1981-02-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In the Speech from the Throne delivered on April 14, 1980, when the mortgage interest rate was 16 per cent, the government said it would assist those unable to bear the burden of renegotiating home mortgages, but later cancelled the alleged program of assistance because the interest rate decreased. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That this House direct the government to keep its promise made in the Speech from the Throne to assist those Canadians who cannot afford the home mortgage interest rate which today exceeds 16 per cent in most of Canada by providing the promised program of assistance.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the promises made in the throne speech that the government would undertake major initiatives to ensure the quality of fish products, to ensure orderly marketing, and to guarantee adequate investment in the fishing sector, through partial cost recovery, and whereas none of these promises has been fulfilled over the past 12 months, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass):
That this House condemns the inaction of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in failing to carry out the promises made to Canadian fishermen in the Speech from the Throne, and directs him to take immediate initiatives which will restore the economic potential of Canada's Fishing industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Notwithstanding the government's promise of April 14, 1980, in the Speech from the Throne, to provide employment opportunities for handicapped Canadians and to add new legislative protections to the Human Rights Act, the government vacillated on entrenching the rights of handicapped persons and said the status of handicapped persons could not be defined. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House condemns the government for failing to fulfil its promise to handicapped Canadians to introduce legislation amending the Human Rights Act to protect the rights of the handicapped in addition to any recognition granted by a charter of rights.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that there are reports of the Conservative-Rhino coalition breaking down and that card-carrying red rhinos have found problems in obtaining invitations to next week's party convention, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant):
7412

February 18, 1981
That Joe come clean on his relationship with the Rhinoceros Party and that this House support Joe's attendance at the Rhino leadership convention on May 16 at the Granby Zoo.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Brampton-George-town.


ENERGY CONSERVATION
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Canadians recognize that fuel efficiency standards for automobiles can result in immense energy economies and cost savings to consumers, and welcomed the promise in the Speech from the Throne for federal legislation establishing fuel efficiency standards. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That this House condemns the government for failing to formulate and introduce legislation setting mandatory fuel efficiency standards for automobiles as promised in the Speech from the Throne and for thereby permitting inefficient automobiles to be supplied to Canadian consumers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROCEDURE
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberiand-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, on this historic day, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin):
That the opposition's flagrant abuse of Standing Order 43 be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization for action.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta.


PENSIONS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Everyone in Canada recognizes the plight of our senior citizens. Those who battle inflation on fixed pension incomes
welcomed the government's announcement in the Speech from the Throne of a national pension conference for the fall of 1980. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That this House condemns the government for its cruel deception of senior citizens in failing to convene the national pension conference promised in the Speech from the Throne and in failing to fulfil its promise to aid those on fixed pension incomes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CREATION OF CORPORATION OUTLINED IN SPEECH FROM THE THRONE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Development of alternate energy sources to replace oil is vital to the resolution of Canadian energy problems, and all Canadians wanted the creation of an alternate energy corporation as promised in the Speech from the Throne on April 14, 1980. Since this has not been done, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That this House condemns the failure of the government to create an alternate energy corporation as promised in the Speech from the Throne to stimulate the development of new and renewable energy sources to replace oil so that Canadians in the east will not be dependent on costly foreign oil.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues on this historic day to remind the people across the aisle of the broken promises in the throne speech.
Unemployed Canadians welcomed the government's promise in the Speech from the Throne to develop critical trade skills to prepare Canada's labour force better for tomorrow's jobs by providing trades training programs. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That this House condemns the government for implementing a national energy program which has drastically reduced resource exploration and develop-
February 18, 1981

ment and resulted in deferment of trades training programs for offshore and onshore skilled jobs instead of fulfilling the promise made in the throne speech.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I am also rising under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The government said in the Speech from the Throne on April 14, 1980, that it would implement the recommendations of the Marin royal commission to formalize internal discipline in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and provide for an external review of public complaints against members of the RCMP. As is the case with other promises, we have not seen legislation in this respect. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That this House condemns the government for failing to fulfil this and other promises in the Speech from the Throne, especially with respect to internal discipline and public complaints, and thereby undermining the status of the RCMP and its bond of trust with the public.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has written to a constituent of mine as follows:
As minister responsible for the riding of Broadview-Greenwood, I am pleased to send the attached cheque in the amount of $15,568 on behalf of my colleague, the Hon. Jim Fleming, Minister of State for Multiculturalism-
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the House congratulates the Solicitor General on his new and onerous responsibilities as the minister responsible for the riding of Broadview-Greenwood and that the Prime Minister indicate who are the other ministers responsible for this or other ridings and in general for public expenditures in constituencies throughout Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, one year ago today Canadians were paying 25 cents a gallon less for gasoline. One year ago today well drilling starts were on the increase. Now, one year later, they are declining at the rate of 16 per cent, depriving Canadians in the drilling industry and support and supply service industries of jobs.
The Energy Services Association of Alberta has issued a documented report on the negative effect the government's energy policy is having not only on oil and gas exploration but also on downstream jobs and even on the food, textile and all service industries.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Bramp-ton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That members of the government read this report, which will be delivered to their offices today, and act immediately to redress the disastrous results the government's policies are having on the economy, creating disastrous effects for most Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The National Energy Board has been hearing evidence on energy supply and demand in the last few months. It is fair to assume that the minister has instructed his officials to monitor these hearings. Is the minister, therefore, aware of the submission of the Canadian Petroleum Association in which it stated that the main reason for not proceeding with oil sands projects is simply that they are no longer economical under the National Energy Program? What is the minister going to do to get the projects going again?

February 18, 1981
Oral Questions


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I have indicated that two governments had to be involved in this matter, the government of Alberta and the Government of Canada, that we were ready and willing to undertake additional discussions with the government of Alberta in this particular regard, that the net returns to the industry had to do not only with the price of oil but also with the taxation and the royalties imposed on those companies by Alberta, as well as the taxes raised by the national government.
We indicated last year that we were ready also to make a deal with Alberta so that the tar sands projects could be proceeded with on their own without having to wait for a comprehensive agreement with the government of Alberta. Unfortunately, the government of Alberta has refused this offer and has decided that it wanted to hold those projects as a kind of ransom for a comprehensive deal. That is its decision. We have to carry on those discussions, and we are available.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the same association has requested that, owing to the critical importance of oil supply, on which I think the minister agrees, and the devastating effect which the National Energy Program is having on future supplies, the National Energy Board submit as soon as possible an interim report on oil supply. Is the minister prepared to advise the board to meet this request, or does the minister consider it to be in his interest to delay the production of such a report?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hearings by the National Energy Board are concluded. I am sure the National Energy Board is reviewing the evidence submitted to it and will be preparing its report. When the board is ready to submit its report, it will be made public. That is a decision for them to take.
So far as the so-called devastating effect of NEP is concerned, I want to refer the hon. member to a report by the Alberta Energy Conservation Board which has stated quite clearly that the devastating effects on energy supply in the 1980s were going to come mainly out of the decisions of the government of Alberta rather than from the NEP. The board stated that while the NEP might have a negative effect of about 50,000 barrels a day, the current decisions by the government of Alberta would have a negative effect of around 300,000 barrels a day, if I remember well. That is also a report which my hon. friend might want to examine.


DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, 1 do not know which comes first here, the cart or the horse. The minister must understand that his policies will have very serious consequences on the policies of producing provinces.
This brings me to my final supplementary question regarding the absolute necessity of having some kind of an agreement between the producing provinces and the federal government.
The lack of it is deterring activity and causing great apprehension. Rigs are leaving the country, owing to the fact that the NEP, announced on October 28, was simply the kiss of death. The indecision has caused a movement of rigs out of our country ever since the government took office. I want to ask the minister what initiatives he is taking to reconvene discussions with the producing provinces so that we can move forward together, or is he prepared to sit back and wait for someone else to take the initiative?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I quite agree with the hon. member on the necessity of having an agreement with the producing provinces. I know that he has spent many months of fruitless efforts in trying to arrive at an agreement which, unfortunately, he did not succeed in getting when he was in office. Unfortunately, we have not been more successful up to now, but I hope we will. I have already met with my counterpart from Saskatchewan with whom I have had a very good discussion and a fruitful meeting. There have also been discussions at the official level with Saskatchewan officials. Unfortunately I have not been able to arrange a meeting with my counterpart from Alberta.
[DOT] (M20)
The government of Alberta indicated publicly and repeatedly that it wanted discussions to be carried on at the level of officials for a while. The last indication I had was from a statement by a senior official of Alberta saying that they would not be ready to report to their government before mid-March, and that they did not think there would be any opportunity for serious or extensive negotiations to commence before then. I find this regrettable but, again, our officials are available, I am available, and the Government of Canada remains available for resumption of discussions with the government of Alberta as soon as that government is ready for such discussions.


ADVICE GIVEN BY MINISTER'S OFFICIALS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Those of us who live in western Canada and are familiar with the industry have considerable concern about the supply situation. The minister brought up the issue of his officials. He said that they were willing to talk. Recently The Globe and Mail reported that the minister's officials, before a gathering of engineers and geologists in Alberta, said that 22,000 wells would have to be drilled in western Canada to find a four or five-year supply of oil. Also they said that in the north this would take 75 wells.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Is that the kind of advice he is receiving from his officials, and does he believe that kind of advice?
February 18, 1981


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member referred to The Globe and Mail. He knows that paper does not refer to me very positively, very often.


Mr. Epp:: Never.


Marc Lalonde: But while he is dealing with The Globe and Mail. I might suggest that he read the article this morning on the question of oil rigs and gas rigs. It indicated that the arguments of the drilling contractors' association lack complete credibility. They lack complete credibility when they claim that the NEP has been the cause of reduction in drilling in some areas. My friend might find an advantage in reading this particular article.
As far as the specific article to which he referred is concerned, I have not seen that article. I will read it and let my friend know what are my views on it, but I am not aware of statements by my officials to that effect.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, the bafflegab gets longer and longer. I asked the minister whether he believed that kind of advice; at least he could answer that. The minister brought up the issue of drilling contractors in the province of Alberta. Those of us who live there and drive north in the wintertime see rigs going south. That is believable, that is what is happening, and the supply situation is suffering.
Does the minister have his officials working on a new supply forecast based on the fact that we will have fewer rigs drilling in this country in the years ahead? The drain of rigs began prior to the NEP because they knew it was coming. The minister should back off. We need oil in this country; we must have rigs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, if it helps the hon. member, I might remind him that on February 10 of this year, which was approximately eight days ago, there were 577 rigs active in Canada compared to 531 on February 12, 1980. So, there are more rigs active at the present time in Canada, including western Canada, than there were last year; not fewer.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you go out there and see?


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last year in the election campaign he promised to "assist those who need it most". He specifically promised to control inflation. Today's Gallup poll indicates that Canadians are not exactly impressed with his efforts, when 50 per cent said that inflation is the number one problem, for the obvious reason that the costs of essentials are up more than 12 per cent, well in excess of wage
Oral Questions
increases. Is the government now prepared to act on his election promise to do something about inflation? Specifically, will he bring in a tax cut for middle and low-income Canadians, many of whom cannot afford to wear the roses that all the Liberals are sporting in their suits today?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Baa, Baa!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think the reaction of the members on this side to the question of the Leader of the New Democratic Party shows that they are not prepared, as he seems to be, to condemn the flower growers and gardeners of Canada. They are workers, too. The people who sell flowers have an honest living to make, just as any other worker has.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Crosbie:: Who paid for them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in so far as who paid for them, hon. members opposite can look at a question asked by one of their own members on this general subject. If they are interested in what their own members are asking about, then they can read the answer. They obviously do not take their own people very seriously.
In the Speech from the Throne we made a clear commitment that we would first help those who needed help most. That was why, within weeks of the meeting of this House after the last election, we introduced a measure to provide the old age pensioners with a very sizeable increase in the guaranteed income supplement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, members on this side should be excused for thinking that the Liberal cheers when the Prime Minister stood up were for the rate of inflation. It indicates their concern.
Notwithstanding the assistance which was provided to pensioners, which all members in this House support, no one else has received anything. Since the Prime Minister acknowledged in the campaign that interest rates had some bearing on the cost of living, and since the government has refused to interfere with the Governor of the Bank of Canada and his high interest rate policy, there are two areas of specific concern upon which the government could move. One is mortgage rates and the other is small business loans. Since small businessmen have to pay in excess of 20 per cent in order to expand, and since mortgages are up to 16 per cent to 18 per cent, will the government at least take specific action and make the banks put up money for small businesses at lower rates through mandatory legislation, and will it substantially lower mortgage rates?

February 18, 1981
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as far as small businessmen are concerned, we responded to the request of the Small Businessmen's Association. We extended to the end of this year the small business development loan, and that is a significant gesture.


John Carnell Crosbie: The bond-my bond.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the bond.
The hon. member talks about the causes of inflation. Of course there are many. As he knows, one of the main causes of the rapidly increasing cost of living is the cost of energy. The government has been putting forward policies and seeking the support of members opposite for an energy policy which would keep inflation at about five to six points below what it would have been if we had followed the Tory energy policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, for almost a year now the issues of special assistance to senior citizens and lower energy prices than would have been provided by the Tories, have been singled out. That probably leaves out 95 per cent of Canadians from receiving any serious action which would benefit them in terms of inflation. Is that to be the sum total of the government's action on inflation? Or, is the Prime Minister going to stand back and allow the average income of working families to decrease by another $1,200 this year, as the figures of the Minister of Finance indicate? In effect, is the Prime Minister saying that he does not care about that and that the financial policies of the government will remain unchanged?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am sorry if I offend the hon. member. But when he mentions the figure of 95 per cent of Canadians being untouched, it seems to me he is showing a great ignorance of the need for energy by all Canadians in this country, from farmers to old age pensioners, to young people, who ail across the country are benefiting from the government's policy to keep inflation at about five points below what it would have been under the budget of the party opposite.


HOUSING
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: My question is to the minister responsible for housing. In the Speech from the Throne the government promised to protect those Canadians most affected by unacceptably high interest rates, and they have been unacceptably high since the government took office. What action has the government taken on this promise?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for the question because in fact it is a repeat of a question that he has asked and that I have responded to in the House on previous occasions.
I would simply remind the hon. gentleman of the history of the ministry since that time. The first action, again within a month of taking office, was the movement by the corporation and the ministry to respond under government programs to those people who had been promised continued assistance; I refer to the AHOP assistance program to keep costs below 30 per cent of income.
Secondly, I would remind the hon. gentleman of the increase of the non-profit social housing commitment of this government, to increase the annual commitment from 25,000 starts in a year to 30,000 starts.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I am happy to have the occasion to point out to the hon. member the provisions of the report on the handicapped yesterday, which complimented CMHC for its action in addressing the handicapped in this nation and for the leadership it has shown in that regard.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We keep asking the question because we do not get an answer.
Turning to another part of the Speech from the Throne, the government promised to assist those unable to bear the burden of renegotiating their home mortgages in the present abnormal situation so that the spectre of foreclosure will be avoided. CMHC is now swamped with the spectre of foreclosed homes. Why did the minister not take any action on that promise?


Paul James Cosgrove: I would be repeating my last answer to the hon. gentleman, that when we said we would address assistance to those who needed help first, we did, to those people who were on the bottom end of the lower-income scale and that is why we addressed, for example, the rule to protect on an equitable basis those people who would have to pay more than 30 per cent of their income towards shelter cost. That is why we address the issue of social housing units, because those units, by and large, serve the target area, those people who find it difficult to come into the market, or find it difficult to compete or find housing in any other form.


FISHERIES
Thomas Edward Siddon: My question. Madam Speaker, is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The throne speech makes a number of sanctimonious sounding premises with respect to initiatives affecting the fisheries sector which would be expected to increase substantially Canada's share of our own natural resource and to assure a maximum return to fishermen and fish processing companies. In the past ten months the exact opposite has happened. We see chaos in the industry, a lack of consultation, last minute changes of regulations, and this is all summarized in a condemning news letter put out by the Fisheries Council of Canada in December, which suggests that the minister is guilty of politicizing the decision-making affecting the management of the fisheries.
February 18, 1981

Will the minister tell us why it is that he has refused to continue the comprehensive long-term planning and development of a national fisheries policy for Canada which was initiated by his predecessor, which he has abandoned, and which the Fisheries Council of Canada has scorned because he reneges on that very important initiative?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, taking the last point first, in fact I did not discontinue the work. A draft report is on my desk now and I hope that the good work started by my predecessor, which was an update of the document published in 1975, will in fact be useful information, which is obviously what the hon. member needs.
As to the question of maximum return, the hon. member may not have heard that the great push of the department, the industry, fishermen and processors, in the last months and the months to come would be to enhance the quality of Canadian fish in order to ensure consistent quality in the markets that we wish to penetrate. This work is going ahead very positively.
As for the question of the politicizing of the fisheries policy 1 might say that if tilting in favour of the fishermen who earn a living from the fishery is politicizing the debate, then I have to plead guilty to having politicized the discussion.


