1981-03-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[English\

Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of some urgency. President Reagan, in this chamber yesterday morning, drew attention to measures his government is taking to cut growth in federal spending, decrease personal income taxes, and eliminate unproductive and unnecessary regulatory structures which stifle economic growth. In light of the fact this country suffers from identical pressures to its economy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek):
That this government take immediate steps to bring down a new budget to meet the same kind of urgent and pressing economic problems created by this government by reason of its profligate spending and total lack of control over the economy in general.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Recently the British Labour Party urged the parliamentary labour party to vote against the constitutional resolution in the British House of Commons. Whereas four members of the federal NDP have stated that they will not support the constitutional resolution in this House of Commons, along with NDP Premier Bla-keney's opposition to the package as a whole, and because, on the other hand, the secretary of the federal New Democratic Party, Mr. Robin Sears, has urged the British Labour Party to support the constitutional resolution, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson):
That this House urges that, prior to the NDP stating their final position on the constitutional resolution, Mr. Broadbent, the Leader of the NDP, convene a meeting of Socialist International to include "the four horsemen" from his own caucus, the Premier of Saskatchewan as well as himself, so that the position of Socialist International can be clarified in order to avoid any misunderstandings to the British and Canadian public.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: 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 profits of eight major chartered banks soared to $459 million during the first quarter of 1981, with the Royal Bank pocketing a 76 per cent increase in profits, the Bank of Commerce 69 per cent, and the Bank of B.C. winning a 218 per cent bonanza, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That this House urge the government to stop this blatant profiteering by Canada's chartered banks and force them, as a condition of doing business, to allocate a significant portion of their profits for a mortgage assistance fund which will reduce mortgage interest rates to help young Canadians purchase a first home.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Normand Lapointe (Beauce):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 in connection with an urgent matter. In view of the increased imports of footwear in Canada; in view of the conclusion of the Anti-dumping Tribunal to the effect that in the absence of quotas, the share

March 12, 1981
of the market taken by the domestic producers would have continued to decline, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) look fully into the possibility of taking special steps to protect other than rubber footwear in countries with low salaries, in order to allow Canadian industries to proceed with their restructuring.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, in view of the unprecedented and alarming numbers of bankruptcies and near bankruptcies among energy-related small businesses in western Canada, directly as a result of the federal government's energy policies, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this House request a statement from the Prime Minister and the minister responsible for energy, confirming the policy of creating deliberate economic slack and uncertainty so as to place the federal government in a position of dominance in its avowed aims of socializing the oil and gas industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, the continuing internal conflict within the Advisory Council on the Status of Women was illustrated yesterday by the announcement of two more resignations and two transfers from the highly qualified research staff. It was also confirmed that a former employee will sue the council. At this very time groups representing women from all walks of Canadian life are calling for a constructive and objective review of the advisory council in order to restore its credibility. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That this House demand a full, external and independent review of the composition and function of the advisory council.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, the United States Congress has decided at this time to take the advice of the American Metric Commission not to proceed with metric conversion in retail stores in the United States.
The steering group for scale conversion in Canadian food stores met recently in Canada and they unanimously agreed that they should not proceed with metric in the retail food stores in Canada, not being in concert with the United States. Since the Metric Commission insists on full speed ahead and damning the torpedoes, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington):
That this government introduce at once legislation prohibiting the Metric Commission from proceeding with its course of forced metric conversion in the retail food sector without first obtaining either the consent of the retail merchants in Canada or the Canadian consumers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Recognizing that Clause 7 of the proposed charter of rights purports to guarantee "everyone the right to life" but that in the recent case of Dehler v. Ottawa Civic Hospital, on which leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada has now been denied by that court, our courts have indicated that unborn persons are not recognized as protectable persons, and fearing that the entrenchment of the proposed wording would render it unconstitutional for the Parliament of Canada to enact legislation to protect unborn Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges):
That Clause 7 be amended to read as follows:
Everyone, including unborn human beings, has the right to life. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
March 12, 1981


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: 
PETRO-CANADA ACQUISITION OF PETROFINA-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, whereas it has come to light that in the takeover of Petrofina by Petro-Canada the officers of Petrofina have made over $400,000 in share trading, so much money that one wag has called it the "lotofina" takeover; and whereas the insiders' report for the end of January will show that Mr. Dodd, a vice-president of Petrofina, made $40,000 two business days before the public announcement, bringing this total now close to $500,000, therefore under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That since the minister of energy will do nothing about this situation, this House refer the matter to the national resources committee to investigate so that we can see if this is just another case of getting lucky.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the unanimous agreement of UN member states in 1978 that mankind must "proceed to disarmament or face annihilation", and in view of the statement by Prime Minister Trudeau in the 1980 Speech from the Throne that "the issue of disarmament is no less than the survival of humanity on this planet", and in view of the fact that the arms race continues at a cost of $500 billion a year in spite of massive nuclear overkill potential, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour):
That this House support in principle the concept of a world referendum on balanced disarmament, so the people of all nations can express their support for the establishment of a concrete, gradual disarmament process.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the United States Congress is now considering sweeping changes to the U.S. clean air act-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is unable to hear what the hon. member is proposing. Could we have order?


Thomas Michael McMillan: In view of the fact that the United States Congress is now considering sweeping changes to the U.S. clean air act, some of which would drastically increase acid rain in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House urge the Canadian Minister of the Environment to make vigorous representations to the U.S. government, in particular the U.S. environmental protection agency, to protect Canada's interests in this vital area.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It relates to a double standard which the government is following in relation to oil profits and oil pricing. On January 1 the government introduced the petroleum compensation charge on all oil delivered to refineries after that date, but it did not apply the charge to the oil which the refineries had in inventory at that time. At the same time, the oil companies increased the prices equivalent to $2.50 a barrel. That resulted in an unearned windfall profit on 70 million barrels in inventory at that time at $2.50 a barrel for a total of $170 million. In view of the concern that consumers have about the cost of oil in this country and the profits made by

March 12, 1981
Oral Questions
the oil companies, why did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources acquiesce in these windfall profits at the expense of consumers in this country?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I note with gratification the interest of the official opposition for the consumer rather than for the oil companies these days. I must tell the hon. member that I do not agree with his conclusion.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, that is the sort of answer I expect from the minister when he has not done his homework. I hope that the next time he is asked a question about a $170 million rip-off by the oil companies to which he has acquiesced, he will have a better answer than that. Let me draw his attention to the fact that in the wellhead increase in the price of oil, there is a delay of two months, in the last increase from January 1 to March 1. Surely the minister is able to exercise his moral suasion on the oil companies to enforce a delay with regard to implementation of the petroleum compensation charge. There will be two other examples of this kind in the next two years. The total amount will be some $350 million more if the minister does not take action now. May I ask the minister why he did not take action on January 1 to stop that rip-off?


Marc Lalonde: I repeat, Madam Speaker, that I disagree with the hon. member's analysis. I will take note of his representation, but I must tell him that his analysis of the situation does not correspond to the one we have made.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I would have thought that if the minister had a better explanation for it, he would have told it to us.


PETRO-CANADA ACQUISITION OF MERIT PETROLEUM-REASON FOR CHANGE IN SERVICE STATION PRICES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is in relation to another area where I believe the government has been delinquent in encouraging greater competition in the oil industry in this country. It relates to the purchase of Merit Petroleum by Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada was a supplier of product to Merit and, prior to the acquisition when Merit was cut off by a major supplier, Petro-Canada had the opportunity to keep that company in business by increasing its supply. Since then, Petro-Canada has announced it is going to convert the Merit discount stations to full price service stations. Can the minister explain why Petro-Canada did not increase the supply to Merit and why it is moving to convert these stations from discount stations to full price stations, both matters which will affect the consumer adversely?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I will certainly inquire of Petro-
Canada, and I will be happy to report to the hon. member as soon as I receive their answer.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and it flows from the initial question.
The minister has continually referred to a Canadian-owned oil company, namely, Husky Oil Limited, as an example of one which supports our National Energy Program. I obtained the record of the minutes of a National Energy Board meeting of just last month, and I should like to bring this to the attention of the minister. The question asked of Husky Oil was:
What is the impact of the present economic regime on the viability of development drilling?
The answer by Husky Oil was:
The combination of the petroleum and gas revenues tax, PGRT, provincial royalties, and the wellhead pricing schedule has, for all practical purposes, eliminated any profit potential of these investments.
Who is telling the truth? Is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources prepared to stand up in this House and say that his energy policy does not need revamping? When will he introduce a new oil energy policy that will bring jobs, employment, and economic growth not only to the west and the east but to central Canada as well?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, what 1 have indicated in this House has been that Husky Oil indicated it was increasing its investment this year-exploration and development expenditures-compared to last year. The record will show what I said at that time, if my hon. friend wants to check.
As far as the energy program is concerned, some problems have been identified and we have made adjustments to take into account those problems, whether they relate to exploration expenses or the definition of Canadian owned and controlled corporations. These modifications and changes have meant significant improvements in the program in terms of advantages to Canadian owned and controlled companies.
We have indicated quite clearly at meetings with Canadian owned companies that aggressive investors are better off under the National Energy Program than they would have been under a continuation of the previous policy. That is what we want. We want a strong, aggressive and prosperous Canadian sector in the oil and gas industry of this country.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, the minister is either intentionally or unintentionally misleading this House.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: The fact is to the contrary.
March 12, 1981


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member would have some interest in rephrasing that question. Ele knows one cannot say that someone has intentionally tried to mislead the House.


An hon. Member:: He said "either," "or".


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, the minister is unintentionally misleading this House. The fact of the matter is that Husky Oil qualifies its commitment for investment and growth in the future by saying, "if the energy policy was to change." Since the minister shows no evidence whatsoever of changing the energy policy, in view of the recent cuts in oil production in the west, and in view of the lack of revenue because of the Lalonde levy, as it is often referred to, will the minister advise this House whether he intends to offset this loss of revenue to cover the subsidy for imported oil by any other means than the one which is not working, and that is the Lalonde levy?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I will try to reply to the hon. member in French since he seems to have difficulty understanding English. Again I must repeat that several changes have been made to the National Energy Program so as to take into account the peculiar hardships which certain sectors of the industry may have been facing, and that those changes have been translated into sizeable improvements for that industry.
I am still holding discussions with the government of Saskatchewan, where Husky Oil Ltd. has major investments, with a view to concluding an agreement with the province under which Husky Oil Ltd. in particular and other companies operating in Saskatchewan will benefit from considerable incentives to pursue their objectives. As indicated by Husky Oil Ltd., one of several problems is the very high royalty rate levied by the Saskatchewan government. As a whole, however, the over-all parameters and the general trends that have been set in our National Energy Program are part and parcel of government policy, and we are convinced that once again they will enable Canada's petroleum industry to achieve all the objectives we expect from it in the coming years.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Newspapers across Canada are today carrying full-page ads by the Imperial Oil Corporation, and I show one example to the minister here. The ads challenge the 12-year study which accumulated evidence
Oral Questions
demonstrating the oil companies have ripped off some $12 billion from Canadian consumers.
Would the minister confirm that these ads constitute another rip-off of the Canadian consumer, because they are deductible items from expenses the corporation can file, and therefore have to be made up by other Canadian taxpayers?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would not want me to second-guess the conclusions he has drawn.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, just for once we do not want second-guessing. We would like a straight answer from the Liberal minister. That is what we would like.


