulty in terms of understanding between the centre of this country and the west is that until Mr. Ryan said there is a danger with regard to western separatism, nobody asked a western member of Parliament about it. That is the problem.
Some say that other problems in the country should not arise in this constitutional debate. However, when I hear people on a phone-in program in Ottawa advocating that we send troops to Alberta to take the oil, then I say there is trouble in this country.
Mr. Justice O'Sullivan went on to say:
What is proposed by the resolution which is the subject of this reference is that the majority of both houses of Parliament should invoke this legally unlimited power of the United Kingdom Parliament not only to "patriate" our Constitution but also first to change the Constitution in fundamental respects before patriating it.
Was that ever said to the people of Quebec during the referendum? Of course not, because one could not have held an audience if it had been said and certainly hon. members opposite could not have won the referendum, although I am glad they did. The government did not do it by publishing these things. It talked about change and addressing the needs of the French-speaking people of Canada and the province of Quebec. That was legitimate. But these kinds of statements were never put because any Quebecer worth his or her salt knows that is the very thing which has always concerned the people in the province of Quebec; that a federal government can move unilaterally to change the rules, because that puts Quebec, which is a minority and which has special things to be protected, in a position of very grave difficulty.
Mr. Justice O'Sullivan went on to say:
-but I find it difficult to understand how the Attorney General of Canada can assert that the Imperial Parliament remains supreme and sovereign over Canada, bound only by a "convention" which has no force of law and which it can legally disregard as it pleases.
Did anybody during the Quebec referendum tell Quebecers that the general principle, enunciated by Prime Minister St. Laurent, that right hon. gentleman, also contained in the government white paper of 1965, that no major amendment which affected the powers and the distribution of powers in this country ought to be made unilaterally by a federal government, was going to be changed? That was never put to anyone in Quebec. If anyone can find a speech where any leading member of any party, and certainly in the government party, went to Quebecers and said that was what they intended doing, then I will apologize publicly. But that was not the thesis upon which Quebec was told to vote "no."
Mr. Justice O'Sullivan continued by saying this:
To hold that the United Kingdom Parliament has still the legal power to alter the fundamental structure of our confederation without the consent of its constituents would be to decline to give effect to constitutional principles and practices that are by now well settled.
I could go on.
That is what the issue was all about. I happen to believe that Mr. Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights should have been entrenched. I happen to believe that some rights should be entrenched. I also happen to believe that if changes are to be made in the fundamental laws of Canada, we must respect our partners. Respecting our partners is not to ignore them or for the federal government to decide it is right and they are wrong. I ask hon. members to give me an explanation of why the government is in trouble in the west.
Here is an article by Mr. Gordon Gibson. Mr. Gordon Gibson, just so hon. members on the government side will remember, worked in the Prime Minister's office for some years. Three times since then he has run as a Liberal candidate in British Columbia and has been defeated. I have the highest regard for Mr. Gibson. I was one of those who had to run against him. Then he was elected to the British Columbia legislature and became the leader of the B.C. Liberal party. He is also the person who made promises in writing that if the Liberal government was successful in the 1980 campaign there would be no export tax on B.C. gas.


Walter David Baker: Remember that promise.


John Allen Fraser: He is the one who was betrayed by the minister of energy-


Walter David Baker: And the whole government.


John Allen Fraser: -only a few weeks later when I raised the matter in the House. This is what Mr. Gibson said only a few weeks ago:
What sort of mentality could plan to impose a new constitutional system-the very basis of our rules for living together-impose it through a procedure rejected not only by most provincial governments, but by an overwhelming majority of the people as well?
My goodness, why is it that the Liberal government wrings its hands and wonders why it cannot elect anyone in the west? That article is by the former leader of the Liberal party in British Columbia.


Walter David Baker: The betrayed leader.


John Allen Fraser: There has been a lot of talk about a checkerboard. My party has been accused of offering a process different from that proposed by the government respecting a charter of rights because that process would create a checkerboard. I do not have to tell hon. members why there is a checkerboard. I am not talking about different places where stop signs or speed limit signs are put, I am talking about much of what goes on in this country. I am reminding hon. members that the British North America Act was a checkerboard. Whenever we put up a proposal to get people to agree to the charter of rights which has come from the committee,
March 4, 1981