Thomas Edward Siddon: That is not quite the accusation of the Fisheries Council of Canada, Madam Speaker. They allege in fact that the tilt has been to the advantage of incumbent members that happen to represent Liberal fishing ridings.
The throne speech promised that licensing regulations would be changed so that Canadian fishermen could benefit more fully from the resources out to our 200-mile limit. That clear promise in the throne speech has been reneged upon. Will the minister tell us when he is going to allow Canadians to benefit fully from our own resource, without licensing foreign trawlers to enter Canadian waters and harvest our resource, and when is he going to make some progress on resolving the long-standing situation with the United States on reaching an agreement on the shared use of those stocks which straddle the Canada-U.S. border?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, one of my colleagues suggested the hon. member fire his research bureau. It is a very positive suggestion. The fact is we have embarked on a difficult reorganization of the licensing program and, as hon. members on all sides of the House recognize, the goal is worthy but the way is difficult.
As for the question of Canada's role in the 200-mile zone, it is very clear from the Law of the Sea consensus that those species in which our fishermen and processors have no interest are allocated to foreign interests. As far as we are concerned, those fisheries which we are interested in are taken by the Canadian fleet. There may be a modest amount which respects treaties. We have, for example, a treaty with France, but surely the hon. member is not advocating that we do not live up to our responsibilities, having signed treaties.
________________________________7417
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


WHITE FARM IMPLEMENTS TAKEOVER-QUERY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT AID
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: My question, Madam Speaker, is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but in his absence I will address it to his parliamentary secretary.
The White farm implement industry in Brantford has been shut down since last August throwing 1,100 workers out of work. The parent company in the United States has apparently found a buyer, three groups of Canadian investors, one in Guelph, Ontario, one in Brantford, and one in Montreal. I would like to ask what response will the federal government give to this group of Canadian investors who are seeking a $10 million loan from the federal government at a low interest rate in order to purchase this very viable farm implement industry and save it from going under permanently?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member had given me notice of this question, I would have been able to give him an answer immediately. I shall take note of it now and provide him with the details requested in the near future.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I have a supplementary, Madam Speaker. This apparently has been in the press for at least a day, and I am surprised the parliamentary secretary was not aware of it. The same group of Canadian investors has approached the government of Ontario for a $5 million loan, and in view of the fact the federal government came to the rescue of an American multinational, Chrysler, with respect to its Canadian operations, and in view of the fact that the Ontario government has been approached, will the minister assure this House and the stockholders of White farm implements, and the 1,100 workers at this operation that produced the best North American combine yet invented, that the Canadian government will not see White go under and will do everything it can to help the Canadian investors buy out that company so that it will be back on the tracks in a matter of a few weeks?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, I am happy to see that some members have enough leisure time to spend their day reading the newspapers. I would like to tell the hon. member that we are aware of the problems faced by this industry at the present time. I understand, but of course I would like to check on this, that the business development program has offered to that group of investors a loan guarantee of $10 million.

February 18, 1981
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER DISCUSSED AUTOROUTES 13 AND 50 WITH QUEBEC COUNTERPART
Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
In view of the election promise of the Quebec minister of transport to start work on highway 50 and complete highway 13 if the federal government is willing to negotiate and assist in the financing, can the minister tell the House whether he has been approached by his provincial counterpart in relation with such negotiations?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, many factors will eventually influence the decision to transfer to Mirabel some of the routes now going to Dorval. In passing, I am willing to postpone my appointment as ambassador to be there when this decision is made.
There will be the cost to the government, the cost to the carriers and the cost to the passengers. Obviously, the quality of the road network around Mirabel will be a major factor. It is in this context that an extension of highway A-13 must be considered.
Until now, as far as I know, the Quebec government had indicated that the federal government should make a decision about the transfer before negotiations on highway A-13 are undertaken. My hon. friend for Argenteuil now says that the Quebec minister of transport is willing to reconsider this position.


Mr. Fox:: For the third time.


Jean-Luc Pepin: For the third time, as one of my colleagues has just said. As I expect to meet with the Quebec minister very soon concerning the announcement of an agreement on the Montreal commuter train network, we shall probably discuss this matter at the same time.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Given that a promise was made to the Canadian people that the federal government would introduce legislation to set mandatory fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, will the minister give an explanation of why the government has failed to introduce this legislation?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the legislation is currently being drafted and will be introduced soon. The hon. member knows that there has been no time in the schedule of the House to
consider a number of pieces of legislation. There are something like 40 bills awaiting consideration by Parliament. I am very eager, as are my colleagues, to see Parliament examine expeditiously these bills as well as others that will come forward, including the one referred to by my hon. friend. I hope we will get the co-operation of the opposition.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, it is obvious who has the pull over there and who can get their bills introduced in the House. Since the government is trying to convince Canadians that the most important step to energy self-sufficiency is conservation, why would the minister have put increased costs and energy taxes ahead of the conservation legislation? Could it be that the government is broke?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member must have been living in a dreamworld in the last six months, unless he was living some kind of nightmare of his own. In effect, we have introduced conservation measures and I will name one in particular, whereby Canadians can switch to natural gas or electricity in most provinces and get an $800 grant for that conservation.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: When?


Marc Lalonde: They can do that, keep receipts, and the program will come into effect on April 1, without having to wait for the co-operation of my hon. friend, which is not very forthcoming when it comes to passing legislation in this House.


PENSIONS
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Speech from the Throne promised the convening of a national pensions conference by the fall of 1980. Within six months that promise was broken. I should like to ask the minister why there was such indecent haste to break that promise; has she been collaborating on a way to promise conventions and then break those promises by working with the Minister of Employment and Immigration?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I have a real-

-how should I say, it really hurts me, Madam Speaker. [English]
It really hurts me to have to inform the hon. Tory member that another hon. Tory government, namely, the government of Ontario, had to wait until it called an election to publish a very important report on pensions, which was released on Friday last week. By courtesy and elementary common sense we did not want that money to be wasted. We have that report now and our conference will be held on March 31.1 hope the hon. member will be there.
February 18, 1981


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the minister is operating on the Gregorian calendar. The conference was supposed to be held last fall and the election happens to be this spring, so there is a six-month gap there somewhere. The Speech from the Throne also promised that we must "begin immediately"-and I emphasize immediately-
-to design better methods of providing flexible, portable, and secure pensions both in the private and public sectors. To start this process, my government will soon release a major study on the Canadian pension system.
I should like to know what has happened, and when that study will be released?
[ Translation]


Monique Bégin: Frankly, Madam Speaker, being asked such wonderful questions is almost a pleasure because they enable us to give political answers.

The hon. member does not seem to have in the research bureau of the Tory party a copy of the Lazar report which we begged the Tories, when they formed the government, to release. They had problems with the French translation. We had to wait until we were back in office to release that report. It has been released for months. If the Conservative opposition had had the common sense to identify pensions as a major concern of Canadians for their future, for tomorrow and for their children, they would have appointed a critic for pensions and they would have sent a delegate with me when we travelled to a few European countries to study the pension systems over there.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Early in March, President Reagan of the United States is scheduled to visit Ottawa. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to use the opportunity of the President's visit to ask the new American administration for a clear and unequivocal commitment that no new funds will be appropriated for the Garrison diversion unit until such time as Canadian concerns about interbasin biota transfers and water quality are resolved?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have dealt with this matter before. I would remind the House that I raised the matter on my very first meeting with the previous president, President Carter, and that he had given us an undertaking that, in so far as his administration was concerned, he was very conscious and respectful of the Canadian objectives in this regard. I intend to make the same points to President Reagan.
Oral Questions


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, I hope the new president has more effect with the U.S. Senate appropriations committee than the last one.


U.S. CONGRESS COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In April this year the United States Congress appropriations subcommittees on energy and water development will hold hearings of witnesses in opposition to the Garrison diversion. Is it the intention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to seek an opportunity to speak before these committees in order to outline Canada's grave concerns about this project, or should the minister be unable to testify, would he be prepared to send an all-party delegation of members of this House to testify at these hearings?
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): I certainly do not think it would be appropriate for me to appear before an American committee, Madam Speaker. I will consider the hon. gentleman's representations as to the best way in which this should be handled.


DISASTERS
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. On January 13 I directed a question to the Deputy Prime Minister concerning the disastrous fire which had occurred in Lock-eport, Nova Scotia, and which caused loss of employment for some 305 people. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion replied that a proposal concerning this matter would be made within the next few weeks to the advisory board of the department. In the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. As more than a month has passed, I would ask if the advisory board has now completed its examination of the company's proposal, a proposal I might add which was made over a month ago by company officials. Will he make this an anniversary day for Lockeport by making a decision which would lead to the rebuilding of the plant in that town?
[DOT] (U50)


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: In relation to what the hon. member stated, Madam Speaker, the advisory board has made its recommendation. The department in Nova Scotia has presented its proposal to the minister, and he will be making an announcement on this within the next few days.

February 18, 1981
Oral Questions EMPLOYMENT


GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO PROVIDE JOBS
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I wish to remind him of a short phrase in the throne speech, that there will be an increased effort to develop critical trade skills so as to prepare today's labour force better for tomorrow's jobs. The only thing the government signalled, during the year it has been in power, is its intention to reduce and shift some of the burden for manpower training and education to the provinces, to the tune of $1.5 billion. Will the minister advise whether there are any other initiatives which the government has undertaken to redress this critical situation in view of the fact that half the unemployed are under the age of 25 and industry is critically short of skilled manpower?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to answer that question. I ask the hon. member to review some of the other announcements we have made since the throne speech. We introduced a new training program for women to bring them into non-professional fields. We established additional training funds for native people in Canada. We established a major parliamentary task force to look into the whole area of developing new programs for training, and held a number of meetings across Canada. In that regard we will be negotiating with the provinces in the forthcoming months to establish new training agreements. We have established new programs under the $350 million industrial adjustment program act. We have established a brand new generation of critical skills training to make sure there will be an upgrading of training opportunities for Canadians in displaced communities, as well as right across Canada. That is just a short inventory of a number of initiatives we are taking to provide for additional training because we recognize it to be one of the very important issues this country will face in the coming decade.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, the tomorrow that the throne speech talked about was here yesterday. Canada's industrial future lies in high technology jobs. The time for study has passed. The minister knows the situation. He knows that he has to involve industry, the provinces, labour unions and the government in redressing this critical situation. The time for study is no longer here, the time is for action. When is the minister going to take some action to bring the players together and produce some effective programs?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, unlike some members of the opposition, we believe more in accomplishment than in rhetoric.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: That is what the women thought too.


Lloyd Axworthy: We put into place a number of meetings with industrial representatives, and in the last year signed
several major agreements with groups like the mining industry, the aerospace industry, the electronics industry, and the forest industry in the hon. member's province, to establish brand new critical skill trade programs. I will be very glad to send the hon. member copies of these agreements if he is genuinely interested.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Public Works. Will the minister give an accounting to the House with regard to the program in Toronto which caused so much excitement some while ago, the Harbourfront development, particularly with regard to the question of the terminal building?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I presume the hon. member is referring to news reports to the effect that, because of some problems at the municipal level and regional level in metropolitan Toronto, the plans for Harbourfront have run into some delay. I understand from the president of the corporation that those were simply delays and the program is continuing.


PARLIAMENT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As he knows, some 3,000 employees on Parliament Hill are denied the fundamental right to choose free collective bargaining concerning their working conditions on the Hill. In view of the fact that over 13 years ago a joint Senate-House of Commons committee recommended an extension of these rights, and the then government House leader some two years ago promised changes in this area, what action is the government prepared to take to put an end to this unjust and primitive state of labour relations here on the Hill, and bring in the necessary legislation to extend to our employees on the Hill full collective bargaining rights?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I believe this question was asked the other day. The hon. member was reminded that these employees are not employees of the government but of the House of Commons, and I believe the Speaker told the hon. member that this type of question would be more properly raised directly with her.


Svend Johannes Robinson: If ever there was an instance of buck passing, this is it. Madam Speaker has said that the government must bring in legislation to extend these rights. My supplementary question is the following. While the government has delayed this legislative action, and I might say this is
February 18, 1981

a rather surprising attitude from a Prime Minister who purports to act on behalf of workers, at least who did some time in the past, and defends freedom of association-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: While the government is delaying this legislative action in circumstances in which an employee in an office of a non-New Democratic Party Member of Parliament is arbitrarily fired, disciplined, or harassed, in the absence of any legislative action on the part of this government the Speaker said that she is powerless to intervene.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Now I do have to object to the length of the question.


Svend Johannes Robinson: In view of the fact there is no avenue of appeal whatsoever for such an employee, when is the government going to bring in the necessary legislation to extend collective bargaining rights or, at the very least, provide some sort of appeal mechanism or grievance procedure for employees in an MP's office who may be unfairly dismissed, harassed, or unjustly disciplined?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I find it regrettable that the hon. member is bringing back his allegations of harassment. He has been challenged by many people, by the press and by myself, either to put up or shut up on this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I will direct my question to the Minister of Finance. It is with regard to the new loan guarantee agreement with Chrysler. In view of the fact that this new agreement is substantially inferior as far as Canada's benefits and Chrysler's guarantees are concerned, when compared to last May's agreement, and because presumably the Minister of Finance along with cabinet had to approve such a program, I now ask the minister to justify the government's new position in this regard, keeping in mind for example the reduction of some 3,000 jobs with this program as opposed to the one of last year, and the reduction of 50 per cent in small cars to be produced in Canada by Chrysler, not to mention the $50 million discrepancy in the actual amount of the funds agreed to, and to explain how the government can justify taking a step backwards in this regard as compared to the agreement last May with Chrysler.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I have been involved in the discussions with the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Oral Questions
Commerce and other ministers on this particular proposal, and we did approve it because, in our view, it represented a very good deal for Canada in light of the support which the Government of Canada proposed to give. It was my impression that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce had done an extremely good job in negotiating with Chrysler and getting very substantial benefits for Canada.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


TREATMENT ACCORDED SMALL BUSINESSES
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the minister's answer-from a questionable program to one which has taken a step backward-I would like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of State for Small Businesses.
In view of the fact that small business provides over 50 per cent of the labour force in Canada, as he well knows, and because this vital sector is experiencing a record number of bankruptcies, primarily as a result of high interest rates and the lack of venture or working capital, could the minister explain why, on one hand, the government is able to support a large foreign company to the extent of $200 million while, on the other hand, Canadian-owned small and medium-sized industries, which provide the largest possible employment potential, are left high and dry by their own minister? What action is the minister taking from his standpoint when, on one hand, we have the government guaranteeing $200 million-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order.
[ Translation]


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should check his figures before making allegations. Indeed the loan guarantee given to Chrysler Corporation amounted to about $150 million.
As to the small business sector in Canada, the hon. member ought to recall that the moment we were returned to office we rushed through the House a measure to raise the loan ceiling from $75,000 to $100,000 under the Small Businesses Loans Act. In addition, as early as April 17 the Minister of Finance announced that Small Business Development Bonds would be issued and, a few days ago, he stated that this program would be extended until the end of the year. The hon. member spoke about the record number of bankruptcies experienced by the small business sector. He should know as well that the bankruptcy rate is less than 1 per cent of the total number of small businesses in Canada and he forgot to say that 1980 saw the creation of 50,000 small businesses in this country.

February 18, 1981
Oral Questions COMMUNICATIONS


INQUIRY RESPECTING NATION-WIDETELIDON PROGRAM
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Communications.
About a year ago, the Minister of Communications announced a subsidy to Telecable Videotron for the development of Telidon. About two weeks ago, the Minister of Communications also announced a commitment by the government to the Telidon program amounting to $21 million. Can the minister assure the House that the Telidon program will be developed right across Canada and not only regionally?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the nature of the news I announced last week with regard to Telidon is such that it should really encourage the Canadian industry, which is very much interested in that new technology in which we have a leading edge.
I am particularly happy that Telecable Videotron, which is firmly established on the south shore of Montreal, should participate in the pilot project and that the people there should be amongst the first to enjoy the benefits of that new technology. In addition, as a result of the expansion of Telecable-Videotron throughout the island of Montreal, several Montrealers will also be among the first Canadians to enjoy its advantages. I am also happy to tell the hon. member that similar pilot projects will be scattered throughout Canada.
More good news, Madam Speaker: yesterday, the great multinational Time-Life announced that it was going to choose the Canadian system's Telidon, over those of its great international competitors, namely, the French system, Antiope, and the English system, Prestel. Naturally, that is very good news for the whole Canadian information industry.


VISIT OF PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-QUERY RESPECTING ADDRESS TO PARLIAMENT OF CANADA
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Prime Minister. There has been an announcement that the President of the United States and Mrs. Reagan have accepted the Governor General's invitation to visit Canada on March 10 and 11, 1981. Is the Prime Minister in a position today to indicate generally the program for that visit, and particularly is he in a position to say whether or not the president will be addressing Parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the dates were only decided in a final way yesterday, and through our officials we are now trying to establish the agenda for those two days. If consideration is given to having
the president address the joint Houses, I would be happy to consult with the leaders of the opposition parties and determine their views on this.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize that tomorrow is the day for dealing with House business for the days that lie ahead. There was some urgency to the passage of Bill C-42, the bill under which the Post Office is to be turned into a Crown corporation. I wonder if the House leader could schedule a time when we might deal with that bill and get it passed, particularly so we can avoid a strike situation.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to consult with the minister responsible and my colleagues, the House leaders on the other side, to try to deal with that bill as soon as possible.


An hon. Member:: Thursday is tomorrow.


PRINTING OF ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I am sure that members have noticed the unusual size of both the Order Paper and Votes and Proceedings. That is the result of the requirement that the entire text of the motion for an Address to Her Majesty be printed each day, in the case of Votes and Proceedings and Hansard, sometimes two or more times. Needless to say, this is a rather expensive and not entirely necessary practice.
After consulting the other House leaders, I believe there would be consent to permit the Table to devise an appropriate abbreviated form for use in the Order Paper, Votes and Proceedings and Debates, with the understanding that the full text of the main motion would be printed in the Monday Order Paper every week; that the full text of any amendment under consideration would be printed each day; and that Votes and Proceedings carry a full text on each day on which a vote is taken on an amendment and on the day that the matter is finally disposed of.