An hon. Member:: Lots of luck.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister did not give us a straight answer because he knows that the ads can be deducted from the expenses.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Criminal seduction.


John Edward Broadbent: Which means the people of Canada are being seduced by these companies. I would like to ask the minister, while making it clear that Imperial Oil or any other company should have the right to advertise, does he not agree that political advertising of this kind should not be underwritten by the taxpayers of Canada but should be paid completely and solely by the companies themselves?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 am rather enjoying the hon. member's effort to convey a point of view in question period but, as he knows, I do not engage in the kind of propaganda outburst that he is exploiting at the moment.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister runs a close second to that of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in not engaging in anything in the real world of politics.


PRICING PRACTICES OF OIL COMPANIES-CALL FOR ROLLBACK TO COMPENSATE CONSUMERS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Over a week ago this admirable minister, this outspoken advocate for consumers in Canada, said that he would investigate the 5-cent a gallon increase the oil companies piggybacked on March 1 onto other increases in the price of oil. Considering that after eight years of studying corporate rip-offs by the oil companies showing they took at least $12 billion more from Canadian consumers than they ought to have taken, and the only thing the government has done has been to set up another two-year study, would he, at least in the case of these rip-offs that came over a week ago, announce today that some justice is going to be restored to Canadian consumers by

March 12, 1981
Oral Questions
the government ordering the oil companies to roll back that increase?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked that question last week. I would urge him to let the director of investigations complete his work. As soon as the director submits his report, I will be very glad to answer the hon. member in the House.


PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF PRESIDENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF EUROPE
Madam Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Mr. Henri Johan de Koster, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. A budget was brought down in British Columbia on Monday. The price of gasoline was raised 1.6 cents per litre, or 7 cents per gallon, to compensate for the much diminished provincial revenues in the oil and natural gas sector due to increased federal intrusion. Is the minister aware of the secondary results of his National Energy Program? If so, does he intend to do anything about it?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am only sorry that the hon. member believes the Socred propaganda of that particular government in its budget.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. It is now quite clear that the National Energy Program, which was announced as part of the federal budget, is really a grab for money by the federal government, which takes money away from provincial revenues. In this particular case British Columbia was forced to increase prices on the individuals in that province. Does the minister consider this new federal form of taxation, which taxes only one part of Canada, that is, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, fair? Does he not realize how much this policy appears to contribute to alienation in western Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, what contributes most to alienation in this country is the type of total misrepresentation put forward by the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, every gas consumer in this country is paying the same amount of federal tax under the last budget. As the hon. member knows, there are many more consumers of natural gas in Ontario than there are in British Columbia. Those consumers pay the same federal tax that the people in British Columbia are paying. To stand up in this House and make the type of allegation that the hon. member has made is totally irresponsible. He should be ashamed of himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DEPARTMENTAL ADVERTISING EXPENDITURES
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It relates to political energy advertising, although it is not the type referred to by the Leader of the NDP. My question involves the expenditure of tax dollars.
In view of press reports this week that the minister's department is authorizing a $3.25 million energy advertising campaign to sell the Liberal energy policies to Canadians, how can the minister justify that expenditure of tax dollars in light of the commitment made last fall by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism that the government would not use tax dollars to sell Liberal policies which have not been approved by Parliament? I ask this question particularly in view of the fact that elements of the national energy policy are before Parliament now, or have yet to be brought before Parliament.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member might have a case if the allegation he makes were true, but it is not.
My department has a budget for public information and advertising. There were a number of expenditures approved by this House at the time of the budget concerning programs which would be of great benefit to Canadians in terms of achieving conservation of energy and in terms of achieving energy self-sufficiency. Those programs have been approved. The expenditure of funds allocated under the estimates and under those programs will begin very soon, as soon as we can have the administrative machinery in place.
It is the duty of this House, and the duty of the government, to inform the Canadian public of the programs for which they are eligible in order to achieve the objectives of self-sufficiency and energy conservation. I certainly intend to fulfil my duty under the rules of this House and under the government's responsibility to inform Canadians of the programs for which they are eligible. I think that is my duty as minister of energy, and I intend to fulfil that duty.
March 12, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, it is Liberal propaganda financed by Canadian taxpayers' dollars that we are talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the minister knows, and it is reported that Albertans may receive a highly political message from Ottawa in a brochure arguing Ottawa's energy case.
In view of the lack of concern by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I would like to put my supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board, who is responsible for government spending. How does the minister justify the expenditure of $3.25 million worth of taxpayers' money on Liberal propaganda at a time when the government is telling Canadian pensioners that it does not have the money which is necessary to insulate them from higher prices?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, once again I will reply in French. I have already said that the department advertising program has to do with the over-all objective of the government to conserve energy and achieve self-sufficiency in energy. The budget has been brought down and the estimates were tabled in the House to earmark huge amounts for ensuring that Canadians will have an opportunity to benefit from programs and grants which will make it possible for them to achieve those objectives of self-sufficiency and conservation.
Our advertising campaign will be aimed at making Canadians aware of those programs so they will be able to benefit from them. My colleague and friend is referring to a newspaper article, so I would urge him to check the facts instead. As for the possibility of a brochure being addressed to Alberta residents, it is clearly stated in that article that it is a suggestion which I am now studying. I would remind him that the Alberta government has sent to all residents of the province a brochure in which the federal policy is very harshly criticized. I have no hesitation whatsoever in arguing that indeed the government has every right to react to that kind of brochure should it so decide. However, I must also remind the hon. member that no such decision has yet been taken.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour, or whomever is responding for him. It concerns the length of the deplorable British Columbia Telephone Company dispute. There has been a proposal by labour arbitrators in British Columbia that a return to work agreement be signed between the company and
Ora! Questions
the union and that all outstanding issues, including the suspension of 24 employees, be settled through the efforts of a sole arbitrator, following the return to work of all employees, including the 24 who have been suspended. Last Monday there were 14 summonses issued by the attorney general's office of British Columbia. Although there have been no charges laid, to my knowledge, the disposition of any charges resulting from these summonses could delay the return to work for months. The sole arbitrator proposal has been accepted by the union. Can the Minister of Labour tell us whether he supports this idea of the sole arbitrator proposal, and would he back it?


Mr. Louis R. Desmarais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the labour dispute in British Columbia has been complicated by the inclusion of a clause which said that the whole agreement was subject to CRTC approval of a rate increase. That has now been dropped and federal meetings are under way in B.C. to settle the only outstanding issue in this dispute, which is the return to work agreement. The meetings began the day before yesterday. We are hopeful that an agreement will result very soon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CALL FOR ROLLBACK OF RATE INCREASE
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister, if I could have his attention. The people of British Columbia are fed up with this dispute. They feel that it has gone on long enough. Unconscionable profits are being made because the phone bills continue while the wage package shrinks. There is no service; the service in British Columbia is deplorable. Will the Prime Minister consider positively a proposal to cabinet that the February CRTC rate increase be rolled back and that a rebate be given to the ill-served, ill-considered consumers or, better still, that B.C. Tel, like the telephone companies of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, be brought under public ownership?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to take notice of the question on behalf of the minister.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Jonquiere):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. A few months ago, the clerical workers in the federal public service clamoured for the decent salaries and improved working condi-

March 12, 1981
Oral Questions
tions they were entitled to. Following this dispute which was settled thanks to the understanding of the President of the Treasury Board, haphazard and erratic disciplinary action has just been taken against many workers, including 38 of the 50 employees of the Canada Manpower Centre in Jonquiere. Can the Minister give us the assurance that he has assessed the situation and considered all the circumstances before this action was taken, and that the employees in Jonquiere or in Quebec, who seem to have been hit harder than those elsewhere in the country, have not been discriminated against?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Jonquiere for his question. The Quebec clerks have not been dealt with more severely than those in other provinces. I can give this assurance to my colleague and to other members of the House.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the status of women. As the minister will know, the council announced that it is ready to conduct an internal review of its operations, having failed to recognize that the capacity and the credibility of the council to review itself have been radically undermined by the resignation of its president and then five board members, by the loss of much of its excellent research staff, and by the launching of a SI.3 million lawsuit. In light of this evidence, and in light of the ongoing public discussion, will the minister agree to appeal again to his cabinet colleagues for an independent and external review of the advisory council?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member examines his statement he will realize that he is in danger of coming down with an acute case of hypercontradiction. On the one hand he previously suggested and argued that the advisory council should be allowed to maintain its independent status. Now he is asking whether we should try to interfere in the decisions of the council. He cannot have it both ways.


An hon. Member:: Why not? You can.


Lloyd Axworthy: We are trying to stay consistent on our position that the advisory council is an independent body.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: It decides its own opinions on its own judgment, and we respect this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, where I come from if a doctor is sick he usually does not prescribe for himself; he gets another doctor to look at his illness.
I have a supplementary question for the minister. If he is not prepared to recognize the sickness surrounding the council at the moment, in light of the fact that six appointments were made to the advisory council last week, with very little consultation, and six more appointments will be made by June, will the minister assure the House that future nominations will be widely sought and that the review the council will do of itself will be made public before these three-year appointments are made?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, again 1 suggest to the hon. member that if he is talking about sickness perhaps the worst problem is some of those people, including himself, who are surrounding this particular council with their own form of doomsaying and not letting it get on with its job to represent the points of view of women in this country-


Mr. Clark:: And the point of view of the Liberal Party.


Lloyd Axworthy: -and to deal with the substance of issues. The real heart of the matter is better equality for women. That council has had appointed to it some of the outstanding women of this country who are prepared to sit on that council at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is with regard to the impact of the National Energy Program on Canadian oil production. Is the minister aware of the fact that by the end of April there will be 120 fewer oil rigs in Canada, that investment in Canadian oil production will be 30 per cent less than last year, and that in January and February of this year there was a 15 per cent increase in the amount of oil imports? According to the Canadian Petroleum Association this will amount to something like $182 billion extra over the next ten years to Canadian consumers. Does the minister understand the collision course the government is on, with the need of Canadians for oil? Does he have a rationing program in place now to take care of those needs, and how quickly can he implement it?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, one of the main reasons for the increase in imports recently has been the cutback by the government of Alberta-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
March 12, 1981


Marc Lalonde: -by 60,000 barrels per day. This is regrettable, but it has taken place.
Oral Questions
years, to take care of emergencies, together with other member countries of the International Energy Agency.