and will probably come from these proceedings, hon. members opposite say we should not do this by persuasion, that we should not go to the public and to the legislatures to get agreement. We are criticized because there is a possibility of a checkerboard. In fact, the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam, a very distinguished lady, said she has given up all hope that it will ever come about.
Let me remind hon. members on the government side that they have left the biggest checker on the board, and let me remind them what it is. In order to gain support in central Canada, in the province of Ontario, the Liberal government has left half a million francophones outside the protection of Section 133. There is no use running away from it. If hon. members want to talk about a checkerboard, just look at that.
I would suggest that is a black spot. I do not agree with unilateral imposition. But if members opposite are going to criticize our formula because it may take a little longer, and it may not happen all at the same time, then in fairness they better look long and hard at what they are doing themselves.
The question is this: How do members opposite explain to francophones in Ontario that Manitoba, Quebec and now New Brunswick will be protected by Section 133 but the largest single majority of francophones outside of the province of Quebec will not be? If the Liberal Government wants to talk about a checkerboard, let me talk about a checkerboard.
What about immigrants coming to the province of Quebec? They are not going to be treated in the same way respecting the education of their children. I can live with a lot of differences in this country, but I think it is pretty hard to live with what gets to be near hypocrisy when the only criticism hon. members opposite can make about us saying we have a little more faith in our fellow Canadians than they have, and we think we can get it with a little time and persuasion, is that there will be a checkerboard. They have got a checkerboard.
On the question of the checkerboard and the rights, our proposal is that we take a little more time. The argument put forward by the government is that the premiers would never agree to anything. I ask hon. members opposite how they know that? 1 can see it on their lips already. They will say the premiers have not agreed to anything for 53 years. But that is not true. All kinds of changes have been made, many of them by agreement and consultation.


Walter David Baker: Eighteen.


John Allen Fraser: We have lived together as a country for 113 years. We have lived together, not as the Dominion of Canada, but we have lived together before that and we have done a lot of things by agreement. To come before the public and say there is no possibility of ever getting agreement again shows an extraordinary lack of faith. The hon. member for New West-minster-Coquitlam said that for two years the New Democratic Party would like to work on something which they could present as an amending formula, and that they would like some amendments with respect to women and the charter of rights. There are a number of things she wishes will come about and she hopes that everyone will agree. Does that not
The Constitution
indicate the thought that we will be able to make changes as time goes by? That just contradicts her position completely.
My hon. friends from British Columbia have a dilemma. The hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), unfortunately is not in the House right now, but he is a very strong defender of rights-so am I-and I understand how he feels. He said he did not like the amending formula but he would go ahead anyway because he wanted those rights very badly.
Yet that apparently is the position of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen), the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell), the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker), the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). That is the New Democratic phalanx. They have ganged up with the senators from British Columbia to defend British Columbia interests by selling them out on the amending formula.
Let us take a look at what that amending formula does. Section 41, which is now section 45, gives eternally and for all time an absolute veto on constitutional change to the province of Ontario and to the province of Quebec.
Before I go any further, let me make something clear. I am prepared to put a veto in the hands of Quebec on some things, but I am not prepared to put a veto in the hands of the province of Ontario, no matter what its population will ever be and enshrine forever first-class and second-class-even third-class-status among provinces. If hon. members think this is not bothering people in western Canada, then they have not been listening. It is, and it is serious. That amending formula is seen by westerners as, first of all, unfair; and second, armed with the referendum, unnecessary.
Hon. members might ask, "Why is it unnecessary?" They want to break a deadlock. Let me tell hon. members why. Let us assume for a moment that the Victoria formula is fair. I do not think it should create first-class and second-class provinces, but let us assume it is fair. Why did the government put it there? The government put it there because it thought that to be a fair way of deciding how to make changes. But then the federal government came along and said, "If we do not get our way by putting it through Section 41 (which is now Section45) we will have a referendum and go over the heads of the provinces because there is a deadlock". For the life of me I do not understand what my friends on the government side mean by a deadlock.
If we have an amending formula which calls for passage by so many legislatures of different provinces in different regions, and if that is a fair proposal, why not live by the result? Why come along with a further amending formula which says that if the federal government does not get what it wants under

March 4, 1981
The Constitution
that so-called fair system, then it will go over the heads of the people with a referendum? I just cannot emphasize too much how that particular provision and that approach are offensive to western Canada and, quite possibly, to other places. For the life of me 1 do not know why they are necessary.
I can argue about the Victoria formula or some other formula. I prefer a formula which does not make first-class and second-class promises. I can live with a veto where there are cultural matters to defend when a minority population is involved, but how can the government and the NDP members from British Columbia ask us to go along with something which makes second-class citizens of British Columbians, changes profoundly the balance of power in this country and puts in the hands of the federal government a referendum which only the federal government can use?
Ten provinces could come to the federal government and say they have decided what is in the interests of this country, but they cannot adopt it because the federal government will not let them. I ask hon. members to think about this. If Section 45, the Victoria formula, is fair-and I do not think it is-and if the government thinks it fair, why does it need a referendum? That referendum proposal is causing an awful lot of trouble out west because it is seen as giving a central government power it never had before and power it does not need unless it is after something.