Walter David Baker: There have been consultations, and we are agreeable to the House order as stated by the government House leader.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, so are we.


Madam Speaker:: The proposal of the hon. minister is agreed to.
February 18, 1981


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester):: Madam Speaker, I will not take a lot of time of the House, but I have to bring a matter of privilege to the attention of the House that I feel affects every member of this chamber, since we represent the people of Canada. It relates to the request by the former prime minister of Canada, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, to the people of Canada that his home in Rockcliffe be used specifically as a museum in association with his contributions as a prime minister and as a Canadian of great significance.
In recent days, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) has announced a decision of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board in Canada in relation to Mr. Diefenbaker's home in Rockcliffe. As far as I am concerned, the decision rests with the people of Canada and should not be sloughed off to a board of any kind. The decision is the responsibility of the Government of Canada and, more particularly, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) as to whether we accept the gift which the Canadian people have been notified by the executors of the estate of the late Right Hon. John Diefenbaker is available to them.
I have been in communication with the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Environment and the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox), and I have indicated to all three that the John G. Diefenbaker Memorial Foundation would be willing to enter into discussions with the Government of Canada with the objective that that Foundation assume the responsibilities as outlined in Mr. Diefenbaker's will as far as any-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I would like the hon. member to try to let me know exactly where his question of privilege stands. I can see the hon. member is pressing a point. He has a complaint about a situation with which he does not agree, but that does not in itself constitute privilege. I would like him to restrict himself to indicating to me where his question of privilege lies.


Robert Carman Coates: Madam Speaker, I will get to that quite quickly. What I am endeavouring to indicate is that a board established by the Government of Canada to carry out certain responsibilities on behalf of Canadians has made an announcement through the Minister of the Environment which reflects on the role played by Mr. Diefenbaker during his lifetime. Certain actions this board anticipates taking relate to some aspects of his distinguished career. As I read the announcement, this board has at the same time proposed that this gift which is part of Mr. Diefenbaker's estate should be rejected. The gift made through Mr. Diefenbaker's will was not to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. It was to the people of Canada, to the Parliament of Canada and to the Government of Canada which naturally must act on behalf of the people of Canada.
Privilege-Mr. Coates
What has happened is that a board has taken a decision which leads one to believe that the government will not accept the gift which has been made to the people of Canada.
I believe the people of Canada have the right to expect that the bequest made in Mr. Diefenbaker's will will in fact be acted upon. I have no doubt at all that the people of Canada and the members of this House who represent the people of Canada would want to see that happen. I do not believe that, by the use of a vehicle such as a board of one sort or another, we can eliminate the bequest which has been made.
The solicitors for the executors of the estate of Mr. Diefenbaker have made certain statements to the effect that, if this gift made to the people of Canada by the late John G. Diefenbaker is not accepted, it will become a part of the residue of Mr. Diefenbaker's estate and be disposed of as the executors perceive it should be disposed of. It would be a terrible travesty and tragedy for the people of Canada if the Government of Canada failed to indicate whether it would accept the gift made in the will. This House and the people of Canada have the right to know where the government stands. I do not believe the government should use a vehicle such as a board to eliminate its obligation to the people of Canada.
Just to clarify this matter for members of the government, the Diefenbaker Foundation has indicated in correspondence with the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Environment and the Secretary of State that it would be willing to assume the responsibility set out in that bequest if the Government of Canada accepts the gift, so the taxpayers of this nation should have no fear that they will be asked through their tax dollars to assume the responsibility of maintaining and operating the Diefenbaker home.
What I really find reprehensible and unacceptable is the suggestion that, because Mr. Diefenbaker did not live in the home when he was prime minister or leader of the opposition, it is not a home of significance. The Prime Minister of this nation lives at 24 Sussex Drive. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) lives at Stornoway. Private Members of Parliament live at wherever their residences are. For many years Mr. Diefenbaker lived in his home in Rockcliffe. That is the home where he wrote his memoirs. That is the home where his wife died. That is the home where he died. It is unbelievable to me that a board charged with responsibility for historic sites and monuments in Canada would reject out of hand the suggestion that the home in which Mr. Diefenbaker died is a significant place to be a museum for future Canadians to see.
As far as I am concerned, it is facetious to suggest that the Canadian government, through the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, would build a monument in Prince Albert as a substitute for accepting the gift from Mr. Diefenbaker's estate. All members of this House realize that few people get the opportunity to go to Prince Albert, but we should also realize that almost one million people visited this capital as tourists last year. This is the place where we have Laurier House and Kingsmere.
What the government, through this board, is suggesting is that we should not accept a gift and have a museum to the

February 18, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Coates
Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker. I do not accept that. I believe the government should not try to use the device of a board to squirm out of its responsibility to the people of Canada to accept this home. I believe we should hear today a clear statement as to what its intentions are. If its intentions are to refuse a gift from a former prime minister of this country, let it be known. Let the people know.
I can give the government the guarantee that the home will be retained. It will be a museum open to Canadians. It is terribly important that all Canadians know that the Government of Canada accepts the gift of a former great Canadian of his home, that it will be under the auspices of the government and all the people of Canada so that Canadians today, tomorrow and forever will be able to see that home as a memorial and a tribute to a great Canadian, indeed one of the greatest Canadians who has ever lived in the 114-year history of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak briefly on the same question of privilege. 1 listened carefully to the hon. gentleman's remarks, and I would like to comment on one or two of the points he made, particularly because of my desire to clarify, in case there should be any misinterpretation or in case I might have misinterpreted his remarks.
At one point I thought I heard the hon. member indicate that this decision which has been taken might be one which reflects on the role of Mr. Diefenbaker as a former Prime Minister or in Canadian public life. If I understood the hon. member correctly to say that, I want to assure him and the House immediately that nothing could be further from the truth. I doubt if there are many members of this House who had more affection and respect for the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker than I had, and I am sure the Historic Sites and Monuments Board is extremely conscious of his contribution to Canadian history and the high esteem in which he was held by so many Canadians.
The fact of the matter is that a set of policy guidelines has been established, not by the government but by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board. If I understood the hon. gentleman correctly, he is urging me to overturn the recommendation made to me by a distinguished group of historians and citizens whose purpose is to come directly to a determination of this kind of difficult and sometimes delicate question. If the hon. member wants to say that the responsibility rests with me rather than with the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, I would have to accept it; but I would also have to say to him frankly that I would be extremely loath to overturn a decision taken by such a disinterested-and I do not mean uninterested-body, and that this kind of decision should be expressly removed, not only from partisan judgment but even from the
possible public interpretation that a partisan judgment was being applied by a minister.
The reasons which the board put forward for rejecting this generous offer were not only that it was in conflict with this request-


An hon. Member:: "Bequest".


John (Moody) Roberts: I accept the hon. member's correction. The reason the board did not accede to this bequest was, first of all, that it did not correspond to the established policy because it felt there were more appropriate ways of recognizing Mr. Diefenbaker's contribution. It should be underlined also that the board felt that the purpose of the bequest, the kind of museum which was envisaged, could not appropriately be fulfilled at the Rockcliffe site. I think it would be foolhardy and wrong for me to overturn the professional judgment exercised by very competent people.
I will read the remarks of the hon. gentleman carefully, but on the basis of what I heard during my attentive listening to his remarks, I do not think it would be appropriate today to overturn the decision taken by the board; and I do hope that nothing in his remarks could be interpreted as undermining or attacking the decision which the board has taken.


Madam Speaker:: I will not hear any more speakers on this question of privilege because the first speaker, the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates), did not make, in my view, any kind of argument which would indicate to me that there was a question of privilege in the point he raised. Yesterday the hon. member pursued this matter in the proper way by asking a question of the minister during the question period, and he received some answers. Obviously he is not very satisfied with those answers, so today he wants to push the point. That is probably quite legitimate, but it should not be done under the guise of a question of privilege, which it is not. Therefore, I will not hear any more speakers on the ground that this is not a question of privilege.
When the first speaker on a question of privilege does not succeed in convincing me that there is even a hint that there might be a breach of privilege, my policy is not to hear second speakers. So my ruling on this question is that the hon. member has a complaint, which is probably very legitimate; that is not for me to determine. But complaints have to be aired at other times and not through questions of privilege.
I have notice of another question of privilege from the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae). I will hear it now.


MR. RAE-LETTER FROM MR. KAPLAN RESPECTING MULTICULTURALISM GRANT
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, now that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) is in the House, I want to indicate to him that Mr. Ian Martin, who is one of the executive officers of the Canadian Association of Teachers of English as a Second Language and who is a constituent of
February 18, 1981

mine, received a letter on February 12, 1981, from the Solicitor General which I should like to read into the record. The letter reads as follows:
As minister responsible for the riding of Broadview-Greenwood, I am pleased to send the attached cheque in the amount of $15,568 on behalf of my colleague, the Hon. Jim Fleming, Minister of State for Multiculturalism, in respect of the submission you presented to him for approval under the multiculturalism grants program.
With all best wishes for a successful endeavour.
Yours very truly,
Bob Kaplan, P.C., M.P.
I must say that I had no idea prior to last night when my constituent came to my office asking me whether it was true that the Solicitor General was in fact responsible for Broadview-Greenwood riding, since this constituent was labouring under the illusion that I was the Member of Parliament who was responsible for his interests. I said no, I was not aware of the fact. Fie then showed me the letter which I read.
I should like to put to the House and to you, Madam Speaker, that we have here an application for a grant under a program which has nothing to do with politics. It is a program which has to do with English as a second language. It is not political, it is not tainted by NDP, Liberal or Conservative politics, and as soon as it touches the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Fleming), I would have anticipated and indeed expected, since this is the real world of politics, that the Minister of State for Multiculturalism would have given out the cheque and would have given me notice, as happens with every other program with which I am acquainted, of the fact that this money was sent out. Instead of this, we find now that the Solicitor General has been appointed the "minister responsible for the riding of Broadview-Greenwood".
What is the nature, Madam Speaker, of those onerous and difficult responsibilities for Broadview-Greenwood?


An hon. Member:: Sending out a cheque.


Mr. Peterson:: To make up for your inadequacies.


Bob Rae: That is a nice thing to say. The only inadequacy that I have in the eyes of this government is that I am not a member of the Liberal Party, and that is the only reason they decided to appoint a minister responsible for my riding. Can the hon. member tell us who the minister responsible for his riding is in Willowdale?
As a Member of Parliament for Broadview-Greenwood, I want to register my state of disbelief that there is a minister masquerading in front of the people of Canada as the minister responsible for Broadview-Greenwood. What other riding is he responsible for? Why are we not allowed to take our own responsibilities and take account of whatever government programs there are? If there is a letter to go out, let it go out from the minister of state to whom my constituent applied rather than from the interloper masquerading as a minister responsible for my riding. If he is indeed the minister responsible for Broadview-Greenwood, why was he not sworn in before the
Privilege-Mr. Rae
Governor General and why did he not take his oath of office as Solicitor General and minister responsible for Broadview-Greenwood? He is exercising this privilege on government stationery and government letterhead. He is not describing himself as the Liberal Member of Parliament undermining the NDP Member of Parliament for Broadview-Greenwood; he is describing himself as the minister responsible for Broadview-Greenwood.
Finally, as a matter of pure courtesy, I would have thought that if the Government of Canada is going to nominate ministers responsible for opposition ridings or for all ridings, and obviously ministers responsible for the dispensing of public moneys in an individual constituency, the least they can do is to indicate to the member involved that this is what is happening and tell him that, if he wants to get any money for his constituents, he must go crawling on all fours to the Solicitor General before he can get it.


Madam Speaker:: Would the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) not want to rise later? I would prefer to recognize the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), following which the minister could reply.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, normally I would have preferred to follow the minister. However, I have a similar and related point to the one raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae). He will learn that these things happen when these honourable rascals are in office!
I have a question on the Order Paper asking why the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), who was following the same kind of practices, has set up a constituency office in my riding.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Erik Nielsen: He has done the same thing in another riding and intends to do it again. The question on the Order Paper asks how many more ministers are setting up constituency offices in ridings which do not have Liberal members. If the Chair finds that the question raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood is properly based, I would ask the Chair to take into consideration the propriety of ministers of the Crown using taxpayers' money to set up a constituency office in a riding which they do not represent.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I am very glad to have this opportunity to inform the constituents of Broadview-Greenwood who do not know about these responsibilities, which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has asked me to assume in relation to that riding.
I should say by way of background that all members of the government have been asked to assume similar responsibilities for ridings-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

February 18, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Rae


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -not particularly Liberal, Conservative or NDP ridings, because the ridings for which the Prime Minister asked me to assume this responsibility do not only include ridings held by members of the opposition, but as well a number of ridings which are represented by Liberal members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do they know it?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In saying that, I want to point out how very inaccurate it is to characterize this as involving members opposite having to come crawling to me on all fours to get money for their ridings. This is a perfect example; the hon. member did not even know that this application had come in from his riding. Over $15,000 was awarded in a perfectly proper grant. The Member of Parliament did not come crawling on all fours to me. He certainly does not have to, and this grant proves that he does not have to.
Let me come to the responsibilities the ministers have been asked to assume. It is sometimes believed by Canadians, if their riding is not held or represented by a member of the government or a member of the government party, that they cannot address the government directly but are obliged to make representations to the government only through members of the caucus, members of the government or through members of the opposition. I am glad to have this opportunity to let the people in the hon. member's riding and other ridings know that there are ways to make representations to the government other than through their own Member of Parliament, whether he is a member on the government side or a member on the opposition side.


Bob Rae: This is incredible.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: It is straightforward government programming; it has nothing to do with politics.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I think the hon. member opposite should check the facts.


Bob Rae: I have checked the facts.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am willing to use this case, although 1 am not familiar with all the details of the background, as an example to see whether anyone came crawling on all fours to a member of the government or to a member of the government party to get this particular grant. 1 am sure the member will find that no such demeaning activity took place, nor should it.


Bob Rae: That is not what I said.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I should like the good constituents of Broad-view-Greenwood to know that if any of them want to make representations to a member of the government, the Prime Minister of Canada has asked me to go out of my way to be available to the people living in that riding.


Bob Rae: This is unbelievable.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: If they should choose to make representations directly to a member of the government, they will find me available and willing, within the limits of my other responsibilities, to meet with them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Of course, they continue to be free, as are all Canadians, to make representations to any member of the government, to their own Member of Parliament or to other Members of Parliament. It is a matter of their choice. If they want to come and make representations to me, I should like them to know that the Prime Minister of Canada has asked me to take the extra trouble to be available to people from that riding.


Miss Jewett:: I cannot believe it.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I make no apologies for that.


Some hon. Members:: You should.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, we have been treated to the greatest example of patronizing, condescension and arrogance I have ever seen in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I am surprised and shocked that it would come from a Member of Parliament who 1 thought heretofore understood what Parliament was all about and what a Member of Parliament was all about.
Only a Liberal could make that argument with a straight face, although to save himself he at least smiled when he sat down. It is a carryover of the ethics of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) which he expressed many years ago as to his view of Parliament, that parliamentarians are nobodies; that somehow Parliament is the handmaiden of the government. And now this is being extended to ridings.
If the minister is prepared to put the doctrine with which he just dealt to the test, if the hon. member for Broadview-Green-wood (Mr. Rae) wants to put a motion to send this entire matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, I am prepared to second it. If it is seconded, I want to see the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) rise in his place and say that he is prepared to let it go. Then we will have an opportunity not only to get the answer to the question put by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), but also an opportunity to get to the bottom of what I think is a sleazy practice on the part of the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I will hear one more intervenor on this question.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on this question of privilege because I think it is
February 18, 1981

about the most serious one which has come up in this session of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The laughter over there only shows how serious it is. If a minister of the government writing to people in a member's district saying that he has now been given the responsibility of representing that district is not a breach of the privileges of the members of this House, then I fail to see that we have any privileges whatsoever; we have none.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) is the Member of Parliament for that district. He has been sworn in to this House. For a cabinet minister to write people in his district pretending that somehow he is responsible for the district is beyond belief. Then to give the excuse in this House that this is the case because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the imperial potentate, asked him to take on that responsibility, not only for a Member of Parliament in the opposition but for Members of Parliament of his own party, is also beyond belief. Members of the Liberal Party will have a cabinet minister holding them by the hand and telling people in their districts that he is responsible for their district, and when a letter goes out with money for a group in the district, that the Liberal member cannot be trusted in his own district. Adult, intelligent members over there laugh about it and think it is an hilarious practice, one that is all to the good of Canada. If that is not prostitution of the democratic process, what are we seeing?
I have been involved in provincial politics, and I always thought that federal politics were on a higher level. But I was quickly disabused of that when I came here and saw how members of the government opposite operate.
I have an example in my own district. I will raise a question of privilege tomorrow with respect to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), who tossed aside all the rules and regulations of his own community services program and gave a grant of $25,000 to a project which was ranked as No. 56 in order of priority of 67 projects which were not financed. Because a provincial Liberal member of the House of Assembly spoke to the cabinet minister who is supposed to be responsible for Newfoundland-the "cabinet minister irresponsible for Newfoundland"-the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), they advanced $25,000 of government funds and ignored their own department and the advisory board. A project which got .23 points out of a score of nine received an additional $25,000 not included under the program, nor recommended by the department or by the local advisory board. If this is not a scummy way for a minister of the government to operate, if this is not even scummier, if the minister's explanation is not the lowest we have heard, I do not know what is. There is a prima facie case for this matter to go to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to see if we have any rights with
Privilege-Mr. Rae
respect to this government. Or will the tyranny of the majority rule hereafter?