Charles Joseph Clark: It is not true.


Marc Lalonde: As far as the energy program is concerned, as I said we have made some adjustments to ensure that the industry will be in a position to make profits and that Canadian firms, in particular, will be able to grow much faster than in the past. We are convinced that this can be achieved.
Also I have indicated that we were willing to undertake further discussions with the producing provinces in order to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement.


Mr. Nielsen:: What about rationing?


Marc Lalonde: I hope these negotiations and discussions will take place.
What is taking place at the present time is a review of the system involving the Post Office to ensure that if an emergency hits the western world in particular, we as industrialized countries would be ready to face such an emergency. It is just an updating of the program in place under the Energy Supplies Allocation Board.
*
* *


THE ECONOMY
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will know that Alberta did not turn down the tap until at least the end of February of this year. The figures I gave him were for January and February of this year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gary Michael Gurbin: The real point that Canadians do not understand is that Alberta is running out of cheap conventional oil. It just simply is not there, and the National Energy Program is doing nothing to provide for its replacement.


ROLE OF POST OFFICE IN DISTRIBUTING RATIONING COUPONS
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Postmaster General. He will know that there is an ongoing survey in the Post Office which is looking at the ability of the post office network to provide for the distribution of gas rationing coupons. Will the minister table this survey, explain it to us now, and tell us how quickly he feels the Post Office will be able to implement gas rationing coupon distribution?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member that we have included a complete program of self-sufficiency for this decade in the National Energy Program, and that self-sufficiency will be assured mainly by the production of the tar sands, heavy oils, and also offshore discoveries in the Arctic. The National Energy Program has all the necessary instruments to achieve that purpose.
As far as the question raised by the hon. member is concerned, I understand that it was raised in the House a couple of days ago. There is no foundation whatever to the notion that there will be a planning of a rationing scheme to be put into effect in this country in current circumstances. What is taking place is a review of the program under the Energy Supplies Allocation Board, which has been in operation for several


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I apologize for not being able to give him notice. In view of the economic chaos in the building trades created by the government's refusal or inability to combat high mortgage interest rates, will the government take any initiatives in the closing of mills making building products, such as the Georgia Pacific Mill in New Brunswick which is about to close and create very widespread unemployment in the area? This is the result of national government policies which, taken in the context of national interest, impact adversely on the fragile economies of the Atlantic provinces.
I would like to ask the minister if he would discuss the closing of this mill and the related building products trade problem with economic ministers such as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and, in this case, the minister from New Brunswick, and would he also address the question of the adverse impact some of our national policies such as tight money and high interest rates have on the fragile economies and businesses in the Atlantic provinces?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the interest rates which prevail in the country today are basically the result of the high inflation which besets not only Canada but other countries in the world as well. The best way to reduce interest rates over time is to attempt to reduce over-all inflation.
I will, as the hon. member suggests, be pleased to look at this particular problem which concerns him, and discuss it with my colleagues he has mentioned.


J. Robert Howie: I thank the minister very much for his answer.

March 12, 1981
Oral Questions ENERGY


NEW BRUNSWICK OIL SHALES DEVELOPMENT
J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I draw the minister's attention, as I attempted to do a week or so ago, to the large deposit of oil shales in the province of New Brunswick. As the minister is aware, only one square mile of the 2,500 square mile deposit has been investigated, but this square mile leads New Brunswick authorities to believe there could be as much as 15 billion barrels of oil in the shales. These shales are not part of our national energy inventory.
Has the minister received any representations from New Brunswick, has he discussed this with his colleagues or his counterparts there, and will the minister give serious consideration to having a detailed exploration to define and evaluate the oil shales in New Brunswick?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, I have not received any representations from my New Brunswick colleague or from the government of New Brunswick. Perhaps a letter has been sent to my officials which I have not yet received, but nothing has been brought to my attention. I will certainly consider the representation made by the hon. member, with interest and sympathy.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the minister is aware, hearing impairment is the largest handicap in Canada. It affects one million disabled persons. Access to telephones is more important to them than it is to the general public and affects their ability to hold jobs or to live independently.
Instead of removing obstacles for these people, the effect of a recent CRTC decision will be to allow the installation of new telephone equipment which is incompatible with hearing aids and further isolates these Canadians from the mainstream of Canadian life.
Considering the minister's obvious concern about the disabled and handicapped community in Canada, what action is the minister prepared to take to remove this obstacle which was not there before the CRTC made this decision?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to bring the detailed question of the hon. member to the attention of the Minister of Communications as soon as he returns to Ottawa.


ESTABLISHMENT OF TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT STANDARDS
Neil Young: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Since the minister is responsible to Canadian consumers generally and since disabled and handicapped people are also Canadian consumers, will the minister agree to establish a standard which would require that compatibility with hearing aids be mandatory for all telephones used in Canada so that all Canadians would have the right of universal access to telephone communications?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I shall be happy to look into the proposal made by the hon. member and to discuss it with my colleagues.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the urgency of implementing the government's plan for oil substitution and the importance that natural gas will play in this program, can the minister say how soon financial assistance, as promised in the National Energy Program, will be made available to natural gas distribution companies to enable them to expand their services to areas in eastern Canada such as the communities along the north shore of Lake Huron not now served by a natural gas pipeline?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a point of clarification with respect to the previous question by the hon. member from New Brunswick. I would like to advise him that I have been-


Erik Nielsen: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Then I will answer the question of the hon. member for Algoma if the House does not want me to clarify the previous question.
Under the National Energy Program, large amounts of money have been provided and set aside for the expansion of the distribution systems for natural gas, and also electricity, in cases where it would not be economic to do so purely on a financial basis because of lack of clientele. However, there may be instances where it would be very important to have that expansion of the system in order to achieve our goal of reducing oil consumption in this country.
The decision as to the expansion of the systems will be made by provincial government authorities, and we will be working
March 12, 1981

very closely with them. We have already had discussions with the government of Ontario. These discussions are quite advanced, and we will be quite happy to make our contribution to the expansion of the systems which will be recommended by the provincial authorities concerned.


MARINE TRANSPORT
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport concerning the withdrawal of Dart container service from the port of Halifax. The minister met with the Premier of Nova Scotia this week and heard his concern about the future of container traffic in the port. Can the minister confirm published reports that he will direct the Canadian Transport Commission to conduct an inquiry into the withdrawal of the Dart container service from the port of Halifax, and will he also indicate when that inquiry may take place and what will be the terms of reference for the inquiry?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, it would take too long to report on everything which took place, though I think we agreed on most items. There still are difficulties respecting the assessment of freight rates. The Premier of Nova Scotia would like me to look into the way the rates are distributed on the road from Halifax going west. I will. Secondly, he would like me to look into the cost of icebreaking. I said I would. He would like me to cost recover that. I said I might in another cost recovery package.
The main item of discussion was the presence of CN in Cast. In this instance, we had a debate which was similar to a previous debate in this House on the role of Crown corporations. I defended the presence of CN in Cast, as in Halterm. The Premier asked me to start an inquiry. I did not agree to that, but I said that he would have an opportunity to present his case before the CTC because CP Ships must get authorization under section 27 of the act. The premier can present his case in that particular place.


QUERY RESPECTING WHARFAGE CHARGES
Howard Edward Crosby: In a press release dated March 2, 1981, the minister indicated that he had assurances from the National Harbours Board that it would move very quickly to expand container facilities in the port of Montreal for both the Cast shipping group and CP Ships. Now there is a rumour in Halifax that the National Harbours Board will dramatically increase wharfage rates applicable to container traffic.
Will the minister indicate whether this increase in wharfage charges will take place, and will he give us some assurance that no further steps will be taken by the National Harbours Board or any other government agency to aid the port of
Business of the House
Montreal in its competition for container traffic with the port of Halifax?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, like many other members of this House I do not like the tone of the question. The premier and I looked at the wharfage charges in Montreal and Halifax and found that they were the same in most instances. By the way, I will give this information to members and also to the press in the coming days so that they can see that there is no discrimination whatsoever against Halifax in the present system. With respect to the port of Montreal, I am on record as asking the province of Quebec to make the proper water lots and the land available to the port of Montreal so that it, too, can be more successful than it is at this time.


TABLING OF EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF COMMISSIONERS OF INTERNAL ECONOMY RESPECTING SALARY REVISIONS
Madam Speaker:: I am pleased to table excerpts from the minutes of a meeting of the Internal Economy Commission held on Monday, March 9, 1981, to deal with the salary review applicable to House of Commons staff as of April 1, 1981.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the government House leader about his intentions for tomorrow and next week with respect to government business.
While I am on my feet, may I ask him to designate March
18	as an allotted day.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, to the usual question, the usual answer-the Constitution. Next Wednesday will be an allotted day.


Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On March 4 Your Honour very kindly wrote me a letter with respect to the motion I introduced in the House on December
19	concerning extra pay for employees who worked extended hours during that all-night debate. You have made it clear, Your Honour, that we cannot question you from the floor or get answers from you in the House, but in view of the wide interest that there is in this matter, I wonder if arrangements could be made for a copy of the letter which you wrote to me, and maybe you wrote it to others as well, to be tabled or even

March 12, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Elzinga
made an appendix to Hansard so that those who are interested will know the disposition of this matter.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, in addition to what I indicated a few moments ago to the House leader of the official opposition, we will, of course, proceed next week with the debate on the Constitution, except for Wednesday which will be an opposition day. The New Democratic Party will be sponsoring the motion. However, if we decide to deal with another matter, we will, of course, give the opposition advance notice.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I do not believe my friend is correct with respect to the party that will have that particular day. I do appreciate and thank him for the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, it is true that we had the last one, but this is our other one, a short day. My friends in the official opposition have the final day in the semester. I believe the President of the Privy Council is correct in accordance with our agreement.
I wonder, Madam Speaker, whether you could respond to my request for the tabling of the letter to which I referred and that possibly it may be appended to Hansard?


Madam Speaker:: Before doing that, I should like to consult with the Commissioners of Internal Economy to find out whether they agree. I will take the hon. member's suggestion and consider it.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to a motion proposed under Standing Order 43 on Tuesday, March 10. This is the first occasion I have had to bring it to the attention of the House. It was moved by the hon. member for Guelph (Mr. Schroder) and seconded by the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith). I should like to read the motion:
That this House condemn the three Alberta daily newspapers which are stirring up regional dissension in order to sell more copies-
I rise because I find that this motion in itself misleads the House, and the stupidity of the statement in the motion I object to-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know whether the hon. member was in the House at the time the motion was presented but that was the time he could have debated it. I am afraid he is now debating a motion on which the House has taken a position and that is not possible. One cannot go back on a decision made in the House of Commons. Furthermore, this is not the time to debate that kind of motion.