An hon. Member:: Resource control.


John Allen Fraser: I want to point out something else. My hon. friends in the NDP from British Columbia make much of the fact that they do not like the amending formula we have proposed. They say there would be too many formulas and too many things left unanswered. My point is that my friends in the NDP are not voting for our formula, but apparently they are prepared to vote for the government's formula.
Let us take a look at what the federal government formula does. It is not just Section 45 and the referendum; it is more complicated than that. There are too many formulas in the government proposal. Let us take a look at Section 36, which requires unanimity for two years. Let us take a look at Section 45, which is the Victoria formula. There could be a provincial alternative to the Victoria formula and another formula for tabling of that alternative. I refer hon. members to Section 42(1). There could be a federal alternative to the Victoria formula, and we would have no way of knowing what it was. I refer hon. members to Section 42(3)(a). There could be a referendum to decide between the federal proposal and the provincial proposal. Again 1 refer hon. members back to Section 41. There could be a permanent alternative formula and amendment by referendum. In that respect I refer to Section 46. If we look at the sections carefully we see there are six amending formulas contained in the government proposal.
Some of my friends on the government side look at me incredulously. 1 ask them to get themselves a lawyer or, if they are lawyers, put on their glasses and read the sections because that is what they show.
My hon. friends, especially my friends in the New Democratic Party, say they cannot go along with the Conservative amending formula because it might take too long. Just look at the delays involved in the government proposal. Unanimity would prevail for two years. Again 1 refer to Section 36. At the end of that two-year period failure to agree on an amending formula would result in recourse to a referendum. Just so that it will be on the record, I refer hon. members to Section 42(3); that referendum would be held within another two years during which time unanimity would still prevail. After the referendum had determined which formula would apply, the federal option or the provincial option, then six months would pass before the successful option would be proclaimed and put into place. That opens up the potential of four and a half to nearly five years of delay. How can NDP members from the province of British Columbia vote for that proposal and say they will not vote for ours?
Their argument was ably made by the hon. member for Burnaby, and this afternoon by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam. They do not care whether this leaves British Columbia in a second-class position. They do not care whether that provision of a referendum is driving the west away from the centre-and Quebec too, if we listen to what Mr. Ryan and Mr. Levesque say. The hon. members to whom I have referred do not care about that kind of division. They have so little faith that we could ever come to some agreement on a charter of rights they are prepared to go along with a formula which sells their province out. They will pay the price. Mr. Nystrom makes no mistake, not by a long shot. Mr. Nystrom and three others understand the west.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


John Allen Fraser: I am sorry. I mean the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). I apologize to the hon. member and to other hon. members. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville saw what this is. He pointed this out in the first speech he made in the House weeks and weeks ago. I ask that people listen to some of these members.
I would like to read some comments into the record. This is directed not only to government members but also to members of the New Democratic Party. Let me read what Stephen Lewis said. Mr. Lewis is the very respected former leader of the New Democratic Party in the province of Ontario. He said:
But at the final level there are those who argue, from Joe Clark to Allan Blakeney, from Rene Levesque to Lome Nystrom that Pierre Trudeau's dogmatic unilateral insistence is doing such terrible damage to the country that the constitutional package just isn't worth it, not even with the charter.
He went on:
In personal terms, that is the roughest argument for me to cope with. I detest the petty provincialism of a number of the premiers.
He is tough on them.
I see nothing particularly noble in the ruckusness of the federal Tories.
He does not pat us on the back.
I am even disappointed in . . . Premier Blakeney. But as bad as all of that is 1 do believe that the federal Liberal behaviour is even worse, that we are doing
March 4, 1981

irreparable harm to our country. I have been told by those whose opinions I revere that one year after the new Constitution is proclaimed the scars will have healed and pride will take their place. With all my heart I want to believe that- but I don't. I just don't. The wounds have run too deep.
I am a westerner, but not one who just wants to be an alarmist. 1 am asking my friends to listen. I am asking them to make the changes which can make this package a Canadian
The Constitution
package made in Canada, and which will unite our country and not divide it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 5, 1981