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


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, obviously this is not a prima facie case of privilege. No regulation or statute has been breached. No directive has been violated. So, obviously it is a difference of opinion. This debate comes at a very bad time because for a while we believed that the opposition was serious in their wish to see the debate on the Constitution of Canada proceed normally and without undue delay. Madam Speaker, this is a silly and continued question meant to delay unduly the debate on the Constitution, and I ask you to dismiss it as such.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I heard you correctly, Madam Speaker, just before the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) stood up on his point of order you said you would hear one more member. I thought that member was the hon. member for St. John's West. Following his intervention there was another intervention. Therefore, I claim my right to intervene as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, this House has been insulted today. It is an absolute disgrace that a minister of the Crown, who has taken an oath to uphold the rules of the House and to observe the rules of democracy and proper behaviour in this country, should have the arrogance to write a letter such as he wrote and to sign it. I can imagine someone writing the letter but not the minister signing it. It is an abuse of power. I suggest that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) about there being constituency offices established in other ridings through public funding should be referred to the Auditor General for examination and report. I make the motion here and now that the matter be referred to the Auditor General for examination and report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member on his point of order.
Before I do that I want to explain to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) that I did say I would hear another person on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: I said I would hear another intervenor. Then no one on this side rose, but I usually give a chance to

February 18, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Rae
both sides. There were four members on this side who rose. Before hearing the hon. minister I said that I would have to hear him. If the hon. member was listening he will remember that I said that I will now have to hear the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). In all fairness, I must hear the arguments on both sides of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Madam Speaker:: The Chair should also have a chance to explain. In doing so I try to be brief and to take as little as possible of the time of the House. I explained what I was doing. The hon. member did not quite understand what I had said. I think I have a chance to explain to him. It is now not too late to explain an action. I hope we can all explain our actions in the House. I know now that the hon. member agrees that I should be able to give this explanation.
I will now hear the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood on a point of order.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I neglected to move the necessary motion. I would like to do so now. If you do find, Madam Speaker, that I have a prima facie case, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the matter of ministers of the Crown being appointed as responsible for ridings already represented by a duly sworn Member of Parliament be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: We have heard several contributions in the House which have come close to the matter we are now discussing. I have ruled a few times on matters which come close to the matter which has been brought up today. I do not find in the question that was raised a prima facie case of privilege.
I want to remind hon. members of the duties of the Chair as defined in Standing Order 12(1), which sets out that the duties of the Chair do not extend to regulating in any way the responsibilities assigned to cabinet ministers, either officially or in the way described by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan).
It is true that there is a dispute with respect to this action. There is also a judgment as to the propriety of this action. It is different on both sides of the House. It is not in the Chair's competence to determine or rule on the propriety of actions. Therefore, I recognize that there is a complaint. The matter has been brought up in the House in the form of a question of privilege, but I cannot find that there is a prima facie case of a question of privilege in this case.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise on a point of order. In order that I might inform my constituents who the minister responsible for my constituency is, could you, Madam Speaker, request the government to table the list of ministers who are responsible, so that 1 may go and appeal to him as a Member of Parliament and be able to direct my constituents to him?


Madam Speaker:: I must tell the hon. member that I cannot request the government to do any such thing. The hon. member might pursue this matter during question period or at another time when the question can be debated. I am sorry that I cannot accommodate the hon. member. According to the rules I am unable to ask the government to do any such thing.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it implicit in your ruling that such a matter may not also be considered by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections?


Madam Speaker:: Yes, it is implicit in my ruling, since I did not find a prima facie case of a question of privilege. If I had found such was the case then I would have put the hon. member's motion to the House and the House could have decided after debate, or without debate, whether or not they wished to send it to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If undermining a member in his own riding does not fall within a question of privilege, then what is a question of privilege?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I have explained that many times in the House. I refer the hon. member to definitions which I have given quite frequently in some of my rulings with regard to privilege. From time to time I attempt to remind members of the definition of privilege as given by Erskine May or by Beauchesne. I do this in order to remind members what really constitutes a question of privilege, since we often hear some questions which cannot be recognized as questions of privilege. I think it is important to say from time to time in the House that members apply themselves to raising questions of privilege which are legitimate. That is why I define what it is from time to time. I would refer the hon. member to some of my rulings.


POINT OF ORDER
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Speaker enjoys a particular position in this House. May I ask whether you would consider making a comment on the propriety of practices-perhaps not today-from the point of view of protecting the members of this House from practices of other members of the House, which at least a substantial number of us think are reprehensible? This has been the practice of your predecessors from time to time.
I would like to bring a case to mind. There was a case involving a report commissioned by the former minister of transport, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski). That report was found wanting by Mr. Speaker and he
February 18, 1981

admonished the government at that time for dealing in the way it had. We accepted that admonition. Whether it was right or not is a matter of record. There were some precedents put before Mr. Speaker Jerome which indicated that his admonition was not in order. Nonetheless, the Speaker of the day took it upon himself to protect the position of Members of Parliament from improprieties or conduct unbecoming of a minister or a ministry. That was a good practice, Madam Speaker.
If there was ever a case where you should stand and protect Members of Parliament from improprieties, if you do not find a prima facie case, then this is the case. I invite you to indicate to the ministers what is proper conduct in so far as members of this House are concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I believe, and I think the hon. member knows, that there is a place to determine the propriety of these types of actions. These questions can be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I would say that is a very wise rule, if I want to protect my own office, since I do not see myself, as Speaker, in the position of frequently admonishing the House or members on what is proper and what is not. It is enough that I have to keep telling members that something is in order and something else is not in order. 1 think that is about the limit of my role in this House because I only act under the rules, customs and traditions built up by the House itself. I dc not make my own rules and judgments on the deliberations of this House, but I always take seriously what the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has to say and I will look into the precedent that he invokes. I am sure I will not want to admonish members but I will look at the precedent and see if what he is requesting of me is at all possible in light of my conception of my office.


Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, with respect to the reflection on this issue which you will apparently undertake, might I direct you to the mechanics spelled out with respect to this matter on page 25 of the fifth edition of Beauchesne, paragraph 84, which reads as follows:
(1)	Once the claim of a breach of privilege has been made, it is the duty of the Speaker to decide if a prima facie case can be established. The Speaker requires to be satisfied, both that privilege appears to be sufficiently involved to justify him in giving such precedence (or as it is sometimes put, that there is a prima facie case that a breach of privilege has been committed); and also that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity.
(2)	It has often been laid down that the Speaker's function in ruling on a claim of breach of privilege is limited to deciding the formal question, whether the case conforms with the conditions which alone entitle it to take precedence over the notices of motions and orders of the day standing on the Order Paper; and does not extend to deciding the question of substance, whether a breach of privilege has in fact been committed-a question which can only be decided by the House itself.
Those last words are particularly significant. It is with respect to that specific issue that I draw your attention and I would hope you might reflect upon that at the time you make your deliberation. The reason I suggest that is that it may be proper, having regard to the rule, for the House to decide the
Introduction of Bills
issue and not for the decision to be made before the House has an opportunity to decide that issue.


Madam Speaker:: I read it as the hon. member went along and I understand it, but I will reflect upon it. It seems to me that this confirms some of the things I just said but I will take that advice and read extensively what is the role of the Speaker in determining a prima facie case of privilege. That is quite easy to understand, but the part the hon. member did not quote and which I have to deal with is, what does constitute a breach of privilege or contempt of Parliament? That is the question on which I have to determine whether there is a prima facie case. What the hon. member read seems to confirm what I am saying.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) on the same point of order?


Thomas Gordon Towers: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker. While you are contemplating that I wonder if you would go just a little further and look at what is happening in Alberta where the government has named twin Members of Parliament. This is terribly confusing to the people I was elected to represent; they wonder what is going on. Is the whole democratic process breaking down? Just two weeks ago the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) was out there. People hired a hall to hear him and presented him with a brief; it is brought back but nothing happens. They want to know what is going on.


Madam Speaker:: I have to stop the hon. member because he is getting very close to discussing the ruling; however, I will take this fact into account.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Gordon Edward Taylor: for leave to introduce Bill C-628, to amend the Criminal Code (computer crime).


Madam Speaker:: I understand the hon. member wishes to speak very briefly to the bill.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to introduce a bill entitled "An act to amend the Criminal Code (computer crime)". I will give a very short explanation of the bill.
Computer related crime is a growing problem which occurs and brings great loss to the public. Losses for each incident of computer crime tend to be far greater than losses associated with each incident of white-collar crime. The prosecution of persons engaged in computer-related crime is difficult under

February 18, 1981
Order Paper Questions
present Criminal Code provisions which, when enacted, did not envisage our present technology.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code so that the integral elements such as magnetic tapes, programs and date are included in the offences against property.
The penalty for an indictable offence is imprisonment for ten years. This amendment is badly needed today in view of the universal use now being made of data systems and the personal and confidential information contained on same.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[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. 984, 1,437, 1,652, 1,674, 1,675, 1,758, 1,860, 1,944 and 2,005.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. MacKay: Did the Import Analysis Division of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce undertake a detailed analysis of the import statistics published by Statistics Canada and, if so, did they find "enormous and unpredictable errors" as well as "significant variations in reliability of data, even when aggregated at the industry, or subsector level" and, if so, are such "errors" and "variations" likely to impede the division's ability to carry out its objective of encouraging import substitution by Canadian manufacturers?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: the Import Analysis Division of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce carried out a small detailed analysis of the import statistics published by Statistics Canada and concluded that errors and variations occurred. Such errors and variations were substantial and occurred in a generally unpredictable pattern, leading to extremely unreliable and often misleading statistics. The consequence of error is particularly great at the company level where such data may be used to estimate market volumes and value at the product level. Furthermore, such errors and variations impede the ability of the Import Analysis Division by, in some cases, making it impossible to collect accurate product level market information and by, nearly always, substantially reducing the productivity of the division in its effort to disaggregate data for market analysis purposes.
The Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise, has been authorized by Treasury Board to hire additional resources to implement a program of corrective action at ports
of entry. In addition, Statistics Canada and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce are developing additional measures in connection with the Customs and Excise initiative.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	What is the projected cost per man that will be used to negotiate contracts with the provinces that utilize the services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police when current contracts expire in 1981?
2.	What is the projected percentage increase in the cost to the provinces when new Royal Canadian Mounted Police contracts are established in 1981 and what items will be increased other than the cost per man?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. The RCMP agreements are not based on a "cost per man" calculation. The full costs of the program are detailed (e.g. salaries, transportation, clerical assistance) in order to provide a comprehensive report to the contracting parties. The provinces are then billed for a proportion of that cost base. The federal government has proposed that, under a new agreement, the provincial and municipal governments should pay 75 per cent and 90 per cent respectively of the total cost of providing police services in their jurisdictions.
2.	On average, the provincial share of the contract policing program will increase about 50 per cent. In addition to the increased share of the cost base, the cost base itself is to be modified slightly by the addition to it of certain administrative, rental, pension and interest expenses arising from the program. Cost recoveries are also intended to become more current.


Mr. Dionne (Chicoutimi): Did the government grant (a) research funds or subsidies (b) direct or indirect grants or other types of subsidies to the University of Quebec in Chicoutimi and, if so (i) in what amount, by year (ii) through which department or agency?


David Michael Collenette: (a) and (b) Research Grants
(i)	1975-76-$ 7,000
1976-	77-$ 9,000
1977-	78-$ 9,000
1978-	79-$10,000
1979-	80-$14,000
1980-	81-$10,000
(ii)	Energy, Mines and Resources (a) and (b) Direct Grants
(i)	1975-76-none
1976-	77-none
1977-	78-none
1978-	79-none
1979-	80-$ 5,000
1980-	81-$10,000
(ii)	Environment Canada
(a) and (b) Grants and scholarships from NRC and NSERC to researchers and graduate students at the University of Quebec in Chicoutimi.
February 18, 1981

Year	(ii) Granting Agency	(a)	(b)1975-76	NRC	$194,810	1976-77	NRC	$162,496	-1977-78	NRC	$209,626	-1978-79	NSERC	$170,164	$4,2401979-80	NSERC	$170,580	-1980-81	NSERC	$250,227 (Provisional)	-
A Research grants awarded to researchers at the University
B Scholarships and Fellowships awarded to graduate students attending the University
(a)	A research grant was given to the "Laboratoire des etudes en economies regionales" of the University of Quebec in Chicoutimi.
(b)	None.
(i)	1978-79: $10,000.
(ii)	Regional Economic Expansion
(a) and (b) Year General Research Research Grants Leave Fellowship
1975-76	Grants $ 6,836	$192,682	Awards1976-77	$11,818	$ 71,162	$20,0001977-78	$ 7,817	$ 1,686	-1978-79	$13,120	$ 8,620	-1979-80	$13,908	$ 66,204	-(ii)	Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. P. Homulos, Director of the National Inventory Program, National Musuems of Canada, fly from Kennedy Airport, New York, to London, England, on or about October 11, 1980 and, if so (a) was he a passenger on British Airways flight 172 (b) was the aircraft a Concorde and, if so, for what reason did he not travel economy class on a regular flight (c) was the cost of the flight paid by the taxpayer (d) what was the extra cost between the Concorde and regular first class travel and was it approximately $1,022?
2.	What did Mr. Homulos do on behalf of the government while in England and what is a list of all items that he acquired or attempted to acquire including the cost in each case?
3.	Is it the policy of the government to allow senior bureaucrats to travel in luxurious supersonic aircraft at the expense of the taxpayer and (a) if so, for what reason (b) if not, will the government request reimbursement for such excess travel by Mr. Homulos and any others?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the National Museums of Canada that the reply to the above question is as follows: 1. Yes.
(a)	Yes, Mr. P. Flomulos was a passenger on British Airways flight 172 on October 11, 1980.
(b)	The aircraft was a Concorde. Mr. Homulos did not travel economy class because none was available in the time he was given to book the flight.
(c)	No. Mr. Homulos was travelling to Europe to attend a meeting at the invitation of the West German government and his travel to and from Europe and his expenses in Europe were paid by that government. Mr. Homulos also used this opportunity to conduct business for the National
Order Paper Questions
Museums of Canada as part of his work. Costs for this work were borne by the National Museums of Canada in the normal way.
(d)	Not applicable.
2. Mr. Homulos was only in transit in England and did not leave the airport.
3.	(a) Travel regulations state that "commercial air travel shall normally be by economy class. For program related reasons, in a limited number of exceptional cases, continual travel by first class may be necessary. The deputy head may personally approve all such use. If, in the opinion of the employer, the use of first class air travel is unavoidable, such use shall be recorded by the department or agency concerned and reported on a quarterly basis to the Treasury Board". (Administrative Policy Manual-Chapter 370-Section 3.2.2.-Travel).
(b) Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: What is a complete list of all flights taken by Mr. P. Homulos, Director of the National Inventory Program, National Museums of Canada, during the month of October, 1980 and (a) what was the total cost to the taxpayer of all such trips including transportation, accommodation, etc. (b) what was the reason for the trips (c) what items were acquired and what was the cost in each case?


Peter A. Stollery: I am informed by the National Museums of Canada that the reply to the above question is as follows: 1. Mr. Homulos made two trips during the month of October, 1980. They were as follows:
October 8-October 21, 1980 Albany, New York Stockholm, Sweden Cologne, West Germany.
October 26-November 1, 1980 Mexico City.
(a)	The total cost to the taxpayer including transportation, accommodation, etc. for the first trip was $2,005.05 and the cost for the second trip was $1,506.38.
(b)	There were three reasons for the First trip:
1.	To present a paper at the Museum Computer Network meeting in Albany, N.Y.
2.	To meet with the chairman of the International Council of Museums Documentation Committee to discuss the agenda for the meeting held at the end of October (Mr. Homulos is a member of the executive of this committee).
3.	To participate in a meeting on Museum Inventories sponsored by the government of West Germany.
The reason for the second trip was to participate in the International Council of Museums Documentation

February 18, 1981
Order Paper Questions
Committee meetings being held at the Museum of Anthropology.
(c) None.


Mr. Stevens: For the current Fiscal year, what are the estimated expenditures of the Department of Public Works for (a) advertising (b) free or subsidized publications (c) other information conveyed to the public?


Paul James Cosgrove: The
estimated expenditures of Public Works Canada are as follows: (a) Advertising $205,500; (b) Publications $223,733.63;
(c)	Other Information $43,831.


Mr. Cossitt: Is the government aware that free milk is being distributed to school children in waxed milk cartons bearing the French language only in the province of Quebec and, if so (a) who is responsible for distributing such cartons (b) is it the government's intention to protest to the government of Quebec the absence of English on the cartons and what further action, if any, will be taken?


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Under the requirements of the Food and Drug Regulations, locally-produced products can be unilingually labelled on the condition that they are distributed within a local government unit that does not have a population of more than 10 per cent of the second official language group. A local government unit means a city, metropolitan government area, town, village, municipality, or other area of local government. Within the boundaries of a local government unit as described above, many areas in Quebec will qualify for unilingual labelling in the French language only.
Under the requirements of the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Regulations, a product such as milk distributed on a free basis to schools would be exempt from the language requirement.