Peter Elzinga: Madam Speaker, I explained in my opening remarks that I was not in the House when the motion was moved. I do not know if that would alter your ruling.


Madam Speaker:: I am afraid it does not change the hon. member's problem. It could have been debated at that time but since the hon. member was not present in the House on that day I am afraid his chance of debating it has passed. He could use other procedures on other occasions to make the House aware of the problems that concern him.


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. This motion could not be debated in the House at the time because it was turned down by the colleagues of the hon. member for Guelph (Mr. Schroder) in the Liberal Party.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I just said that it was not a point of order, therefore I cannot accept the point of order of the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) either.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-633, respecting inclusive air charters.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to discourage operators of inclusive air charter tours from overbooking or otherwise failing to provide the accommodation that is advertised as part of the tour.
At present, the customer is only reimbursed for the value of what he does not receive, not for any inconvenience that results from being stranded.
The bill would impose a penalty of five times the value of any part of the tour omitted, payable to the customer.


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

Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I wish to present to the House today a petition compiled by the Anglican Church of Canada. This petition has been signed by Canadians from all parts of the country. This petition calls on the government to withdraw special order in council SOR
March 12, 1981

379-345, which approves the dumping of toxic mine tailings into Alice Arm Inlet, in northern British Columbia, and calls for a full public inquiry into the issue.
Members know that I have raised this issue on previous occasions. Many groups are concerned about the possible effects these mine tailings will have on the environment and especially the damage the tailings will do to the Nishga's traditional fishing grounds. Five major church groups have endorsed this petition, as have labour unions, environmental groups and public representatives. The petition is 380 pages long and has been signed by 9,000 Canadians. This clearly reflects the concern Canadians have about this problem and I urge the government to respect the request and hold a full public inquiry into this issue.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,644, 1,746, 1,838, 1,878, 1,939, 1,984, 2,024, 2,026 and 2,041.


Mr. Thomson: 1.	What is the estimated cost of the advertising campaigns on the (a) Constitution (b) availability of energy, including agency fees, media fees, follow-up studies and all other related expenses?
2.	What is the estimated expenditure, by province, for each campaign?
3.	Are the campaigns being financed from funds voted under the 1980-81 main estimates, or will supplementary estimates be required?
4.	What advertising agencies have been hired to manage the campaigns?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Departments of Justice and Energy, Mines and Resources as follows: the Canadian Unity Information Office: 1. (a) The Constitution:


[Stage Direction]
2. British Columbia	$ 490,000	Quebec	$1,499,400Alberta	343,000	New Brunswick	142,100Saskatchewan	196,000	Prince Edward	Island	24,500Manitoba	196,000	Nova Scotia	171,500Ontario	1,719,900	Newfoundland	117,6003.	The campaign was financed by supplementary estimates.4.	Planicom Inc.
Le Groupe de Communicateurs unis du Canada MacLaren Advertising Limited The Jerry Goodis Agency Inc.
Vickers & Benson Limited West-Can Communications Ltd.
Order Paper Questions
Energy, Mines and Resources Canada: 1. (b) Availability of Energy: $1,679,700, including follow-up studies.
British Columbia	$187,135	Quebec	$358,005Alberta	175,588	New Brunswick	35,480Saskatchewan	56,600	Prince Edward Island	6,845Manitoba	55,363	Nova Scotia	48,234Ontario	625,852	Newfoundland	22,9303.	Yes, this campaign is financed from funds voted under the 1980-81 main estimates.4.	(i) Ronalds-Reynolds Co. Ltd. (English)(ii)	Publitheque (Television and Print-French)(iii)	Publi-Media Inc. (Radio-French)
Mr. Stevens: For the current fiscal year, what are the estimated expenditures of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for (a) advertising (b) free or subsidized publications (c) other information conveyed to the public?


Marc Lalonde: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: (a) media advertising-$4,120,820; (b) free or subsidized publications-$254,350 (includes estimated expenditure of $2,000 by EM&R on behalf of Uranium Canada Limited); (c) other information-$646,000.


Mr. McKenzie: In each year, 1960 to 1979, what was the total amount paid by CNR for consulting and actuarial services and, by year, to which firms was the money paid?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
(i)	Records of such payments for 1960 and 1961 are not available.
(ii)	During the period 1962 to 1979 payments were made by CN for consulting and actuarial services related to the payment of benefits under its pension plans and studies related to the development of such plans to the following firms:
William M. Mercer Ltd.;
Turnbull and Turnbull; and Towers, Perrin, Forster and Crosby; and in the following aggregate amounts:
1962 to 1970-$ 82,638.00 1971 to 1979-$902,808.35
(iii)	Any more detailed breakdown of particular amounts, annual periods, and payees would be contrary to CN's practice of respecting the confidentiality of transactions with other commercial enterprises.

March 12, 1981
Order Paper Questions AUDIT OFCMHC


Mr. Lewis: Did the auditors Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company, agree with the Office of the Auditor General to undertake a comprehensive audit of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and, if so (a) on what date was the decision taken (b) for what reason was such an audit undertaken and what, if any, were the results?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: 1.
Yes, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. have initiated a comprehensive audit at the request of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC).
2.	This decision was taken on August 28, 1979.
3.	Mr. R. Hession, president of CMHC, in consultation with the Auditor General, requested a comprehensive audit of the corporation. The corporation is participating with the office of the Auditor General in a project to develop comprehensive audit methodology for Crown corporations.
4.	The audit is under way. Results will be reported to the board of directors of CMHC upon completion.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does the government own any land east of Prescott, Ontario, in the area administered by the National Harbours Board and, if so (a) how many acres (b) how many persons own cottages or other buildings within the area?
2.	Has the government considered selling some of the land and, if so (a) for what reason (b) what protection will be received in regard to the interest of those presently owning cottages, etc. on the land and will such persons be given first choice to purchase at a reasonable price?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. Yes, (a) 66.18 acres, in addition to a waterlot area of some 289.64 acres, (b) Twenty-three.
2. (a) It is contemplating the transfer to Parks Canada of a historical site and is studying ways of improving its revenue position with respect to other lands not used for commercial purposes.
(b) Cottage owners would not be affected by the transfer of the historical site. Should the decision be made to sell the lots on which cottages are situated at some future date, existing lessees will be given opportunity to purchase them at a slightly below market value.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did a government aircraft carrying the Honourable Norman McLeod Rogers and others crash on its way from Ottawa to Toronto, somewhere in the area of Newtonville, Ontario, on June 10, 1940, and, if so, what were the names of all persons on board at the time including members of the crew?
2.	Were there any survivors of the crash and, if so, what were their names and any other available information concerning them?
3.	(a) What inquiries were undertaken into the crash (b) what were the conclusions of such inquiries and where is the information located?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes. The names of persons aboard were: Hon. Norman McLeod Rogers, F/O J. J. Cotter, AC 1 J. E. Nesbitt, AC 1 O. D. Brownfield.
2. No.
3. (a) The Chief of the Air Staff convened a court of inquiry which heard evidence from June 11 to 15, 1940, and rendered its finding on June 17, 1940.
(b) The court found the causes of the accident in its opinion to be as follows:
An error in judgment on the part of the pilot in that he continued the flight beyond Trenton toward Toronto in the face of increasingly low ceilings and poor visibility.
An error in judgment on the part of the pilot in that when he had lost or was losing visual contact with the ground he attempted a sharp turn towards rising ground without first gaining a safe altitude. The characteristics of the aircraft which preclude sharp turns without some loss of control.
Contact with the ground whilst in full flight.
The information is on microfilm in Air Force Headquarter's file held by the National Personnel Records Centre, Public Archives.


Mr. Cossitt: Were all records, prior to May 1941, pertaining to Department of National Defence aircraft and, in particular, records pertaining to the investigation into the death of Norman McLeod Rogers, minister of national defence, in an airplane crash on June 10, 1940, lost or have they disappeared or in some other manner vanished from the Public Archives or the Department of National Defence and, if so, how does the government account for this and will it order an investigation?


David Michael Collenette: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned: no. These records exist and are under the control of the Public Archives of Canada.
In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned: no. See reply to question No. 1,984 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Do the papers of the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King state in part with reference to the death in an air crash in 1940 of Norman McLeod Rogers, minister of national defence: "A court of inquiry into the cause of the accident is being held" and, if so (a) to what specific inquiry does this refer (b) in what location and on what date was the inquiry held (c) what were the names of all persons involved in the inquiry or who appeared before the inquiry?
2.	Are the papers of the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King in the Public Archives and specifically does the reference to Mr. Norman McLeod Rogers bear the number MG 26 J4 Vol328?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Departments of Communications and National Defence as follows:
March 12, 1981

1.	The papers of the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King do state in part with reference to the death in an air crash in 1940 of Norman Rogers, minister of national defence: "A court of inquiry into the cause of the accident is being held." (See copy below).
(a)	Court of Inquiry
(b)	Headquarters No. 1 Training Command, Toronto- June 14, 1940
(c)	Group Captain A. T. Cowley-CAF Station
Camp Borden
Group Captain R. J. Grant-No. 1 Training Command
Squadron Leader T. A. Critchley-No. 1 Training Command
Mr. C. J. Rowden-Port Hope Mr. F. H. Hewson-Port Hope Mr. V. R. Wakely-Port Hope Mr. H. Rusk-Port Hope Mr. J. A. Elliot-Newtonville Mr. L. Moore-Newtonville Dr. F. W. Diamond-Port Hope Mr. H. J. Williamson-Department of Transport, Toronto
Mr. C. S. Baldwin-Department of Transport, Malton
Mr. E. L. Capreol-National Steel Car, Malton Capt. B. A. Rawson-Trans Canada Airline, Toronto Mr. H. L. Wade-Newtonville Station CPR Mr. S. C. Hutchison-Newtonville Station CPR Mrs. M. J. Holman-Newtonville Mr. W. Robb-Department of Transport Sqn Ldr F. L. Trethway-RCAF, Trenton F/O N. E. Small-RCAF, Halifax F/Lt R. C. Davis-RCAF, Ottawa G/C R. L. MacLeod-RCAF, Ottawa Cpl. J. L. Arnold-RCAF, Ottawa Col C. R. Scott-Militiary Secretary, National Defence, Ottawa
2.	Yes.
Ottawa, June 10, 1940
Honourable Norman McLeod Rogers, minister of national defence, was killed at 1.25 o'clock today in the crash of an RCAF Lockheed "Hudson" aircraft en route to Toronto. The plane crashed into the woods ten miles west of Port Hope, Ontario, and caught fire after the crash. The cause of the accident has not been determined.
The pilot of the aircraft, who was also killed, was Flying Officer John James Cotter, of Halifax, Nova Scotia, who entered the RCAF in January, 1935.
Two members also killed were AC1 Oscar David Brownfield (R-51048) of Ottawa, Ontario, a son of Mrs. Minna Brown-
Order Paper Questions
field, of Big River, Saskatchewan, and AC1 James Edward Nesbitt (R-51105) of Ottawa, Ontario, a son of Mrs. Hanna Nesbitt, of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
The aircraft left Ottawa at 12.03 p.m. for Malton Airport, Toronto.
A court of inquiry into the cause of the accident is being held.


Mr. Beatty: What would be the anticipated costs, if any, to the CBC as a result of AM frequency reallocation that may result from discussions on a possible agreement on international frequency sharing and what would be the component portions of the projected costs?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: estimated costs involved in converting the CBC's facilities to the new frequencies would be $1,760,000 (in 1980 dollars), made up as follows:
Technical cost (conversion of transmitting facilities)
Cost of new transmitting facilities
Non-technical cost (direct costs, public information campaign)


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 173 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	Which departments have (a) video-tape equipment (b) video-tape editing machines (standard and computerized) (c) sound studies (d) sound mixing studies to produce their own audio-visual material?
2.	In each case (a) how many persons are involved and what are their duties (b) what is the name of the director and assistant director of such facility?
3.	With reference to Part 1, what is the estimated cost/value of each item of equipment?
4.	With reference to Part 2, what was the estimated cost for the salaries of such personnel and what was the actual cost dispense after overtime in (a) 1976 (b) 1977 (c) 1978?
Return tabled.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the

March 12, 1981
The Constitution
House that question No. 173 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



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. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday I had just made the point that Canadians have been listening to this constitutional debate with some reluctance, and I wanted to discuss some of the rights which would be lost in the course of the passing of a new Constitution in Canada.
One right in particular which Canadians hold dear and sacrosanct, the right to hold and enjoy property, will be lost. Imagine a government which professes to be that of a free and democratic country not protecting the right of its citizens to own a piece of land or a home. This is a country which has been an inspiration to citizens of the world. Estonians, Italians, Czechoslovakians, Japanese, Ukrainians, Germans, Chinese, citizens from all over the world have looked to Canada as a land to which they could come to join with the rest of us in working for and owning a home or a plot of land. In other words, a stake in Canada of their very own. They will have lost this right to enjoy property because it is just not in the Liberal charter and the present laws will not protect them. The present law will not afford protection because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has seen to it that any law inconsistent with the new charter will be inoperative and of no effect.
Since Magna Carta, the common law has guaranteed the right to own property, as do the present laws of Canada. But the new charter does not convey that right. Therefore, since the one is inconsistent with the other, the new charter will
prevail and the present right of Canadians to own property will have been lost.
Another serious concern is for the rights of unborn babies. The Supreme Court of Ontario has ruled that a person becomes a person roughly at the time of birth. Entrenching such existing law in this defective charter would deny the rights of unborn children, whose rights even today are jeopardized by far too promiscuous abortion laws. I say correct the law, do not protect bad law.
There are other rights presently enjoyed by Canadians which will be lost also, but time does not permit a long dissertation of lost rights. Some of these rights are very important ones which are supposed to be better safeguarded by the deceptive Liberal charter but which will actually be lost to Canadians.
Let me mention just one more upcoming injustice which could work against any group of Canadians. I refer here to equalization. Much has been said about the need for equalization. We have equalization now. Equalization payments are the means by which Canadians have shared equitably in the wealth of Canada. They are calculated on the basis of revenues and incomes of provinces, figures which can be examined and evaluated by the provinces and from which agreement can be reached as to how much money the provinces will get from the federal government. Under the "divine right of Trudeau" charter, this right will be exclusively that of the federal government, which will be able to distribute provincial revenues at will without disclosing reasons. That should allow even more funds to be channelled to Quebec from the rest of Canada or to any other Liberal provinces.
If hon. members think that such a thing would not happen, that responsible government in Canada would not do such a thing, let us dispel that illusion right here. This very deceptive, undemocratic government is doing that by ripping off fellow Canadians in Alberta and Saskatchewan to provide cheap fuel and fulfil election promises to eastern Canadians. If paying fellow Canadians 40 per cent of the world price of oil just to buy votes, while disregarding the real cost to Canada in lost jobs and foreign oil purchases costing multibillions of dollars a year, is this government's idea of equalization, it certainly is not mine.
What should this government be doing about our Constitution? For one thing, it should bring the Constitution home to Canada at once. None of us disagrees on that. Instead of trumped-up Brit-bashing, the government should simply petition Westminster to send the Constitution home. Instead of blaming the British for safeguarding the rights of the provincial and federal governments of Canada, a task which Canada asked Britain to do-someone back in 1931 was smart enough to think of that; they must have known what was coming-we should be applauding the British for taking their responsibility seriously, which they always do, and from which I suspect they would like to be released.
Second, the government should find an amending formula by which we can change our Constitution when the need arises. Obviously, the best suggestion to date is the formula we
March 12, 1981

call the Vancouver consensus because it gives every province the highest degree of equality, consistent with population. It does not give the power of veto to one province over another. In short, it does not create second-class status for all provinces other than Quebec and Ontario.
Furthermore, there is virtual agreement already among the provincial premiers for the Vancouver consensus. Any statesmanlike prime minister would not admit defeat now when agreement is so near. A truly worthy prime minister would drive hard to obtain provincial agreement in a process of nation building. In actual fact, the Prime Minister declared during the past election campaign that he would prefer to wait until Claude Ryan was elected premier of Quebec before resuming discussions on constitutional reform. Something has certainly rushed him forward. But as an architect and as a nation builder, we would not want to accuse our Prime Minister of that. Instead of being a house builder, he is a home wrecker.
For a few moments let us look at the real builders of Canada, including the Macdonalds, the Cartiers, the Browns and others. Let us look back on the events which brought together the founding provinces of this great country of ours. In the 20 years or so prior to confederation and following the Durham report, there existed a period of political instability. Canada came to the recognition that the world was changing and that she must become more self-reliant. In 1845, Great Britain had adopted a laissez-faire attitude and colonies were not being given the trade preferences they had had. Canada needed markets for her goods. In addition there was a growing desire to expand westward, not only for markets, but to cut off United States western expansion which would have turned northwest.
At the apex of this period of instability, George Brown, a Liberal of the day and a far different Liberal from those of today, made a deal which he considered to be in the best interests of Canada with Messrs. Macdonald and Cartier. He said he would support the Conservatives if they would attempt to combine with the maritime provinces of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to form a federated state which would be big and strong enough to survive against United States expansion.
The result of the 1864 Charlottetown meeting and subsequent Quebec resolutions was the British North America Act, designed in Canada and created by a process of consent. It was a contract, not a conquest. Canada was not born out of revolution or bloodshed. That has not been the Canadian way. It was a contract by consent. The great genius of Canada has always been consent. Even today, in my view, if Quebec or Newfoundland wanted to leave Canada by legitimate means, no one would take up arms against them. We have always agreed. We must always agree. We must not impose; we must have consent.
In 1867 Canadians created this country, this Canada of ours. In 1967 Canadians reaffirmed our confederation with the greatest public outpouring of emotion our country had ever seen. We believed in Canada, its beauty, its culture and its
The Constitution
social values. A new Constitution was the furthest thing from our minds. Canadians from east and west only wanted to continue the building of a great nation and a great society entering its second century.
Many of us, in an attempt to aid further the improving bonds between Canadians and Quebecers, elected the present Prime Minister, a man we believed would provide the spiritual and emotional link that would further bond two diverse cultures. Many of us agonized through the Official Languages Act which followed and which time has shown has increased the two-language problem and exacerbated our differences. Many of us sat patiently by while Quebec continued to break out of its economic straitjacket with the help of massive federal funding through DREE programs, Hull and Mirabel, federal government multimillion dollar projects and overly large government purchasing programs from Quebec suppliers.
How has all of this paid off for the citizens of the other nine provinces? The solidly Quebec-based Liberal party, with the complicity of the other members who know which side their bread is buttered on, is continuing to create division in a country which should be coming together with a sense of unified purpose-the building of Canada, a unified people working toward a common goal. This Liberal government, not content that it has gained power on a mandate of deceptive energy pricing and control which has totally divided western Canada from the east, has now set about to divide province from province with a new Constitution.
This is not just the perception of one Canadian. If the Prime Minister would cease this haughty arrogance and pay attention to the views and legitimate aims of the provinces, perhaps we could forge a Constitution which would come from the people of Canada, not one imposed on them by a government which is reflecting the views of less than one quarter of Canadians. A majority of seats in this House is a far cry from a majority of the people of Canada. More people in the last election voted against this government than for it.
After all, it is the provinces which more closely represent the wishes, aspirations and hopes of their citizens. If the wishes of the people and the provinces which represent the diverse needs of Canadians are not represented, that is not diversity, that is simply reality and the reality of differing needs will continue even after a new Constitution has been imposed. In fact, the differences will be all the greater after an imposed Constitution than after a Constitution which has been created by the people through their provincial legislatures.
Canada has always had different economic and social conditions. In early times our maritime provinces, the cradle of confederation, also provided the jobs and livelihood of early Canadians. Later, many maritimers went west to Ontario for industrial and mining jobs, enriching the central part of Canada with their presence and their skills. Still later, many central Canadians moved west to seek opportunities provided there. Quebecers have found careers in all parts of Canada and, of course, many citizens from other lands have found