Mr. Benjamin: What is the time in transit through locks of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, including those on the Welland Canal, for the months of July, August, September, October and November, 1980, compared with the sames months in 1979?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows:
Time in Transit (Hours)
	St. Lawrence Section		Welland Section	
1979	1980	1979	1980July	20.4	26.4	12.2	14.7August	21.1	20.4	12.5	14.8September	20.5	20.5	12.6	12.2October	21.6	22.8	17.4	14.3November	23.9	21.2	49.0	20.7
Transit time data is averaged by periods of four weeks rather than by months. The above table provides average times for the four-week period which most closely corresponds to the months in question.


Mr. Wilson: 1.	Were instructions given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to Petro-Canada regarding the amount of oil which should be purchased by the corporation on a direct state-to-state contract and, if so, what were they?
2.	Does this policy extend to an instruction to the Canadian subsidiaries of multinationals to divide their purchasing between direct purchases from exporting countries and purchasing through the networks of affiliates and, if so, what was the instruction?
3.	What proportion of Canada's total imports has the government authorized Petro-Canada to purchase on a state-to-state contract and over what period of time is the authorization in force?


Marc Lalonde: 1. No estimates have been given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to Petro-Canada regarding the amount of oil which should be purchased by the corporation on a direct state-to-state contract. However, Petro-Canada has been directed through an order in council to be responsible for the purchase of the Mexican crude oil and the direction of the transportation of the crude to Canada.
2.	There has been no instruction to the Canadian subsidiaries of multinationals to divide their purchasing between direct purchases from exporting countries and purchasing through the networks of affiliates. In order to ensure equitable distribution and obligation in the matter of imports of Mexican crude under the Mexican program, the federal government has utilized a system of allocation.
3.	The federal government has not taken any position with respect to a specific level or proportion of crude oil imports that should be developed on a state-to-state basis.
Note: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is continually reviewing trends and circumstances evolving in international crude supply and evaluating in what direction oil import policy should develop.
[ Translation]


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
February 18, 1981


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 10 is acceptable to the government.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 10 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Text]


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 10-Mr. Fulton:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the government or any of its departments or agencies and the government of the Province of British Columbia or any of its departments or agencies, since January 1, 1976, relating to the transfer of legislative or governmental jurisdiction over the B.C. Telephone Company or telephone rates levied by the company.
Motion agreed to.
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, would you kindly
call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 32?


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 32-Mr. Herbert:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, minutes of meetings, studies and other communications of the Department of Justice relating to the comparison of the application by the various provincial courts of federal laws.
Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, the Department of Justice has none of the documents which the member is asking for in motion No. 32. I would ask him to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Herbert:: Transfer for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The Constitution



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. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, as I just witnessed the previous exchange a new low in Parliament has been found. I wonder if there is any point in my standing and speaking and asking to be heard on the floor of this Parliament. What is the point if in fact another cabinet minister has been appointed by the Queen to represent me? What is the point if I cannot be heard?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I think it is fairly well understood that even in a case where the Speaker has given what I understand to be a ruling today and has undertaken to give further consideration to an aspect of that ruling, it seems to me that the hon. member would be more in keeping with the rules if he were not to comment on that matter which is now under consideration. We are on orders of the day and I suggest the hon. member address himself to the bill.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: If hon. members opposite cannot see the relevance of this and how it is related to this Parliament, to my right to stand here, to my right to be heard, that is too bad.
When I left off speaking yesterday I was referring to western alienation, to the closure brought against me, against my constituents and against this House of Commons. I was talking about the very problem that was mentioned by hon. members across the way. The hon. member opposite said that you need no longer go through the Member of Parliament. Therefore, you need no longer go through Parliament; you now go directly to "the king". That relates to the basic foundation of what the Constitution and parliamentary democracy are about.
We can go back and examine this. Somehow, the Constitution that we are talking about began its evolution in history as an outgrowth of the feudal system. I do not know whether it was in the Magna Carta or in Simon de Montfort's parliament or where exactly, but there was something which was meant to stop exactly the kind of abuse we have just seen. It came from a feudal system where the king handed out fiefs, he handed out parcels of land, parcels of constituencies and the recipient had ultimate control of whatever form of law there was in the land.
We have now come full circle from the law coming out of the mouth of the king, through control of law transferring, it is hoped, to parliaments like this one; now it has come full circle

February 18, 1981
The Constitution
back through the mouth of the king who calls himself the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
In this, Parliament is the ultimate example. Parliament has become a sham. Members are elected by universal suffrage, by the ballot, and constituencies are marked with an eye to equity or at least the appearance of equity. Unfortunately, as we can see today, it is only a pretence. All that is left of this place in which we stand to speak is a pretence because, in fact, power is no longer here. Power is no longer vested in me through my constituents. It has been transferred directly, not by some minister with an idea, not by some political party, but by the Prime Minister of Canada. He has transferred the authority given to me by my people back to himself through his government and his cabinet.
How did we reach this stage, Mr. Speaker? Where did the power go? How did it slip away when we were all standing here thinking we were watching, so freely and openly? Who saw Parliament die? Did it die at the hands of a clever and devious tyrant?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Was it smothered by the apathy of myself and my colleagues through being too comfortable? Was it through the expediency of your rules, Mr. Speaker? How did it happen? How did Parliament, how did this great place of debate and dignity, fall into such disrespect, such contempt? How did it arise that the Prime Minister can flaunt his arrogance? How can he flaunt that arrogance by appearing on television, instead of in this House of Commons, to present this motion? That is the ultimate arrogance in this situation. He has not appeared in this House of Commons to speak in this debate on this very resolution. He has bypassed the House of Commons on the basic debate, on what we are talking about today, and now he is bypassing the representation of the House.
In 1981 we have a new low in the House of Commons. Let this speech of the minister stand as a symbol to all Canadians of the travesty done to democracy. Let them see it as one more step. How can I tell members who support the government that the west does not want a cabinet minister representing me in the riding? The people want me to represent them. They chose me to represent Fraser Valley West. If hon. members opposite think that those constituents will put up with the arrogance of the king in appointing someone else, they will never grasp the true sentiment of the alienation felt in the west.
My constituents expect a fair forum to be created here so that hon. members opposite can hear what I have to say and respond to it accordingly. That is what the west wants. That is what democratic people across the nation want. They want a forum where all members can be heard. But do we get a forum where we can be heard, Mr. Speaker? No, we get closure. Our constituents send us here and then they say, "We do not hear our members speak." How can they hear their members speak when the government invokes the most obnoxious form of closure known to this House, to this Parliament, to the British parliamentary system?
Hon. members opposite want to have things all their way and they are destroying this nation. They are destroying this democracy and putting forth high-sounding words.
What good is this piece of paper, this Constitution, this bill of rights? What good is it to me or to the people of Canada if it is but a piece of paper and no respect is shown for this institution itself? It is nothing, and I am really sorry about that.
This is very symbolic of what is wrong in our country, about what is so wrong about this institution. This particular document is described as the best document in the world. That is a pretty broad statement and it was made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). He claims modestly that this is the best document in the world. I suggest that his research has fallen short. After all, this document does not promise a "harmonious and happy society". There are constitutions that promote a harmonious and happy society. Those words are contained in the constitution of democratic Kampuchea. It was going to reform Cambodia. The first measure of reform was an act of genocide: the slaughter of 25 per cent of its people! Yet a "harmonious and happy society" is a written guarantee in its constitution. We have those guarantees, theoretically, in the Constitution of Canada. Ours does not go quite that far; this one is more elaborate.
The constitution of Chile declares that "Men are born free and equal and nobody may be deprived of his personal freedom." That is in the charter; it is a guarantee.
The Leader of the NDP claimed that ours is the greatest charter in the world. But he did not look at the charter of the Soviet Union. I do not say this facetiously, but the Soviet Union has one of the most elaborate, attractive and best constitutions in the world. It is all-encompassing. The Soviet constitution guarantees freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly meetings, street processions and demonstrations; it includes the privacy of citizens and their correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communications. These are protected by law in a written constitution.
Our Constitution is more modest; it does not go that far. Does that make our Constitution better or worse? Not at all. What makes our Constitution more valuable is not what is written but instead what is contained in the basic philosophy, in the principles and values held by those who chose to be governed by this establishment. The people chose me, they chose all of us who sit here; they did not choose a person appointed by the Prime Minister.
This whole Constitution rests on the will of the people. That is why their participation is so important. That is why my participation, which has been diluted through restriction of opportunity and through closure, is so important. I think this point of principle and values is where it all rests.
That is why there was a little glimpse or opening in the committee's resolution which had something to do with philosophy, principles and values. As everyone knows, that is the Diefenbaker preamble. I can understand why my socialist
February 18, 1981

friends and athiests, none of whom is here, which does not surprise me, are in such a hurry to pass this resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order!


Robert Lloyd Wenman: The New Democrat is here to comment on my speech again. I thank him very much. I can see why the athiests and socialists want this motion passed right away. They have been successful in blotting out all references to the supremacy of God, all references to private ownership of property, the sanctity of the individual as a human being and the value and position of the family as the basic structure and unit of our society. Certainly the socialists and athiests want this through quickly.
However, the big surprise was to find the Liberal Party of Canada under this Prime Minister not only condoning the desecration of these values and refusing to recognize them in our Constitution, but attempting to implement some kind of charter without them. Such a charter is deficient and must not !. be allowed to proceed through this House of Commons. These values are the only ones that give credibility to any constitution for Canada. The piece of paper will be meaningless without them.
Herein is our statement of creed, our beliefs, what we will stand for and not stand for. Not only should this charter suggest rights, but it should be extended. We need a charter of responsibilities as well as a charter of rights. We should be equally ready to discuss and entrench not only these rights but the responsibilities that a Canadian owes his country.
I wish there were an adequate way for me to express my gratitude that 1 feel in being a Canadian, the appreciation that somehow through fate I was born a citizen of this country. This country has given me everything; education and an opportunity to develop the individual being that is within me. I care about this country. I love this country. I want to keep this country together.
A basic foundation for keeping this country together is the Constitution. I care too much to have my Constitution, the Constitution of my country, shortchanged to suit the expediency and timetable of one man in his particular space and place in time.
1 would be doing my constituents a wrong, I would be doing everything that 1 understand this Parliament to have been throughout history a disservice, if I were to support this motion in this form through this process and for the purposes stated so far. 1 have no problem in voting against this resolution. It is lacking in the basic principles and values which have made this nation, Canada, the nation it is today.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, this is an historic debate, a momentous debate, a serious debate. Initially I want to congratulate the leading speakers for each of the three parties for their contribution to the debate; my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). They made
The Constitution
responsible contributions to the discussion. 1 only hope that as the debate proceeds we will be able to sustain that serious level.
The hon. member for Provencher said yesterday our differences on this question run deep, revealing different views on the nature of Canada. I believe his statement is true, although not in the way he described. This has become clear. It became clear to me during the summer when I, along with my colleague, the Minister of Justice, took part in federal-provincial discussions. It became clear during those discussions and during the first ministers' conference, and it is becoming clear in this debate, that there are, underlying the divergent views expressed, different views given on the nature of Canada. Simply put, our view on this side of the House is that Canada is much more than the sum of its provinces or the sum of the regions of the country. It is not a kind of self-help contract made among the provinces. It is not, to use Senator Forsey's expression, a "geographical expression".
When the Fathers of Confederation did their work in the 1860s, they were not only concerned, although they certainly were, about maintaining the economic and military security of regions of their society; they consciously undertook the task of building a new nation from coast to coast. That view, if one goes through the confederation debates, blows like a tempest through their discussions. Here are the words of George Brown, expressed 116 years ago this month. After having drawn a comparison between the British colonies and various countries in Europe, he went on to say and I quote:
Well, sir, the bold scheme in your hands is nothing less than to gather all these countries into one-to organize them all under one government-
Our scheme is to establish a government that will seek to turn the tide of European emigration into this northern half of the American continent-that will strive to develop its great natural resources-and that will endeavour to maintain liberty, and justice, and Christianity through the land .. . Sir, the whole great ends of this confederation may not be realized in the lifetime of many who now hear me. We imagine not that such a structure can be built in a month or in a year. What we propose now is but to lay the foundations of the structure-to set in motion the governmental machinery that will one day, we trust, extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific. And we take especial credit to ourselves that the system we have devised, while admirably adapted to our present situation, is capable of gradual and efficient expansion in future years to meet all the great purposes contemplated by our scheme.
It is in furtherance of those objectives that we have presented this resolution to the House of Commons. The hon. member for Provencher said yesterday repeatedly, I am sure sincerely but falsely, that the view on this side of the House is that the federal system had not worked, that it had failed and that we were seeking to alter the fundamental nature of the federation, that the federation would be subverted.
None of those charges is true. We are proud of the achievements of the Canadian federation. Indeed, we believe that our party has been responsible for many of those achievements. We are proud of our system of government, of its accomplishments and of the historic role that our party has had in pursuing them.
We have not said the federation has failed. What we have said is that the pursuit of an amending formula agreed to by all provincial governments, a pursuit that has taken place over

February 18, 1981
The Constitution
half a century, has failed. We are saying the time has come in light of that failure to take our responsibilities as a national Parliament, representing the citizens of Canada, to strengthen our system of government by clearly defining how changes to the powers of government can take place within Canada.
Why has it failed? The reasons for the failure can probably be left to the historians. I suspect that when they examine the reasons for the failure, they will decide that, understandably, within any federal system there is natural tension between the views of the national and provincial governments. I suspect that they will also decide that the provinces were reluctant to give up an advocacy of unanimity for amendment knowing full well that that provided them with a useful bargaining instrument to try to get greater administrative and legislative powers from the federal government.
It is because we believe that historical evidence has shown us that unanimity is impossible to achieve that we have brought forward for the consideration of the House proposals which deal particularly with two areas: the charter of rights, to which I will refer later, and the question of an amending procedure for the Constitution of Canada.
The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) said yesterday that the amending formula, whatever it was, should have two characteristics: it should be fair and equitable and should reflect the federal nature of Canada.
The amending process which we have brought forward for the consideration of the House exactly meets those requirements. It reflects the federal and the regional nature of Canada. For the first time, it formally involves the provinces in the amending procedure-a procedure which is designed to ensure that there is substantial support for amendment to the Constitution in each of the four regions of Canada. It is a fair procedure because it provides opportunity for the provincial governments to present an alternative formula for the approval of the people of Canada, if the provincial governments can agree on one to be presented.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Provencher said, "Well, there is virtual unanimity on the part of the provincial governments as to what formula they would like, the Vancouver formula." Then he went on to say that our requirement of seven provinces, seven out of the ten, representing 80 per cent of the population, should agree, and we would put that formula to the people, was, he thought, an "imposition of tyranny". It was a very bizarre statement, because later on, when he discussed his own amending formula, he suggested that what is required at one stage in the procedure is the agreement of seven provinces containing 50 per cent of the population. It is difficult for me to understand why seven provinces containing 80 per cent of the population is a "tyrannical imposition", while seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population he calls an "achievement of consensus".


An hon. Member:: Taking it out of context.