March 12, 1981
The Constitution
Canada to be a land rich in opportunity. They came from various backgrounds to seek various opportunities in various regions.
Did these citizens from other lands look at Canada and say, "No, I won't go there; my rights won't be protected by their laws"? Certainly not. They chose Canada because it provided not only opportunity but guaranteed their rights and their liberties under the finest written and unwritten combination of constitutional rights in the world.
I say to the Prime Minister through you, Mr. Speaker, "If your constitutional package, which Canadians say they do not want but which you say they do want, is a sound one, why not put it to the Canadian people in the form of a referendum?" In fact, this highly controversial package contains provision for a referendum as a "tie-breaking" mechanism for deadlocks between the provinces and the federal government, so why not use it? Why would the government not use the very device it is trying to impose on the democratic process in Canada today?
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, why it should not be used, and why it must not be included in the proposed amending formula. First, it is totally one-sided. Only the federal government would have the right to call a referendum. In a situation where all ten provinces had agreed on an issue, but the federal government did not agree, one vote out of 11, the federal government, and only the federal government, could unfairly utilize the referendum to carry its way. The ten provinces would not have that right.
Second, a referendum can be written, perhaps I should say manipulated, in such a way as to virtually ensure the answer the writer wants. This is totally unfair to the provincial partners and is contrary to the principles of federation, not to mention the undermining of our democratic system of elected representation.
Earlier I said that Canada was built by and on consent- consent of the provinces to come together, to build together and to prosper together as a federation. Now that federation and that democratic process are to be cast aside by a government which does not reflect the wishes of the majority of Canadians, and even worse, which does not care that it does not reflect that majority.
Before democracy fails totally in Canada, I urge the Prime Minister to change his hard, unbending stance, to conduct himself and his office in the parliamentary and statesmanlike way of his predecessors, and try once more to find the magic of consent, the consent which is Canada. Bring the British North America Act home. Find an amending formula of consent. Take the time to devise a charter of basic rights and freedoms here in Canada, based on the intelligence, regional realities and good will of Canadians.
This is surely not too much to ask. It is surely not too great a task. It is the duty of government to find solutions no matter how difficult. The people expect this and would applaud it. If this government is not equal to the task, this most fundamental and important task of nation building, then it should give way to people who believe in Canada, all of Canada, and who can
get agreement and consent among all the provinces, just as the original Conservative government of Macdonald and Cartier did, in 1867. I am sure I reflect the hopes of all Canadians.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter this debate to support this resolution. I do so with enthusiasm. I do so because I believe it is a major achievement in fulfilling several of my long-standing political goals, goals which originally led me to enter active politics more than 15 years ago. First is the protection of minority rights through entrenchment, including the protection of minority language rights; and, finally, the movement to greater political independence and unity in Canada through patriation, the amending formula and entrenched rights.
While the original resolution tabled last October generally contained these important goals, I believed at that time that it was lacking and defective on several matters, to the extent that I felt obliged to press for amendments and even to vote for them if they were to be presented in this House. This included matters relating to aboriginal rights, language rights and anti-discrimination rights, among others.
I am pleased to say, however, that through the committee process, through lobbying inside and outside this House and through the work of many people, considerable improvement has been made to the resolution. Many amendments were agreed to and I at this time wish to congratulate the government and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), who I believe was extremely flexible, extremely objective and who took the time to listen to our arguments and, when the arguments were sound, make the amendments that were necessary.
In the short time available to me today, I can deal with only a few of the many issues and questions relating to this resolution. Consequently, I will restrict my comments, first, to the meaning of entrenchment; second, aboriginal rights; third, language rights; and fourth, the political and legal justification for the process.
First, why entrenchment? Some people that I have spoken to in my riding and across the country do not seem to understand why we need an entrenched charter of rights in the Constitution when we already have a federal Bill of Rights, a Human Rights Act and many provincial laws on human rights. In answer to that question, I should point out with great emphasis that the difference between an ordinary bill of rights, a bill of rights that is incorporated in an ordinary law at the federal or provincial level, cannot prevail over other ordinary legislation, whereas a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution, as this one is, does prevail over all other legislation, either at the federal or provincial level. I want to read from Section 58(1) because of its importance:
The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
Therefore, a piece of legislation which is inconsistent with what is in the entrenched charter of rights or in the Constitution is ruled invalid.
March 12, 1981

The second important reason for having an entrenched bill of rights is that an entrenched bill of rights cannot be amended by the ordinary legislative process as other bills of rights can. In other words, it takes more than an ordinary bill with three readings in the House of Commons and the Senate or provincial legislatures to change rights that are entrenched. In order to remove these rights which will be entrenched in the Constitution we would require an amendment to the Constitution in accordance with the amending formula, which means we would need the agreement of the federal Parliament plus six of the provincial legislatures, including Quebec, Ontario, two western provinces and two Atlantic provinces.
Finally, we need an entrenched bill of rights because, despite our good record in Canada, there have been many bad examples of violation of human rights by individuals, by groups and even by governments. I cite again the example of the Japanese Canadians and their internment during the Second World War; the removal of French-language education rights in Ontario and Manitoba earlier in this century; the recent removal by Bills 101 and 22 of English-speaking rights in Quebec; the attempt by the Alberta government during the 1930s to control the press; and attempts by Premier Duplessis in Quebec to control Jehovah's Witnesses and minority political parties. These are examples of which we are not proud but which could never have happened had we had the entrenched bill of rights to which I referred.
Second, I want to deal with the aboriginal rights sections in the constitutional proposal and the significance of those sections. They are Sections 25, 33, 35 and parts of the schedule. Of all these sections, Section 33 is the most important. The provisions of Section 33 represent the first time in Canadian history that any government has fully recognized and affirmed aboriginal rights. This recognition and affirmation is not being made in a mere policy statement, or in an ordinary piece of legislation; it is being made in the Constitution where, according to Section 58 which I just read, these rights will prevail over all other legislation, federal and provincial. This recognition and affirmation of aboriginal rights will prevail over the Indian Act, over mining acts, over hunting and fishing acts, over expropriation acts, over the Migratory Birds Convention Act and over the Northwest Territories Act. As it says in the section, any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force and effect.
Some people have asked what are aboriginal rights. Most of the 19 or 20 aboriginal groups which appeared before the Constitution committee did not want a detailed definition of aboriginal rights in the Constitution, although they wanted them protected, because they felt a detailed definition might limit and restrict them further down the road. They did not know what might happen further down the road.
I can tell the House that in a general way aboriginal rights are all those rights which our aboriginal peoples held prior to the arrival of the Europeans and which they never willingly
The Constitution
gave up. These are the rights to those social structures which they had before the arrival of the Europeans; their laws, their customs, their forms of government, their economies, their languages, their lands and their waters, not just their rights to hunt, fish and gather. While those are important, aboriginal rights are not restricted to those things, and not just surface rights to certain lands. Again, that is important; aboriginal rights are not restricted to those things.
With the inclusion of Section 33 in the Constitution, governments will now have to negotiate with the various Indian bands and Inuit communities regarding the specific content of their aboriginal rights in different parts of the country. The Nishga will have the right to force the British Columbia government and the Canadian government to sit down and consider their claims. The Inuit in the northeast and eastern Arctic, the Micmacs in New Brunswick in respect of their fishing rights in the rivers and off the coast, and the Dene in the Northwest Territories will have that right.
In my opinion, if a provincial or federal government refuses to sit down and discuss these matters with an aboriginal group, or refuses to negotiate, that group could go to court and force them to negotiate under this section in the Constitution. If they did negotiate and there was no agreement reached between the aboriginal group and the governments concerned, again the aboriginal group would have the right to go to court, present their evidence and, by virtue of this Section 33, get recognition of their aboriginal rights in specific places throughout the country.
Some of our Indian groups in this country have doubted this process because of their experience with our courts in the past. They have pointed to the many judgments of courts to which they went in good faith but lost their cases when the courts turned them down. Consequently they have some doubts about a constitutional provision whereby they may have to go to court to have their rights decided by judges, even though they be judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Let me say to them that there will be a significant difference now. In the past many of the precedents the judges had to use in deciding cases were precedents decided in the earlier part of this century between provincial or federal governments and companies and in which the Indians and Inuit themselves were not at all involved. They did not have the chance to argue their cases and the courts, of course, must decide in accordance with the law and cannot make judgments on the basis of what they perceive to be justice.
With this section in the Constitution I assure our Indian and Inuit people that things will no longer be the same. Every court will have to take notice of that Section 33 and could never render the types of judgments rendered in the past. In judging every case they will have to take recognition of the fact that the Constitution recognizes and affirms the aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
I have referred so far in this section only to aboriginal rights. It also states that the treaty rights of our aboriginal peoples are recognized and affirmed. This is also important because it puts the matters in those treaties over and above all

March 12, 1981
The Constitution
ordinary legislation. That means that when a treaty comes into conflict with an ordinary provincial or federal law, the constitutional provision and what is contained in the treaty will prevail. That is extremely important because our Indian people have gone to court time and time again in the past when their treaties came into conflict with provincial hunting and fishing laws, mining laws, oil and gas laws as well as federal laws, and the judges have always ruled that the law in question takes precedence over the treaty. This was, by the way, contrary to the experience in the United States. With rights under treaties recognized and guaranteed in the Constitution, they will now take precedence over ordinary legislation.
While Sections 25, 33 and 35 in this proposal represent a great achievement, in my opinion, for the aboriginal peoples of this country, they are not all that is required. In my own private member's bill, Bill C-212, I have presented several proposals for constitutional protection of Inuit, Indian and aboriginal rights.
One matter that is still left undone-this is not included but I think it should be-is an amending provision whereby we cannot remove these rights we are now putting in without the agreement of our Inuit, Indian and native people. That is very important. We are taking a big step. All political parties on the committee were in agreement with entrenching these rights, and it would be a sad day if, five or ten years from now, with a different composition in this House and with a different composition in provincial legislatures-although they are somewhat similar in provincial legislatures right now-the federal government got together with six provinces and removed those rights without the agreement of our aboriginal peoples.
I understand the national aboriginal associations are now formulating an amendment which would require that these rights could not be affected or removed without the agreement of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. I hope all parties, including the government, will be able to accept that amendment.
Next I want to deal with the language rights provisions in the Constitution. As an anglophone Quebecer, these are of special concern to me and my constituents. Section 133 of the BNA Act provides only minimal protection for language rights. It provides that Canadians can use English or French in the Parliament or courts of Canada, and in the legislature and courts of Quebec. That is all. Many of us believe that Section 93, which specifically protects minority religious education, implicitly protects minority language rights, but that has not yet been decided by the courts and remains unclear. I might say there is a case now before the courts in Quebec brought by the Quebec home and school association against the provisions of Bill 101 on that very issue, but it is not yet decided.
Consequently, with minimal protection for language rights in our present Constitution there is a strong need for the much broader protection the charter gives us. In addition to retaining Sections 133 and 93 of the BNA Act of 1867 and the provisions of the Manitoba Act of 1870, the charter also
entrenches the main provisions of the federal Official Languages Act and all the provisions of the New Brunswick Official Languages Act.
Some people may say that since we have a federal Official Languages Act and one in New Brunswick, why bother to entrench these rights. Well, Mr. Speaker, I repeat we must entrench them because we do not know what government will come along in four, five or ten years and what the composition of this Parliament might be. We might get a group of people who are hostile to language rights and who could easily amend the Official Languages Act, or New Brunswick could easily amend theirs. However, by entrenching this provision no majority of this House could take away those rights, and that is why it is important.
The charter also provides for minority language education in all provinces, and some of our citizens do not realize that. That provision, section 23, applies to all provinces, including Ontario, and provides that where the number of children is sufficient to warrant such schools, then minority language education shall be given to all citizens whose mother tongue is English or French. Those whose mother tongue is not English or French but were educated in English or French schools can have their children educated in the minority language school in their province. In other words, a person in Quebec whose mother tongue is English can have his children educated in an English school; if his mother tongue is Italian but he went to an English school, he can have his child educated in an English school; if his mother tongue was German and he never had a chance to go to a school in Quebec but he has an older child who went to an English school in Quebec, he can have all his children educated in that English school.
Now, this guarantee in section 23 is a minimum guarantee. It does not prevent the province from giving additional language rights in education to their citizens or landed immigrants. They can if they wish go beyond this minimum guarantee. I also want to point out that while this is a good provision, it does not provide full freedom of choice. For example, it does not guarantee the right of the French-speaking majority in Quebec to attend English schools.
The reason for that, while we are all sympathetic to that proposition, is that we feel that the French-speaking people of Quebec have the majority in the legislature, and if they wish to give themselves the right to attend English schools, they have the political power to do so. This charter guarantees rights to minority groups, not necessarily to majorities.
Some people of my province have asked whether this charter will invalidate parts of Bill 101. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say it will, and a panel of lawyers advising the Quebec government said just last week that this charter will invalidate sections in over 100 Quebec bills. Let us make clear, however, that this charter will also invalidate many discriminatory sections of provincial and federal laws across this country. In addition, its provisions, while they might knock down some sections of Bill 101, will guarantee rights to the French-speaking minority groups in the other provinces.
March 12, 1981