John (Moody) Roberts: Well, the hon. member says I am taking it out of context. It is a bit difficult to do otherwise because there are so many contexts out of which one can take things.
There have been at least three varieties of amending procedures suggested by the opposition. There is the Tremblay formula, which 1 gather has now been taken back. There is the Vancouver formula, which they now find difficulties with. There was a whole range of options presented yesterday by the hon. member for Provencher. The difficulty with his point of view is that, literally, one does not know what the end result of his proposals would be?
At one point he said he was against unanimity. Fine. Then he held up the example of the United States as having an equitable constitution. The United States required approval of three quarters of the states. If you apply that to Canada, it means you would need to have approval of only eight of the provinces. That means that you could have constitutional changes imposed over the views of the Ontario and Quebec governments together, or over the views of the Alberta and British Columbia governments together, or over the views of the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick governments together. And he thinks that that is an equitable formula.
Then he suggested that perhaps what should be done is to repeal Section 7 of the Statute of Westminster. The effect of repealing Section 7 of the statute would be to transfer authority from the British North America Act to this Parliament with no role for the provinces in any way. Is that the kind of amending formula that he wants?
Then he suggested that what we should have is the Vancouver formula, because he says there is an agreement in principle by all governments. One difficulty with that is that it is simply not true. Premier Hatfield indicated to the joint committee that there was not support for the Vancouver formula. Indeed, Mr. Wells, a minister in the Ontario government, wrote to the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko). It is a matter of public record. I will just read two paragraphs from his letter on the Vancouver formula which the hon. member for Provencher says is accepted by everyone in principle. I am now quoting Mr. Wells:
I have gone to some considerable length in recounting these events because I believe that they should be carefully considered by you and your colleagues in determining your ultimate stance on the federal resolution. While ministers and first ministers were willing to give various consideration to the Vancouver formula in spite of its potential checkerboard effect in the hope of achieving consensus, they could not come up with solutions to the two serious technical problems the formula contains. The problem of applicability, in particular, reopened all the arguments with regard to the general formula. If opting out could not be applied, then a 50 per cent population requirement was considered too flexible; unanimity was too rigid; 85 per cent left out the Atlantic provinces; a regional formula was regarded as treating some provinces unequally.
In sum, our discussions held out the potential for consensus, but it was not achieved in fact. The explanation lies not in the ill will of any of the participants, but in defects inherent in the formula itself.
Then the hon. member for Provencher says, "We recognize that there are some drawbacks to the Vancouver formula, some uncertainties". So what we will have, as I mentioned earlier, is that if seven provinces containing 50 per cent of the population can agree on something, that is what we will
February 18, 1981

impose. But he never goes on to say what will happen if we do not have the agreement of seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population. It is a pig in a poke. It is unknown. In the ultimate analysis of the process put forward by the Conservative Party, one simply does not know what one is getting. It is a sincere point of view, sincerely expressed. It is not, I suggest, a view responsibly expressed.
The opposition yesterday, and I think throughout the debates of the committee, has really attacked the process by which we have sought constitutional reform, much more than the substance. They have described our efforts as "unilateral and divisive". It is always a surprise to me when people use the word "unilateral". I know sometimes it escapes members of the House, but words actually have a meaning. One can look them up if in doubt. "Unilateral" means imposed by one person or party. That is not what we are doing. We are proceeding with the support, I believe, of members in every political party in this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: We will proceed with significant support from the provinces. I believe, and the hon. member for Provencher has confirmed this in his remarks, that we are proceeding with a charter of rights which has the support of the people of
Canada.
Of course, there are people who are unhappy with the process by which we have arrived at this position. I am unhappy with it. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) is unhappy with it. We would all prefer to go with the support of all the provinces. We would have loved to do that. The reason we are proceeding in the way we are is that we recognize that that kind of support is impossible to achieve.
Nor is this new Constitution one which is being made, as was charged yesterday, by foreigners, by the Imperial Parliament, by Great Britain. This Constitution is being made in Canada. Indeed, it has the longest gestation period of any baby in public life, going back well over 50 years. It is being made by the members of this House of Commons in this debate and by the decisions they will take. It has been made by the past Members of Parliament in previous parliamentary discussions, by the work of at least two joint committees of Parliament which have assessed our Constitution, by the continuing participation of a whole host of interested groups who made their views known to the joint committee, and by the witnesses who appeared before it. The role of Great Britain in this process is a formal one, not the exercise of moral authority. It is rather like a notary who ratifies a contract or a civil authority which registers a marriage.
There has been much talk, I think wildly exaggerated, on the part of the opposition about the divisiveness of this process that we have gone through, about the strength of debate and discussion taking place in the country. That is not a source of divisiveness. It is not a source of weakness. It is a source of strength that in this country we freely, forcefully, frankly and passionately debate these views. I suspect there is no institution which expresses more strongly a conflict of views of
The Constitution
various representatives than this House of Parliament, this House of Commons. The expression of those views in this manner is not divisiveness. It is a way in which we come to a conclusion and develop consensus for our policies.
It is now before the House of Commons. It is not the process, not the manner of arriving, but the substance. What we must decide is whether in our heart of hearts the substance of what is being proposed is what we want for Canadians and what Canadians want for themselves.
The official spokesman for the Conservatives has said they want entrenched rights, but not by this process, even though he believes an entrenched charter of rights has popular support. This is a serious matter, but perhaps once in a while we can look at serious matters lightly. I could not help but think yesterday that I was rather happy the hon. member for Provencher was not around when Moses came down from Sinai because he would have said: "Of course, we are all in favour of the Ten Commandments, but we think Moses went up the wrong mountain, took the wrong path or should have had someone with him and, in any case, all of the tribes should be able to opt out." That is a lighthearted view. I see by his smile that the hon. member appreciates that, but the point 1 want to make is that it is the substance on which the House must now pronounce. It is the question of whether we want these rights made legally enforceable for Canadians.


Thomas Edward Siddon: We have those rights.


John (Moody) Roberts: The hon. member for Provencher addressed himself seriously to those questions yesterday. He spoke of the inalienable nature of rights. He regretted the omission of a reference to the divine sanction for rights. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) raised the same point a few minutes ago. The hon. member for Provencher sincerely, but falsely, misrepresented the government's effort, and I personally feel strongly about this because I was the representative of the federal government during our discussions at the federal-provincial conference who argued as strongly as I could for the inclusion of a preamble to the Constitution with explicit reference to divine majesty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: It was the intent of this government to have those exact references in our Constitution. That is a matter of public record. That intent was made known last summer-July 1, to be exact, and I want to take a moment to read it. It contains five or six paragraphs, but I want to read it because it makes that point clear and also makes clear the expression of the idea of the Canada we are trying to achieve in these constitutional proposals. I will cite the preamble which we urged upon the provinces to include in this Constitution.
We, the people of Canada, proudly proclaim that we are and shall always be, with the help of God, a free and self-governing people.
Born of a meeting of the English and French presence on North American soil which had long been the home of our native peoples, and enriched by the contribution of millions of people from the four corners of the earth, we have

February 18, 1981
The Constitution
chosen to create a life together which transcends the differences of blood relationships, language and religion, and which willingly accepts the experience of sharing our wealth and cultures, while respecting our diversity.
We have chosen to live together in one sovereign country, a true federation, conceived as a constitutional monarchy and founded on democratic principles.
Faithful to our history, and united by a common desire to give new life and strength to our federation, we are resolved to create together a new Constitution which:
shall be conceived and adopted in Canada,
shall reaffirm the official status of the French and English languages in Canada, and the diversity of cultures within Canadian society,
shall enshrine our fundamental freedoms, our basic civil, human and language rights, including the right to be educated in one's own language, French or English, where numbers warrant,
shall define the rights of our native peoples, and
shall define the authority of Parliament and of the legislative assemblies of our several provinces.
We further declare that our Parliament and provincial legislatures, our various governments and their agencies shall have no other purpose than to strive for the happiness and fulfilment of each and all of us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: It was not the federal government which prevented the adoption of that preamble.


Thomas Edward Siddon: You have the power to put it in right now.


John (Moody) Roberts: It was not the federal government which objected to a reference to divine majesty, it was provincial governments representing the party of hon. gentlemen opposite which rejected that view.


Thomas Edward Siddon: That is a cop-out. Put it in right now.


An hon. Member:: Listen and learn.


John (Moody) Roberts: 1 still want that preamble in the Constitution. The government still wants that preamble in the Constitution. We are determined in our further discussions with the provinces, and there will be continuing discussions with the provinces, to have that preamble in the Constitution. I hope they will take place soon, and I believe there will be that preamble in the Constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: The hon. member for Provencher misrepresented our views even more fundamentally yesterday. He argued passionately for inalienable rights. I agree; we agree. He argued that rights are not created by governments. I agree; we agree. What we are saying is that rights are inalienable. They are the essential condition, the context, for the fulfilment of the human personality and the human potential, including the moral and religious capacities of men and women. They flow from the nature of man. We argue that rights are inalienable, and we also argue that the time has come to have the Constitution recognize that inalienability and to make that recognition legally enforceable.
Some people disagree that that is a proper approach. I will go on a little bit later to explain why I think it is the proper approach. However, I think the hon. member for Provencher
honestly misunderstood and misunderstands our position on rights. 1 will go further and say quite frankly that I do not understand the view of rights held by the hon. member for Provencher. He argued eloquently and passionately for inalienable rights. How can he then, in virtually the next breath, argue that they should be subject to provincial approval and to provincial opting out? He wants a charter of rights but he does not want this charter of rights.


An hon. Member:: We live in a federal system.


John (Moody) Roberts: He does not want this charter of rights because, although he wants inalienable rights, he wants the provinces to be able to alienate them. I do not know how anyone can make that argument consistently. It is not credible,
I suspect, to very many members of this House.
Our great objection to an amending formula based on the Vancouver principle, which the hon. member supported so strongly yesterday, is, as is commonly said, that it could create a checkerboard of rights. I would not use the word "checkerboard". There is a certain consistency about checkerboards. It would be a "crazy quilt" of rights across the country. However, the hon. member said a checkerboard is acceptable. Why is it acceptable? Because we do not live in a unitary state? I suggest it is not acceptable, and the question has not to do with whether one is in a federal or unitary state. It is not acceptable because it transgresses exactly that ideal of inalienable rights the hon. member expressed and because it creates different categories of rights for Canadians living in different parts of Canada. It is an exact contradiction of what a right is.
I believe passionately, as does the hon. member, in inalienable rights. I believe strongly that they must be entrenched with legal protection for all Canadians and not be subject to the whim of acceptance by provincial governments nor, for that matter, the whim of acceptance by a federal government.
There are those who protest-this was a point the hon. member made yesterday-that protection by Parliament and by legislature has been a safe enough protection for individual rights in Canada. 1 do not think history bears that out. There have been infringements of those rights based on racial discrimination, and I refer to Japanese-Canadians. Rights have been infringed on religious bases, and I refer to those of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Language rights have been infringed. The rights of free expression have been infringed by padlock laws. I do not think those aspects of Canadian history we are not so fond of recalling would justify the view that always the protection of rights by parliaments and legislatures has been satisfactory. There is a good reason for that. It is that parliaments and legislatures are dominated by majorities. While it is important to protect the rights of majorities, it is most often the rights of minorities and the rights of individuals which are threatened by governments and require the protection of the rule of law.
In any case, even if one does hold strongly to the view that parliaments and legislatures are an adequate protection for natural rights, there is nothing in these proposals which prevents legislatures from respecting the rights of their citizens.
February 18, 1981

There is nothing which encourages them to infringe those rights.
What we have here is a safety net, an added protection, so that in case provincial legislatures or the federal government do not respect those rights, there is a recourse to the courts. An entrenched charter of rights makes assurance for Canadians doubly sure. I am sure Canadians want that kind of protection. If one were to ask the people of Nova Scotia whether they would like to have their rights protected by the majority government headed by Mr. Buchanan or by the courts, they would say, the courts. If one were to ask Quebecers whether they would like to have their natural rights protected by the Parti Quebecois led by Mr. Levesque or by the courts, they would say, the courts. If one were to ask the people of Ontario whether they wanted their basic rights protected by Mr. Davis and the Conservative government or by the courts, they would say, the courts. If one were to ask the people of Manitoba whether they would want their rights protected by Mr. Lyon and his majority or by the courts, they would say, the courts. And if one were to ask the people of Canada whether they wanted their basic rights protected by our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his Liberal government or by the courts, they would say, the courts.
This concept of rights is something that does not flow from government. It cannot and should not be created by some contract or some deal between the provincial and national governments. This concept of rights is basic and reflects the idea that we have of Canada. Those rights are the common heritage of Canadian citizenship and they should be binding, regardless of the government's view, because they fulfil and express the common promise to all Canadians, wherever they may live in this country, that we shall have a country which provides rights, opportunities, equality of status and respect for the individual and the dignity of our citizens.
We are now entering the last phase of a long and earnest debate. Its conclusion will mark one further great step along that path which George Brown charted 116 years ago and which I cited at the beginning of my remarks. It is a great step, an historic one, and all those many members who have taken part in the committee's debates, those who have supported as well as those who have opposed, will have settled into a niche in our history. It is a great step in the continuing task of nation building, the building of a still new nation, the building of one united nation. We now have a unique opportunity to move forward. We have, too, the possibility of failure and the fundamental shock that would bring to our society.
I urge the House, as the only body which truly represents all Canadian citizens, to accept this resolution, imperfect as it may be in this or that detail, but on the whole, an imaginative and fair response to the challenges of our country. We have the opportunity to build and maintain the most civilized society in the world, civilized in our federal system of government, civilized in out tolerance and respect for the inalienable rights of humanity. Our past, the record of our federation, is a
The Constitution
proud chapter in the life of our country. The best is yet to be. Let us go forward together on this surer foundation, this new Constitution, for the hoped-for country we all wish to build.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to speak again on this matter. I have spoken three times in this House on the matter; in the fall before the matter was referred to the special joint committee and, of course, I have spent the last four months on that committee and have had the opportunity to address myself daily to the 59 sections contained in the government's resolution.
My colleague, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), expressed, at the outset of his remarks yesterday, our appreciation of the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal) who did such an outstanding job as co-chairman of that committee. I think every member of that committee should also thank the House and the respective authorities for the opportunity to participate, primarily because this has been an experience-I cannot recall having had any other such experience in public life and certainly not in my two and a half years as a member of the House-which has broadened our minds, taught us to listen to what people in other parts of the country have to say and directed our reading so we could understand a little better how this country functions.
I am one of those who recognizes, as I am sure all members of the House do, that the most important things which affect our constituents on a day to day basis are matters more immediate to the individual concerned, such as inflation, jobs, etc. Therefore I know there is a great number of my constituents who wonder why we spend so much time on the Constitution. I have never been backward about responding to that query because the Constitution is fundamentally what Canadians are all about. It tells us what are our values, our interests and our beliefs. It determines what our relationships with one another as individuals are and what the relationship between individuals and the government is. That is why I thought I might take this opportunity to look briefly at some of our history. I will try not to touch on the points raised yesterday by my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher. I will try not to touch on the points I have raised in my three previous interventions in the House.
I am glad to see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) is here now because I can offer him my congratulations. I think it is important we recognize that when countries make their constitution, they do not think of it as being drawn up for lawyers. The Constitution is not something that comes from the sky. The Constitution comes from us, who we are and where we have been. My old friend and colleague, Marshall McLuhan, said that all of us go through life as if we were driving a car and looking through a rear view mirror. That is not a bad analogy. Perhaps that is what we should do when it comes to the Constitution, because while we are going down the road to the bright new future to which my friend, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Roberts), wants to take us, it is

February 18, 1981
The Constitution
also wise to see where we have been. That helps us to determine whether we will be surprised by what is coming from behind us.
Let me look briefly at certain historic events which determine what kind of a Constitution we must have. It is hard to know where to begin in Canadian history and I do not want to bore people with history, but I have always been fascinated by time machines. When I was a boy and I heard of H. G. Wells' time machine I was fascinated with it. When I found out there were none in my neighbourhood, and if there had been, I probably could not have afforded one, my mother explained to me that all she could do was to suggest legs and a library card.
My own reading preference is to look at the future and to look at the past. This helps me to adjust, like driving my car, to the present. Let me jump right into it and start at about 1750. At about that time Canada got into hot water in history. This country was formed as a consequence of the activities of two empires from about 1750 to the end of the century. At about that time the British empire and the French empire left. What was left was us and the original inhabitants of the land, the native and the aboriginal peoples. The first and most important document which came to us then was the proclamation of 1763. What it did was to define for the aboriginal peoples the basis of their rights. It was a recognition by the new visitors from Europe of what those rights would be. That is why a month, or some weeks ago, the whole burden of the argument by native peoples was to have the 1763 proclamation recognized again. History is useful to know; 1763 was important because of one group of people who said, "You have rights."
The next document which defined who we were was the Quebec Act of 1774, because two, three or four years before the British empire lost the rest of the American empire, it acquired what was left of the old French empire. Although they recognized rights for aboriginal peoples, they did nothing for the French-speaking population acquired under the Treaty of Paris in 1763. The Quebec Act was established to ensure that there was a restoration of the rights of French-speaking people in what was then geographically called Canada. It restored not only language rights, but also religious and legal rights.
Those two documents already put in perspective for Canadians the reasons for which Constitution and rights are important. The Constitution Act, 1791 divided the old province into two; Upper and Lower Canada, as they became. We acquired a new custom called "Good fences make good neighbours"; an instinct which we will find throughout our Constitution, by the way.
The first defence of the new country was in 1812. For those who want to read Bishop Strachan, the first Anglican bishop of Ontario or what became Ontario, it is interesting to note that he morally justified the war of 1812 on the basis that if Canadians did not defeat the Americans, there would be a holocaust visited upon native peoples. Bishop Strachan said
that the moral justification for the war of 1812 was to defend native peoples from the Americans who had started to come across the Appalachians.
In 1841 we had the Act of Union. I will not go through them all, but I wanted to make a couple of points.
While we were dealing first of all with British, French and native peoples, there has always been an assumption in this country-badly taught history-that it was sort of consecutive-the native peoples, the French, the British and then others. But right from the start we had people from all over the world, in particular Germans and Dutch. Throughout the nineteenth century, as it wore on, we had people from all over the world.
There was a great poem written by F. R. Scott a couple of years ago, the first time he read Ed Pratt's classic poem on the building of the CPR. Pratt went through the entire building of the CPR without mentioning a single Chinese worker; quite a feat when one thinks about it. As F. R. Scott said to Ed Pratt in his poem, "Where are the Chinese in your poem, Ed? Where are the oriental gentlemen who swung picks at forty below?" We have had people from all over the world, not just the two founding cultures and the native people. They have made an impact on our understanding of who we are and what we are. They gave us three instincts as a people, and they are instincts which only we have; other peoples do not have them. They are born of that historical experience.
As can be seen in our history, it was absolutely essential for Canadians to learn one instinct, to allow for diversity. That is why in the history of this country, and today, one will find differences in education programs, language and religion. We had to learn the instinct of diversity in order to survive. It is not a thing we thought would be nice to do; it was in order to survive and to deal fairly with all the peoples who were here. We had to ensure that people could do what they needed to do in order to be who they were. That is what diversity really means on the street. It allowed us to nurture customs; it allowed Canadians to be new and to be old at the same time. It allowed them to acquire a new personality and to maintain an older one.
The second instinct we learned very early as a people was an instinct for rights. That melange of people who required diversity brought with them the second instinct, the need for rights.
We have learned something very clear and specific about rights. As the hon. member for Provencher said yesterday, first we learned that rights do not come from governments. This is not to be sneezed at because it is a fundamental principle. Indeed, older Canadians understood that most bills of rights were limits on governments; that is the point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: If one wants to go through 1215, Runnymede, 1628, all the British and the French stuff or whatever, one will find that rights limit governments. That is why citizens need rights. They need rights, and those rights are to limit the
February 18, 1981