Finally, I would like to deal with the legal and political justification for the process we are undertaking. The official opposition and some provinces say they support patriation, an amending formula and entrenched rights, but are opposed to the resolution because they say we should not approach the British parliament without the necessary support of the provinces. I have not heard any consistency in the speeches given by the opposition as to what that necessary support should be. Do they mean unanimous agreement of all the provinces, do they mean a majority of the provinces, or a consensus among the provinces based on population?
Because we do not have the support of all the provincial governments at present does not mean we do not have legislative support in all provinces. If we look at those who will vote for the resolution in this House, judging from the speeches that have been given there is support for the resolution in all provinces of Canada. Nine members of the NDP from British Columbia support the resolution, three from Saskatchewan and five from Manitoba, along with two Liberals, I understand one Conservative from Alberta, and a wide-ranging number from Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. In addition to the official support of the federal government, there are two provincial governments supporting the resolution, including Ontario, the largest province. I want to make it clear that this is not a unilateral act. With that kind of support you cannot call it unilateralism. It is at least a troika and at best a quartet, perhaps a four-party initiative. You may accuse us of not having a majority of the provinces but it certainly is not a unilateral act.
With respect to the legality of the resolution, I want to repeat what many others have said, that all that is required to amend the Canadian Constitution is a joint resolution of the House of Commons and Senate. It is true that on many occasions the federal government consulted with the provinces and tried to get their agreement, and that sometimes they did not proceed without that agreement; but this was never the law and never became the law through custom or precedent. That has recently been decided by the Manitoba Court of Appeal and it is now before the courts in Quebec and Newfoundland.
Since 1867 there have been approximately 25 amendments to the BNA Act. In four of those amendments provincial consent was neither sought nor given. In three others the majority of provinces agreed but there was some significant provincial opposition. In two others there was a minority of provinces supporting the federal government. As far as I can see, in only three principal amendments were all the provinces behind the federal government, so the record is a very mixed one. It is clear, however, that the only legal requirement is a joint address of the Senate and House of Commons.
Now, the question remains whether a political, not a legal, requirement has developed over the years, or some kind of constitutional convention which demands the agreement of the federal government plus a number of provinces-and I say "plus a number" because it is so vague. If such a political requirement has developed, what is it? Is it that we must have unanimous agreement of all provinces? Must we have a
The Constitution
majority or some kind of consensus? If the political requirement that might have developed is that we need the agreement of all provinces, I say that is unreasonable and wrong and should be discarded. Even if it is that we should have a majority of the provinces, it is wrong, unreasonable and should be discarded, because it would mean that a majority of the provinces from one part of the country could override the interests of another part of the country. For example, all the provinces east of Manitoba could get together and outvote, by their majority, the provinces of the west; or the provinces of the extremities could get together and pass an amendment against the wishes of Quebec. That is wrong.
Consequently, we have adopted an amending formula which appeared to be the best of all those proposed in recent years. One might say that what we are trying to do is revolutionary. It may not be a bloody revolution. It may not be a legal revolution. But, in a sense, it could be a political revolution. 1 say "in a sense" because it might be argued that we are going ahead with this resolution despite the fact that we do not have a consensus or agreement among all the provinces.
If that is the case, it does not bother me, Mr. Speaker. Revolutions, quiet and unquiet ones, have been necessary in the past to advance independence, national unity and the protection of human rights. It was necessary in the United States in the eighteenth century. It was necessary in the United Kingdom in the seventeenth century. It was necessary in France in the eighteenth century. History has judged many of these revolutions to be beneficial and necessary.
I will say, and I am willing to bet, that history will judge that the provisions of this resolution, even if they are deemed to be a revolution contrary to a developed custom, will have been beneficial and necessary for Canada and for the longterm good of the Canadian people. I believe that within a few years there will be unanimous agreement among our people that it was a good thing to do and it was important that it be done.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am proud to join with my colleagues and participate in this historic debate. I am also pleased and proud to support the joint resolution which is before us, although I must admit that I feel somewhat intimidated because of the immensity and complexity of the legal, political and social questions with which we are dealing.
I have never been much of a constitutional buff, Mr. Speaker. Constitutions are such difficult, abstract things that I doubt if debating them will ever become a national pastime. Despite efforts of the official opposition and the provinces to hype this matter up, I get as many letters complaining about poor postal service as I do about the so-called constitutional controversy. That is not to say that constitutional questions are unimportant. They are incredibly important.
My constitutional experiences, first here in this House, later in Room 200 and now back again in this chamber, have taught
8180

March 12, 1981
The Constitution
me a number of valuable lessons, some of which I would like to talk about at this point. First, there exists a vast array of public groups who feel that their fundamental rights and freedoms have not always been protected by our present Constitution and that the Constitution needs to be amended in order to provide us with a charter of rights and freedoms. The groups ranged all the way from natives to Japanese Canadians, to the handicapped, women's groups and civil libertarians, to name only a few. Many of these people, and more, demand an entrenched charter, and they are opposed to waiting for one any longer. The hooker, though, is that a constitutional amendment is required to add such a charter to our Constitution. Unhappily, as everyone knows by now, the provinces will not agree on an amending formula and they have not been able to agree for over 50 years.
So here is our constitutional Catch-22-no provincial agreement, no amending formula; no amending formula, no charter; no charter, no unified protection of rights allowed to Canadians right across our nation.
For those who complain about the proposed amending formula giving regions unwarranted veto powers, what we now have, and have had, is a practice through federal-provincial conferences which permits every province, large or small, to have a veto-and that has been our problem. I believe those in the Conservative Party who counsel us to bring the BNA Act home as is and add a charter later with the help of the provinces are either mischievous, naive or stupid. The most effective way to deny Canadians a charter for another 50 years is to take that advice.
The second point which can perhaps be dealt with in fewer words but which is no less important, is that from some of the items we have read and heard, such as "Canadians should not be asking the British to amend our Constitution" and "Let us build our Constitution here", one would almost conclude that this whole debate is taking place thousands of miles away in far-off and mythical Albion. Before Christmas I asked myself, "Where am I?" I answered, "In Room 200." Then I asked myself, "Where is Room 200?" I answered, "On Parliament Hill." I said, "Well, where is Parliament Hill?" I answered, "In Canada." "What are we doing here?", I asked myself. I answered, "We are building a Constitution." Now again today I pinch myself and ask myself, "Where am I?"


Some hon. Members:: In the House of Commons.


Mark Willson Rose: Where is the House of Commons?


Some hon. Members:: On Parliament Hill.


Mark Willson Rose: Where is Parliament Hill?


Some hon. Members:: In Canada.


Mark Willson Rose: What are we doing here?


Some hon. Members:: We are building a Constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: So we are all engaged here in the very important work of building a Constitution by Canadians in Canada. There is no doubt about that.
Let us hear what former prime minister John G. Diefen-baker had to say with regard to Britain's role in constitutional amendments. I quote from Volume II of his book "One Canada":
There are those who argue that the British North America Act and its amendments are a foreign piece of legislation. Nothing of the kind! All the terms of the BNA Act were determined in Canada by Canadians at one or other of the two conferences held in Charlottetown and Quebec. This was a statute of the British Parliament in 1867 because it involved a union of the British North American colonies. Its subsequent amendments were all made in Canada by Canadians, then perfunctorily passed by the Parliament at Westminster; British statesmen would be pleased if they could rid themselves of this obsolete responsibility.
When we have completed our work here I say: Let us help the British rid themselves of this "obsolete responsibility" by going to Britain one last time. The British government will pass this package and send it home unaltered-and no alliance of fox-hunting Tory peers and their colonial sycophants are going to stop us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: Emerging from both the first point concerning the intransigence of the premiers and the second point about the fact that Canadian MPs have spent months working on our new Constitution is another important point. It is one which concerns the shift away from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the provincial premiers as exclusive players in the constitutional drama to a widened stage including, for the first time since I have been active in politics, MPs and senators as crucial players.
As a member of Parliament I would like to say that I have grown both angry and impatient at watching endless federal-provincial conferences from the sidelines. Premiers have no cause, nor right, to claim that they, simply because they are premiers, represent the views of people or areas in some more superior, genuine or authoritative way than I or my colleagues do in the House of Commons.
I would like to quote the distinguished House leader of the opposition on this very point, as reported in "Parliamentary Government on the Subject of Proportional Representation as it Relates to Parliamentary Reform." The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) had this to say regarding the appropriateness of an MP to speak for the area he represents:
People pushing for proportional representation seem to be saying that an MP in an opposition party is not an appropriate spokesman for his province- whereas of course he is. I feel that we ought to put more emphasis on the abilities of MPs to speak for their areas, whether they sit on the government or the opposition side, and proportional representation simply does not address that problem.
The point here is not to debate the merits or disadvantages of proportional representation, but, more important, to debate the right and duty of an MP to appropriately represent a particular region. Therefore, I am pleased to have the support of the distinguished Conservative House leader when I assert that I, as the member for Mission-Port Moody, have not only
March 12, 1981