power of government over them. That is what it was always about. Rights do not come from governments; rights limit governments.
Rights also always rested on the basis of some spiritual entity, a supreme being. This was not merely because it was a nice thing, which it was, but primarily because it had a very practical advantage. When law rests on religion, when legal orders relate to spiritual principles, it allows for diversity and dissent. The roots of democratic dissent have always begun with religious dissent; laws imposed by governments were always fought on the basis of an appeal to God. This is why we insisted in the committee that not only should there be a preamble respecting the supreme authority because it was in our hearts that it should be related to spiritual principles, but it had a practical democratic value as well. The way in which generations of western people have been able to overcome tyranny was by being able to appeal over the head of the government which oppressed them.
The third thing our forefathers learned about rights was that they were very often related to property. It is only people born wealthy who do not understand that to own something not only makes it better for you, but it ensures that you are protected.
The reason all those people came to this country from all those lands was in order to have the security which property gave them, and the freedom to acquire and enjoy it. When my friends in the New Democratic Party on the committee said that property was not for the kind of people they would like to represent, they did not understand. The poor people in this country know the importance of the enjoyment of property. They worry very much when the government of the day will not allow it in the Constitution.
The fourth thing our forefathers learned about rights was that their rights lay in the common law; not always kind, very often harsh, but there was something about it they understood clearly. What they understood was that their rights were to be assumed. They did not need to have their rights listed. In fact, the only listing came when those rights were reduced. As they used to say, "If they can write it down then they can take it away." They understood that right. The rights we have allow us to do anything we like, except what you would restrict. That is how they understood those rights.
The first thing they understood was diversity and the second was the instinct for rights. The third instinct they understood was how to deal with conflicts and differences of opinion. All that diversity, all those needs for rights could not be dealt with on the basis of unilateral action by anybody. The country could not afford it. That is why Canadians organized a way of dealing with conflict, a way of dealing with differences, on the basis of consensus and consent. Tolerance, civility and compromise, those are the tools Canadians used, not the drawing of lines, not compulsion and not unilaterally. The stability, the freedom and the security which brought them to this country, and which is still bringing them to this country, rests on the
The Constitution
fact that in this country we deal with our differences on the basis of consensus and consent. That is why in 1867 the federal principle was adopted. It was not because somebody thought it up and said, "Let's give it to the Canadians." The Canadians sucked it up from their own roots. It is the only way this country can go. Federalism means those three things; diversity, rights and consensus. That is our history.
There were two or three items raised by some speakers yesterday on the government side with which I would like to deal. I think the hon. member for St. Paul's also mentioned them. He mentioned the question of the checkerboard or, as he calls it, the "crazy quilt". They say that somehow the government is opposed to a Vancouver Formula or, indeed, just generally opposed to anything that has different categories of rights. I think those are pretty close to the exact words of the member for St. Paul's.
Let us look at that matter for a second, since the diversity in this country has allowed us to do just that. We have adopted the checkerboard, or the crazy quilt, as the minister called it. I would like to show you one or two things, Mr. Speaker. The British North America Act lays out the checkerboard. It says there are certain powers given to the federal government and there are certain powers given to the provincial government. Section 92 gives the provinces their powers. The province can do as it will in relation to them, subject in some areas to the courts. When Newfoundland came into confederation it came under a different set of circumstances than the other provinces. Section 133, which deals with language rights, imposes on the province of Quebec different categories of rights than it does on any other province, a fact that still remains.
Does the crazy quilt pattern mean all provinces must have the same rights at the same time? If it does, if that is what the minister means, then we are in great difficulty, since most of the social programs in this country were adopted by provinces able to conduct their own social experiments, then later on having them generalized across the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Today, the province of Quebec in its bill of rights offers rights which are not available to other Canadians. I do not know if the minister remembers that, but it is true. One of them deals with sexual orientation. It is included in their charter of rights in Quebec and not in any other province. That is the checkerboard. The province of Quebec wants to do that. Indeed, while I am dealing with the province of Quebec, it was because of that checkerboard, that crazy quilt, that the freedom to protect the language and the culture of the province of Quebec exists. Indeed, the language and culture of all the other people in this country results from the diversity which the crazy quilt allows.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: I do not blame the government for not wanting to remember those things, since it destroys the argument that somehow it is against an amending formula because it is against a checkerboard. At least, it should remember that

February 18, 1981
The Constitution
it created the checkerboard in its own resolution. It has now created four categories of language rights in this country; not one, but four. That is a checkerboard. Their own amending formula creates three classes of province. That is a checkerboard. I guess it all depends, Mr. Speaker, on whether it is the checkerboard you want or the checkerboard you do not want. But to raise the question of opposing an amending formula because it is a checkerboard is dishonest, not intentionally so, but dishonest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: If the Victoria Formula had been adopted in 1968 there would be no medicare and no Canada Pension Plan in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Behind all of that is a philosophy which is alien to this country. As I indicated, this country has always required the necessity for diversity. This government only understands the pressure of one thumb-its own. The only thing the government seems to understand is that the power must be with it. If it is with other governments then that is a difficulty.
I would like to deal with the charter and make a few comments in respect of my own feelings about it. I talked of the rights that Canadians learned about in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and, indeed, also in the twentieth century. I also indicated in my wee story about F. R. Scott that there were thousands of people-nay, hundreds of thousands-who did not have the rights which British people had. There are a great many examples of this in our Canadian history. That is why I have always been one of those who support a charter of rights. I have great hopes for that charter.
The people who came to the committee over the past four months represent the sons and the daughters, the grandsons and the granddaughters, the great-grandsons and the great-granddaughters, of all the people here before who did not have those rights. They did not know how to deal with the culture which gave its fruit, the common law. That is why in my view a charter of rights is essential in this country.
The charter needs to be two things. It must be one which will work and one which does not destroy the essentials of the country at the same time. Let me deal with that. This charter does not include the Diefenbaker preamble. It ought to since we have few enough symbols in this country. Twenty years ago this year this House adopted the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights. The preamble included not only belief in the Supreme Being and the role of the family, but included a number of things which Canadians hold dearly. We put that to the committee and the government voted it down.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


David Edward Crombie: I would ask what is the status of the Diefenbaker preamble? We do not know, but this charter of rights does not contain the Diefenbaker preamble.
Secondly, it does not include property, as I mentioned earlier. The right to enjoy property is essential to people's understanding not only of their rights but of their freedom and security. We put a motion to include privacy as a right; and it was voted down.
The government is always talking about how interested it is in freedom of information. Well, it voted that proposal down, too.
Finally, in dealing with the charter, what impressed me was the argument that somehow throughout this whole piece the provinces are narrow provincialists who do not guard other people's interests or needs; only the federal government would do that. I guess I spent too long as a municipal politician to accept that point of view. As I said in the committee, there are hundreds of thousands of women and men in this country who work for municipalities and provinces doing the actual work of delivering the rights contained in the charter. The day the government decides it does not care how many provinces oppose and, therefore, how many municipalities are not involved, that is the day they lose touch with space ship earth, because this federal government does not deliver services to the handicapped, to women, or to those who need care and comfort. In urban areas it does not deliver services; municipalities and provinces deliver services. The charter of rights may get the Liberal Party votes but it is not going to help the people who are in need.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me deal with what we regard as the crucial problem. I indicated earlier the Canadian instincts for diversity, for rights, and for consensus were important. The government's resolution has no consensus. For the first time in our history we are forgetting how to go about change. We have always made change by consensus. The government now is going to move unilaterally.
They may regard that as simply a process which is not connected to the goal or to what is being done. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says, yes, that is a bad process, hold your nose. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) says, long after the process is over you will like the product and the process will be forgotten. The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) said it is time for a decision, time for change. We have to act decisively in history. I always worry about people who are going to act on my behalf for their history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian I would like to see in the future is one that still knows what is going on in the rear window, because this country is not like the Leader of the New Democratic Party's analogy of the United States and their civil war. The thing that has always impressed me about this
February 18, 1981

country is that we are not a people who solved problems and differences of opinion by civil war and revolution. Canada is unique, and that was really the burden of what I wanted to say when I was going through the historical development of the country. We are unique, we do not move unilaterally, one level of government against another; and we do not impose one level of government against another.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: In short, unilateralism is unacceptable because it is the exact opposite of the federal system. That is why we oppose it.
Let me deal finally with that old, old question of process. The government and the New Democratic Party are saying: Don't worry about the means, you will love the end. Every time human beings decide that the means will justify the end, that is the time ordinary people get hurt. All political questions at root are moral questions and anyone who has read history knows that the day you let a bad means attempt to achieve a good end, you will rue that day. This country will not then be looking to the future that the hon. member for St. Paul's talked about, it will be looking to a number of years of unnecessary bitterness and division. We would like to say to the government: Think one more time.


An hon. Member:: Fifty-three more years.


David Edward Crombie: My friend from Toronto says 53 more years. I was reading a book called "Miracle in Philadelphia" which concerns the American bill of rights. It took them a long time, many years to adopt it. If things are worth doing, they are worth doing well. We have not had 53 years of failure. This country had grown and grown well over the last 53 years.
I am saying that what the government can do is go to Britain and say: Send it back, thank you very much. Everyone agrees on that. I think you can get some agreement on the amending formula. The charter needs some work, even the government will admit that. My friend, the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) kept saying: we have three years before it is in practice anyway so we can tidy it up here, turn a spigot there. Well, he wants to pick up the votes now and pay later. I can understand that but I do not applaud it.
Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that the process over the past four months has been a very important one for this country, and if the government persists in its course of action we will be in greater difficulty than it can imagine. The three instincts that Canadians had long before this government came along are diversity, rights and consensus. They will be here long after this government is gone. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Constitution


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to congratulate the hon. member, not only on his performance in the House today, but especially on the rather remarkable work that members opposite as well as government members have done in committee. On the other hand, I am rather disappointed to find that after many hours of work and sound suggestions by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), he is not ready, at a rather crucial moment, to support a charter which has been improved, thanks to his co-operation.
Mr. Speaker, I was reluctant to speak at this stage of the debate on the government resolution because several points I raised in the first part of the debate last December have been discussed and amended by members of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada, and also because some aspects of the constitution were not perfect. As was so aptly pointed out by the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien), nobody has to be perfect. In the speech I made in December, I drew to the attention of the House some weaknesses of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Today, in light of the report of the special joint committee, I note that several of those weakness have been corrected. For example, in Section 1 of the first resolution, the individual rights were restricted as follows: "It is subject only to such reasonable limits as are generally accepted in a free and democratic society within a parliamentary system of government." As a result of some amendments, the section now reads as follows:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
I suggest that this change is consistent with the many requests made by human rights groups and will prevent any discriminatory action not only on the part of provincial governments-for the restraining effect of the charter does not apply exclusively to provincial governments-but also to the federal government. The new Section 15 which deals with Equality Rights is an improvement over the old Section 15 which dealt with Non-discrimination Rights and which read as follows:
Everyone has the right to equality before the law and to the equal protection of the law without discrimination because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age or sex. This section does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged persons or groups.
The section as amended is much more specific, because it adds discrimination based on mental and physical disability and states that every individual is equal before the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law.
7444

February 18, 1981
The Constitution
If we may set the charter aside for a while, Mr. Speaker, I think that the patriation of our Constitution, the enshrinement of our freedoms and rights, as well as the new amending formula are truly the first steps torward an in-depth reform. This reform is that which was promised to Quebecers by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself on the eve of the referendum when he stated, and I quote:
I know that I can solemnly promise that, should the No-side win, we will set in motion forthwith the mechanisms required for renewing the Constitution, and that we will not stop until we have achieved this goal.
1 am convinced that the Prime Minister was at the time relying on the good will which most premiers had expressed during the referendum campaign to carry out the necessary reform through federal-provincial conferences. I, for one, was expecting a lot from the consultations which the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development had undertaken last summer, as well as from the federal-provincial conference which was held last September. Instead of witnessing people involved in negotiations to achieve the goal of a renewed constitution, we saw our first ministers discuss the power-sharing issue first, apparently neither too anxious nor concerned about the patriation of our Constitution and the inclusion of a human rights charter.
After something like ten such conferences in 54 years, I find that the Constitution has not moved an inch, because there have only been minor changes brought about and it is still locked-up in London. How then can we fulfil that promise to provide Canadians with a modern constitution attuned to the Canadian reality at the dawn of the twenty-first century? On the one hand, Mr. Speaker, from the very moment when the Government of Canada brought forth its proposed resolution, a strong opposition front has accused Ottawa of acting unilaterally, without the support of the provinces or of the population. Some people are wondering whether the action taken by the government is wise or legal.
By means of a vast offensive of advertised propaganda, the Quebec government is fostering confusion stating that Ottawa should come back to the table, negotiate and come to an agreement because "we are not to be fooled" as the slogan goes; also there are editors, columnists and intellectuals who call the federal Liberal Members of Parliament from Quebec sheep, traitors and voiceless. From their pulpit, Mr. Speaker, those high priests of the day even go as far as urging our members to ignore party line and to vote according to their conscience.
To hear them, Mr. Speaker, one would think that the proposed resolution means an end to the present federal system, that it comes to us overnight without notice and without consultation. Such is not the case, Mr. Speaker. Throughout last summer, the provinces were consulted; the Quebec caucus and the national caucus met several times to make sure that the proposals of the government and the
provinces would meet with the approval of all hon. members, and among others, the Quebec Liberal members.
At that time, I witnessed the good will of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice in starting negotiations with the provincial premiers. There was no end to their efforts in making sure that at no point would hon. members on this side of the House be unable to support them. One thing is sure, much more was expected from the first ministers' constitutional conference of last September. I was disappointed, like some of my colleagues, to see that after so many hours of negotiations, the participants had failed to agree on a formula to amend the Constitution once patriated. I admit that more flexibility would have been desirable on the part of both the Canadian government and the provinces in order to achieve real agreement between the parties. But that conference having failed, are we to sit on our hands and just wait for another constitutional conference, or should we not, instead, accept the project through which the Canadian people can have a truly Canadian constitution, not in 54 years but much sooner, a project that bypasses the principle of unanimity which has caused first ministers' conferences to end in deadlock for some 40 years, Mr. Speaker?

Some people have asked me how a member who has a reputation for taking a more peaceful approach to negotiation based on consensus and not on confrontation, one who is known to some of his colleagues on the other side as a dove, can support this resolution. Sure, I will identify myself as a dove; sure, I do not like the situation we are in now; sure, I would rather we arrived at a negotiated deal, but we did try and we did not succeed. We now have a choice. We admit a partial failure in arriving at unanimity and take a chance on going back to the negotiating table with partners who cannot seem to agree among themselves and risk losing the progress we made, or we can support the resolution. I stand for supporting the resolution. It is an important step forward and a first step in obtaining the goal we all search for, and that is, constitutional change. If we give up now we are doomed to failure, and failure after 55 years of effort only favours support of the status quo. I am not one who supports the status quo, Mr. Speaker.
As a Quebecer who participated actively in the referendum I will not accept this resolution as the only change promised during that referendum. This is but one step. It will be our duty as members of the government caucus to assure ourselves that the constitutional changes continue to occur and that they occur with the full participation of members of this House.
The performance of the parliamentarians on the joint committee is proof that we should not leave constitutional changes to 11 premiers and their civil servants.
February 18, 1981

[ Translation]
As a whole, Mr. Speaker, the resolution proposed by the Government of Canada has already gained support from the majority of members in the House, from two provinces-a third one is still sitting on the fence-from several provincial political parties, and from most of the groups which gave evidence at the public hearings of the special committee as a result of the amendments moved by the Minister of Justice.
We know that the people of Canada are asking for a change and the proposed resolution fulfils their expectations. That does not mean that the federal project is altogether perfect; it has to be seen as a tool which will enable us to break out of the deadlock. As for me, that tool meets two significant criteria. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I admit that the unilateral amending formula imposes a rhythm and new rules which do not suit all provincial governments. But one essential fact remains for us members from Quebec, namely, that the government of Quebec and all Quebecers maintain their right of veto and that in future no constitutional change can be made without their consent. I consider that this right of veto is a prerequisite condition for anyone who acknowledges the specificness of Quebec. We have seen that members of the opposition, not unlike the provinces, have so far failed to agree on an amending formula. Once we had the Vancouver formula, now we have Senator Tremblay's formula. Mr. Speaker, what can we say about the Vancouver formula? We can say that it is endorsed by the Parti Quebecois and by several provincial Conservative governments. What is the formula? It allows opting out, one of its great qualities, according to the Quebec premier. For someone who is bent on opting out to the extreme and separate from his country, of course, he can find something interesting in a formula under which he can withdraw from all federal programs and reject certain constitutional provisions. But that is certainly not the wish of hon. members from Quebec.
With regard to Senator Tremblay's formula I am still quite astonished to realize that, for all practical purposes and depending on economic circumstances, Quebec would lose its rights of veto. If the final count were to be 70-30, for all practical purposes Quebec would be in an extremely embarrassing situation, whereas with the amending formula of the Victoria charter Quebecers, representing 25 per cent of the population, would be guaranteed that no change can be made without their consent. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, any formula which is criticized throughout Canada because it is overly generous to Quebec can indeed be an option to which the Parti Quebecois would object. But, Mr. Speaker, I think it is our duty as Liberal members from Quebec to make sure that the Victoria formula is the strict minimum.
Second, I want to speak in favour of the charter of rights and freedoms, particularly the section about mobility rights, labour mobility, and the right to education in the language of
The Constitution
the minority. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I consider that enshrining those rights in the Constitution is essential if we want to make sure that all Canadians participate in the economic growth of the larger regions of Canada. We now hear the Quebec government advertise that this will take jobs away from Quebecers. In my opinion, it is quite clear that according to all the studies that have been made recently that there are more Quebecers leaving their province to find jobs elsewhere in Canada than there are other Canadians entering that province "to steal our jobs" as they say. When you think of the economic boom in the west and the development in Newfoundland and Labrador Quebecers will certainly not be penalized in being given the right to share these jobs which are the jobs of the future in our country.
The fact is that this must be associated with another factor; the access to French schools. You cannot ask Quebecers to leave their province and get stranded in another province where they will not have the right to send their children to French schools. I also think that this is a change that is perhaps not as far-reaching as one would have wished, but at least it gives assurance to those Quebecers that they will benefit from those jobs that will be created all across Canada. It is certain that if they did not have this right, they would be reluctant to go. Now at least they have the assurance that they will have access to French schools.
The same applies to the entrenchment of the principle of equalization which gives the economy an additional stability. It is the concept of sharing that is now recognized by most Canadians and which has enabled Canada to become one of the most prosperous countries in the world. I think that it should be entrenched in the Constitution. The equalization principle will force both levels of government to favor economic development in order to reduce inequality of opportunities and in order to provide Canadians with essential services that are of acceptable quality. By entrenching this concept of sharing we are ensuring the future of Canadians in keeping with a tradition which was established in the early days of this country.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the proposed resolution is but one stage which will launch the renewal process for which we have been waiting for 54 years. After patriation, the provinces will have to come back to the table to negotiate and reach some agreement, as the Quebec government is so fond of saying in its ads. At that time, the premiers can put forward their proposals for an equitable division of powers. We must recognize, Mr. Speaker, that the provinces have several justifiable demands. Moreover, most of the requests made in the sixties were recognized by the Pearson government.
Also, the changes and reform called for in 1968, 1969 and 1970 were accepted by the present Prime Minister. Many people seem to have forgotten the progress made in the social field after the Victoria conference. What about the agreements

February 18, 1981
The Constitution
on immigration and the successful telecommunications agreements in the mid-seventies. During the next round of federal-provincial negotiations, we should adopt as a principle that every bit of progress made should be entrenched in the Constitution. Had this been done in the past when the first ministers agreed on six or seven items out of 12 on the agenda, we would probably be much further ahead now in the division of powers. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, they were out to get package deals.
Also. Mr. Speaker, the input by Members of Parliament in this constitutional renewal process should not, as I have said, be restricted to this particular debate. It must continue at all stages following the passage of the proposed resolution. I think that future constitutional changes must not come only as a result of discussions between the federal and provincial ministers but must involve Members of Parliament. I think we can be proud of the way in which the joint committee operated, of the resolutions and amendments proposed by both opposition parties and by government members, and I believe that all members have an important role to play. I can only hope that this will continue in the future.
During the first debate last December, some members on both sides of the House seemed reluctant to take a stand on the proposed resolution as a whole, or on part of it, such as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. My advice to them at the time was to take part in the work of the special committee to suggest improvements or express their views so that the final resolution might be the best and the most perfect possible.
Those who suggested changes, Mr. Speaker, and who obtained that the original resolution be amended deserve our congratulations. To those who did not succeed in imposing amendments or having them accepted, I would ask this question: can we afford at this time in our history to miss this unique opportunity to recognize the bilingual character of our country and its respect of human rights? While I respect those who intend to vote against the resolution, Mr. Speaker, I believe that, as representatives of the Canadian people, we must accept this proposal so that the government may act immediately by taking a first step in the right direction and by taking this important initiative of patriating the Constitution.
This leads me, Mr. Speaker, to speak once again briefly of those who accuse federal members of Parliament from Quebec of failing to comply with the wishes of their constituents and call us grovellers or sheep. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that we have any lesson to take from these people. The day before yesterday, I was listening to the Quebec premier in a radio interview. He was saying that he did not understand why the Liberal members from Quebec were not more independent of their party. He did not understand why they did not vote against the proposed resolution. For my part, Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why the Quebec premier would make such comments. We all know that in the four and a half years that the Parti Quebecois has been in power in Quebec, PQ members were never allowed to vote freely. How can those people suggest that we should not support our leader and our party when, for nearly five years, the great majority of PQ members have toed the party line as we have done ourselves. The Parti Quebecois executive even decided after the referendum to change considerably its electoral platform by abolishing the principle of a referendum and pushing back the basic objective of that political party, namely, sovereignty, into the background among its priorities.
Where were those who now say that federal members have failed to protect the interests of their constituents, of their members and of the population? Where were those people who are now criticizing us? Why did they not protest when this decision was imposed by the Parti Quebecois leaders? No, Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to learn from those people. They should know that in a parliamentary system like ours, the party line and party solidarity must be maintained and respected. If the personal views of a member are at too great a variance with the line adopted by his party, it is up to the individual member to take his responsibilities by accepting the decisions of his caucus or to consider the result a vote against it would have.
However, as a member has many opportunities to express his views at caucus meetings or in committee, he can reach an acceptable compromise by playing an active role. As I said earlier, perfection is impossible to attain and we should leave well enough alone. In the present situation, if I were to rely on the pundits, I could easily become a national hero. I would simply have to vote against the proposed resolution, and editorialists, Conservative and Parti Quebecois members would congratulate me on my gesture. I would go back to Quebec City to a triumphant welcome by the people of my constituency who, in any case, probably never even voted for me. I would get all this because I would have gone against the wishes of the party which was elected by the population and against a leader who, for all practical purposes, is respected by Quebecers. By voting against it I would have prevented the federal government from imposing its will. There is nothing revolutionary in that. Those are things which have been claimed by the people of both Canada and Quebec for some time. The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) stated in an interview published in last Saturday's edition of Le Devoir, and I quote:
It is important that party leaders think of their country, and not only of their supporters. A true politician should be capable of entertaining such an attitude and of explaining'it in the presence of his supporters. It will be difficult for my party, but it was necessary for the country.
It will be the same for the hon. members from Quebec. It will be the same for the Progressive Conservative members if they were against, and also for those who will have some reservations to make on the resolution. So where is the unfairness about the reform of the Constitution as proposed by the Government of Canada? Is it in patriation? Certainly not, since I know very few people who are against the idea of bringing back our Constitution, which is now in London.
February 18, 1981

We have seen some battles here in the past. We have seen all kinds of confrontations between Quebecers and English Canadians. When for years Quebecers were calling themselves French-Canadians or Canadiens, the rest of the people of Canada were calling themselves British subjects or British citizens. Maybe after so long Quebecers decided they wanted to identify themselves with something closer to them, and then started identifying themselves as Quebecois. If we had not waited so long to adopt our Canadian Citizenship Act, and to start identifying ourselves as Canadians, maybe Quebecers would not have seen that necessity.
We have seen the fight for a Canadian flag when people on both sides of this House voted for or against it. We can remember that great flag debate when the Quebec caucus was fighting so that Canada would adopt its own flag, because after a hundred years, French Canadians could not identify themselves with a flag they did not relate to: the Red Ensign or the Union Jack. No, we have to wait a hundred years for our flag. Quebecers, after waiting so long, decided in the early fifties that they wanted their own flag because they needed something they could relate to.
During the referendum, Quebecers started flying the Canadian flag, and I think they have been flying it for a long time, because they realize that it is their flag and they have an attachment to it.
We have to ensure that this Canadianization continues. We saw the example last summer of our national anthem. Once again Quebecers had to be ahead. They had to sing "O Canada" long before the rest of Canada, which was singing "God Save the King" or "God Save the Queen". Quebecers were perhaps bored with that, and started singing national songs in Quebec. During the referendum, we saw that Quebecers wanted to identify themselves as Canadians.
[ Translation]
Canadians had placed great hopes in the negotiations scheduled for the premiers' constitutional conference last fall. We all wished that those in attendance would reach a consensus on the different items on the agenda. After the failure of this conference, I would have liked to see the provinces try once more to come to an agreement with the federal government, to put forward a proposed resolution unanimously agreed to by all of them.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we found out that the provincial premiers were having some difficulty in coming to an agreement and, by the way they never even reached a consensus on anything. Whether it was about going to London, or the amending formula, or any formula at all, the only thing to which they agreed unanimously was their opposition to the federal proposal. Surely, this negative attitude of provincial "partisanship" will not help build a better Canada!
The Government of Canada is acting in the interests of the people of all Canada and in order to move foward along the
The Constitution
constitutional path, they are seeking the authorization of Parliament, which represents the Canadian people. I want to give them that support and I urgently ask my colleagues of the Progressive Conservative Party to set aside their partisan views and join with the New Democratic Party and Liberal members in giving their unconditional support to this proposal, so that we may go ahead with the constitutional reform.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I say there have been the necessary discussions, and I believe you will find that the House will agree to sit a few minutes beyond six o'clock if necessary so that our friend, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar), can complete his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Take your time.


Peter Ittinuar: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), likes to say, when he speaks of the natives in the Constitution, "together we will build a great nation". He said this yesterday, and I would like to follow up on his response and explain how we could build a great nation.
As we all know, this is a critical period in Canadian history. As usual, I am pleased and honoured to be a participant in the debate on the Canadian Constitution. I am particularly happy because this is a significant time in the long history of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. We have a responsibility to see that consideration is given to the interests of all Canadians, but I will be speaking specifically to the issue of entrenching aboriginal rights in the Constitution of Canada. The significance of this, as I said earlier, cannot be overstated.
When I spoke in the House last fall, I was fairly despondent about the future of aboriginal rights in Canada. The first draft of the constitutional resolution was a serious blow to us in our long fight for legal and political recognition of our rights as original inhabitants. It appeared that all our voices had fallen on deaf ears. A constitution without affirmation of our rights signalled the beginning of the end for us as distinct peoples within confederation.
At the time, Britain seemed the only avenue for change open to us. However, we pressed very hard to have our positions heard at the joint committee on the Constitution. I believe, for once, members of that committee listened. We owe a great debt to those people who came in good faith, facing what looked like impossible odds, to make the case they have tried to make so many times before.
When the Minister of Justice introduced amendments to the resolution on January 13, our hopes for recognition were dampened, dampened by amendments which fell disappointingly short of entrenchment. Native people were united in their belief that the amendments were not nearly enough to protect our cultures and lifestyles and to secure our future within confederation. We redoubled our efforts to achieve this last

February 18, 1981
The Constitution
chance for recognition because we always maintained that entrenchment would be impossible after patriation, given the views of most of the premiers in the provinces of Canada.
For once, native leaders from all parts of the country, Inuit, Indian and Metis, worked together in a process of intensive discussion, consultation and debate with members of all parties. My own party, and particularly the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), who, in our language, we like to call the "Downright hon. member for Oshawa" played a large role in convincing the government to accept our amendments, which were won only after a long and hard process of negotiating with the federal government.
We would, of course, prefer that aboriginal rights were recognized because they were self-evident of a society where principles of simple justice prevailed. But I am sorry to say they were not aspects of that charter. Aboriginal rights were ignored in the first draft, whether by design or accident, and I prefer to think by design, but that does not matter now. The fact is that they were missing.
As I said in the committee, there have always been members in all parties who were sympathetic to our goals and who have worked on behalf of native peoples. The unanimous all-party agreement which recognized aboriginal rights on January 30 was a great accomplishment. It was not just a result of intensive work in the last week of committee hearings, but the culmination of years of struggle.
This marks the beginning of a new era for native people in Canada. The importance of this recognition of aboriginal rights lies precisely in its being a beginning. Our historical relationship with the federal, provincial and territorial governments has not been a happy one to date. Until January 30, we faced the prospect of a Canadian constitution being patriated without any positive inclusion of the rights of the native people of Canada. For us this could only lead to the erosion of our distinct native cultures through a gradual process of assimilation, which is a negative process. The true significance of the aboriginal rights amendments is that they guaranteed us freedom to follow our traditions and to speak our own languages within the greater Canadian society. The constitutional resolution before the House recognizes the principle of aboriginal rights, and the process of enumerating and defining these rights will follow in the post-patriation period.
Section 35 allows for native participation at constitutional conferences held during the two-year period following patriation and calls specifically for the agenda to include the matter of identifying and defining aboriginal rights. This section implicitly recognizes the principle that the aboriginal peoples of Canada must be involved in the process of defining exactly what their rights are and, more importantly, that only the native peoples themselves can adequately represent their own interests. Only through a process such as this can the paternalism which unfortunately has existed in the past be eliminated. I must say it is through the help of members in all parties who have worked toward this that we have achieved this end.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Ittinuar: I sincerely hope that when the native representatives sit down at the table with the first ministers, the first matter to be resolved will be agreement on the formula which permits the ongoing participation of native peoples at all future conferences and on all matters which affect their interests.
1 believe the Conservative Party is in agreement with me when I say that the amendments with regard to aboriginal rights passed by the joint committee are not only fair and just but also long overdue. In fact, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) put it rather well when he said:
If justice is to be done in the country it must also be done first to Canada's aboriginal people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Ittinuar: Members of the party to my right applaud, but I wonder if they are aware of the implications of patriation without the inclusion of the amendments on aboriginal rights. Let me explain. First we would not be represented at constitutional conferences and, second, the possibility of obtaining provincial agreement on these amendments is tenuous at best.
The amending formula at least recognizes the power of the provinces, but without the amendments which we have achieved the native peoples of Canada have nothing and face the prospect of never again seeing their rights recognized and affirmed by a Canadian constitution.
Unilateral patriation is not the most desirable route, as we are all aware, yet in spite of this I ask hon. members to consider seriously Canada's native people when the vote is taken. This would take justice out of the realm of abstract idealism and put it into the Constitution of Canada.
Section 33 of the proposed resolution recognizes and affirms the aboriginal and treaty rights of the Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada. The significance of this amendment is twofold, for it entrenches the collective rights of the aboriginal peoples while at the same time recognizes important distinctions within the broad category of aboriginal or "native" people.
Inuit, Indians and Metis cultures, languages, histories and traditions are very different from one another, and yet we share the right to identify ourselves as aboriginal. The recognition and affirmation of aboriginal rights at the constitutional level provides protection against the erosion of these rights. It means that federal government lawyers can never again argue against the existence of aboriginal rights, as they did in court against the Inuit of Baker Lake. The principle has been affirmed, and the long process of clearly defining the nature of such rights will follow. Entrenchment of aboriginal rights marks the beginning of a new era in which native people themselves will have a hand in shaping what those rights mean.
The limitation of rights through such indirect means as government programs and policies will be more difficult. Considering the level of distrust which presently exists, and has
February 18, 1981

always existed between native people and governments, the process of redefining the relationship between these parties can only lead to greater understanding and mutual respect.
Section 25 of the charter of rights and freedoms protects aboriginal rights from being gradually eroded by the assertion of other rights or freedoms in the charter. This is important historically, for many of the conditions faced by native people in Canada today are not the result of an assault on native rights but, rather, the indirect consequence of policies and legislation which had other purposes.
Section 25 also protects the sanctity of land claims settlements, as it holds the government responsible for upholding the guarantees obtained in settlements. It is my hope and trust that the federal government will fulfil the great moment of January 30 and move to settle all claims in this country.
The inclusion of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 is also very important. I believe it has the significance for native people that the Magna Carta has in the British tradition. I would like to quote from the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which I think explains why it is significant for us.
And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our interest, and the security of our colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom we are connected, and who live under our protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the possession of such parts of our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by us, are reserved for them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds.
"Hunting grounds" today can mean any number of things. Aboriginal people have never relinquished their rights as the first inhabitants of this country. Aboriginal rights have always been ours. What is important about this resolution is that it recognizes those rights.
This is not to say this is the last word on aboriginal rights. It is simply the beginning. My friend Charlie Watt, president of the Makivak Corporation of Quebec, said before the joint committee, and I quote:
All we are asking for is recognition that we are a distinct people, we live in Canada, and we are here to stay. If you recognize that principle, let us work out the details after patriation.
The Constitution
The amendments won on January 30 are an immense and dramatic improvement on the aboriginal proposal and are certainly worthy of our support.
There have always been differences among Canadians, and among native people too. We would be naive to expect otherwise, but it is our shared sense of pride in our unique identities and histories which gives us our strength. That is what makes consensus and agreement such a triumph.
I certainly have grievances about the charter of rights. I have grievances, for instance, about the section on mobility rights. The rights in that section do not accrue to the people of the north because they speak neither English nor French, and they have no desire to move anywhere else in Canada. However, the people of southern Canada can move into northern Canada at their leisure because that section benefits them. This is a likely prospect because of the potential development of those lands on which the Inuit of the north live.
I had an unfortunate argument with the Minister of Justice during the joint committee hearings. He agreed with my arguments but, because of party discipline, he could not agree to amend that part of the constitutional charter.
I would like to say to native people, to my fellow parliamentarians and to all Canadians that we do not need to deny our differences in order to acknowledge our achievements. As I said in my first speech in this House in Eskimo-and I would like to speak again in Eskimo in answer to what the Minister of Justice said yesterday-together we can make a great nation. The Eskimos would say:
Atautikkut kisiani sanajunnaqpugut Canadattiavangmik.
Only together can we build a great nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock, and with the consent of the House earlier given, I now leave the chair until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 19, 1981