the right but the responsibility to work for the acceptance of the constitutional package before us, even though our "14-points-behind" Premier of B.C. opposes the move.
Similarly, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who intends to vote in favour of the joint resolution, speaks as surely for Manitobans as does the erstwhile Premier Lyon who is fighting patriation. Or let us take the case of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, who fights this resolution with every means known to rules experts, despite the fact that his fellow Conservative, Ontario Premier Bill Davis, supports the constitutional package enthusiastically-
Essentially, what I am saying is that as an MP I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to constitution building. For too long I think the House of Commons has been ignored, while year after year the premiers have fiddled and failed. Of course a provincial consensus of a positive kind from a great number of premiers would have been preferable to what has been described as unilateral patriation. Does anyone listening actually believe that an agreement among ten premiers and the Prime Minister is possible on this question or on many others? I do not.
If we want our Constitution brought home, I believe we in the federal Parliament are taking the only course left open under current conditions. Some people disagree and say that what we are doing is not only immoral but illegal. Some provinces will go, and have gone, to court in order to prove it. Before the Quebec Court of Appeal at this very moment is an action to prevent patriation of the Constitution on the ground that the charter of rights "interferes with provincial powers." Naturally I have no idea how the case will turn out, but it seems to me that it is the duty of a federal state to protect the rights of its citizens with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, rights and freedoms which do not vary from province to province but apply equally in all parts of our federation.
1 agree with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) that is both inconceivable and unacceptable for native people, women or the handicapped to enjoy certain rights in one jurisdiction of our federation and be denied them in another. The charter must apply to all provinces and territories; it must protect all citizens in Canada. If the charter of rights is deemed an interference, then I think it is about time we interfered.
If we must wait for the provinces to bring in tough civil rights legislation, we will never get a charter because most provincial governments are so right-wing they spend most of their time talking about individual freedoms and have no time left to consider individual protections and rights. Most provincial rights codes are weak-kneed and toothless.


Mr. Friesen:: Will the hon. member entertain a question? Is the British Columbia civil rights code toothless?


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I will entertain a question at the end of my speech.
The Constitution
I should like to refer again to the belief of the late Mr. John Diefenbaker in a charter of rights. Mr. Diefenbaker said:
A bill of rights for Canada is the only way in which to stop the march on the part of the government toward arbitrary power, and to curb the arrogance of men "clad in a little brief authority"-
He continued:
Some say that it is unnecessary and our unwritten constitutional rights protect us. They have not in the past. They cannot unless you and I have a right to the protection of law in the courts of the land. There are others who claim that the Parliament of Canada cannot pass laws to preserve the constitutional freedom of Canadians. If that be true, then Canadian citizenship is a provincial variable. There will be nine kinds of Canadians in Canada whose freedoms will be based on the home address of each of us. If that contention be true, Canadian unity is a meaningless term.
We Canadians have much to be proud of. We suffer from serious shortcomings when it comes to respecting individual rights, and we have done in the past. Of course we are far superior to the repressive regimes in many parts of the world, including South America, Eastern Europe and the Far East. We must remember that most Canadians applauded the deportation of the Japanese in 1941, even though at that time we were dispersing Canadian-born citizens who were charged with no crime. Most of us stayed silent while Jehovah's Witnesses were being hassled throughout Quebec under the Duplessis regime. As one of the 16 who voted against approval of the government's invocation of the War Measures Act in 1970, I received hundreds of letters following that vote condemning me for opposing a measure which, with the stroke of a pen, removed all civil rights not just of Montrealers but of Canadians right across the country.
Again some argue that when a crisis inflames passions no charter of rights, no matter how perfect, would have protected, for example, the west coast Japanese or prevented invocation of the War Measures Act of 1970. They would say that the panicky state of public opinion at the time would have overriden any written entrenchment of rights and freedoms. Perhaps this was so. However, along with the present entrenched rights comes an avenue of appeal and remedies available to those abused, if only after the fact.
Section 24(1) guarantees against infringement of individual rights and freedoms and offers the protection of the courts if such infringement occurs. This recourse to the courts is new and an important forward step.
Unfortunately, when the Japanese dispersal occurred in World War II, 20,000 of these people were stripped of their land and property. There existed no section 24 which would have guaranteed these Canadians of Japanese ancestry access to the courts to recover their stolen wealth and property. Back then, they had no recourse but to accept the thefts and try to forget them.
Similarly, the 500 or so Quebecers incarcerated in the October, 1970, round-up and who were never charged or convicted had no legal remedy against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. We have it now in this charter.
When a long-time author and vice-president of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, June Callwood, recently was

March 12, 1981
The Constitution
asked in Maclean's "How do you feel our rights have been abused?", she replied:
In its whole history, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has only won one case-and it's being appealed. I maintain that the attitude of our Supreme Court puts us slightly to the right of Vlad the Impaier. Just in the past few years, they've eroded our right to be silent when arrested, upheld a municipality's right to forbid demonstrations that might lead to "tumult" and allowed illegally obtained evidence to be used against people. Their attitude generates a nourishing environment for the intimidation of writers, broadcasters, all kinds of journalism. It's very reactionary and it's nourished by acceptance at the bottom. We always talk about our traditional freedom of speech. But actually, through our history, anybody who demonstrates convictions about freedom of speech that are contrary to the established views is usually put in prison. So our tradition is really repression of speech.
It is clear, then, that many people who are concerned about civil liberties desperately want an entrenched charter of rights and freedoms, as it is equally clear that many of the provinces see such a federal charter as an infringement on provincial powers.
There may be a strong parallel between the drive for greater provincial rights here in Canada and the historical states' rights movement in the United States. United States author and historian Henry Steele Commager had this to say in a recent Los Angeles Times article:
"States' Rights" is both an anachronism and a conceptual illusion. States do not have rights; people have rights. In the United States people have all rights. In the exercise of those rights they have allocated to the national government whatever powers are essential to the conduct of the great affairs of the union, and to the general welfare and happiness of the people-
It was the states that repudiated and nullified the requirements of the 14th and 15th amendments and of many civil rights acts, and the national government that-eventually-enforced those. In the realm of civil liberties, it is the states, not the nation, that have been the most consistent offenders: it is the national government, chiefly through the federal courts, but substantially through a series of civil rights acts, that has expanded them. It would be asking a great deal to ask blacks to accept the argument that the states have been the guardians of their freedom and the national government the enemy.
Henry Commager went on to argue that it was the U.S. national government and not the states that proclaimed and protected women on matters ranging from universal suffrage to equal rights. Incidentally, that amendment, known as the ERA, has not gone through yet because of the opposition of many of the states. Commager went on to say:
So too with labour legislation from the Clayton Anti-trust Act to the Wagner Labour Act. It was the Congress which banned child labour and instituted medicare for the poor. Congress too established conservation and environmental ground rules. Through President Teddy Roosevelt to Franklin Delano it was the federal government which established national parks, limited strip mining and the reckless exploitation of fossil fuels-not the states.
While I know there is not complete congruity between the experiences of Canada and the U.S. in this issue of civil rights and protection of those rights, the parallel is certainly not a weak one. Ask an oriental citizen in Canada or the native peoples if a statement in the BNA Act would have been helpful in their achieving the right to vote much sooner than when it was finally accorded to these minorities as recently as the fifties and sixties. Ask Franco-Manitobans if a statement of linguistic rights would not have made some difference to their culture's survival in the long years between Laurier and
Trudeau. We know the charter is far from perfect, but due to the diligence of committee members on all sides of the House it is a vast improvement from the first time we saw this charter.
Of course, some one of my political persuasion regrets the silence of the charter on certain matters. We would like to have seen statements about economic rights, such as the right to a job, a decent house, health, clean air or a clean environment. These rights are not included.
Having said that, I for one am not prepared to deny native Canadians of aboriginal background their rights as described in this charter, women their equal legal rights or the average citizen protection against arbitrary search and seizure, simply because my own personal pet interest is not part of this charter of rights. Without the inclusion of the charter of rights, it makes little difference to me whether we bring the BNA Act home this year or a hundred years from now. Maybe equalization or some such matter is important, but I think the charter of rights is vital.
I would like to deal with the amending formula for a moment. As we know, within the resolution the principle of unanimity applies for two years, within which time the first ministers will have the opportunity to find another formula. I wish them luck! Failing that, and after the prescribed time, the Victoria amending formula will come into force. In effect, this amending formula would require a resolution of support at the federal level and of the legislature of any province which, at the time of enactment of this formula, has 25 per cent of the nation's population within its borders. Further, the formula requires support for the resolution from two of the four Atlantic provinces and two western provinces whose populations total 50 per cent or more.
I would like this provision changed so that the 50 per cent of the population required by the western provinces is dropped. Does that surprise hon. members? This change would permit any two of the four western provinces to have veto power.
I am aware-and I am sure the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) will be pleased to hear this-that the present formula protects my province of British Columbia. But I think it is blatantly unfair to the three prairie provinces that a two-province, 50 per cent rule should apply in western Canada, while a simpler and easier two-province veto provision applies in Atlantic Canada without reference to population.
The Victoria formula is important because it will give Canada a reasonable amending mechanism and the freedom to abandon the hobbling unanimity rule which has so frustrated Canadians for years and prevented them from having their own Constitution. I believe a formula requiring a simple two-western province veto is fair to all regions of the country, particularly in light of the formula's flexibility, which provides veto power in future to any province which attains 25 per cent of the nation's population.
The so-called Vancouver consensus supported by the official opposition is unacceptable to me because it permits a province to opt out if it does not agree with some constitutional

amendment. Ultimately, we would not have a country at all but a checkerboard of jurisdictions, each with what would amount to its own constitution, which would make a mockery of the mobility rights and other rights which have been guaranteed in this charter. I am sure that if he were alive, the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker would agree with me on this point.


Mr. Keeper:: One Canada, not a two thirds Canada.


Mark Willson Rose: There are some who say, "What is all the rush? Why risk all this conflict and controversy? Why not take a little more time? Let's polish up the package into one more acceptable to more people."
To answer the last statement first, I believe that if we worked ten years more, we would never create a blue print for Canada that was perfect nor one which would avoid all criticism. Our country is too diverse for that to happen.
As a New Democrat I find the perpetuation of the powers of the Senate so intensely unpalatable that for that reason alone I am tempted to vote against the whole bundle. I will leave that to other members of my party because I am quite sure we will not hear much about Senate reform from either the Liberals or the Conservatives. I will leave it to others in my party to rage over the continued power and presence of that unelected Upper House made up largely of retired Liberal and Tory bagmen and political rejects. But I would like the House to know that the continuing presence of an archaic and unchanged Senate resting sheltered and snug in our brand new Constitution is, to me and many other people, both odious and unacceptable.


Mr. Blaikie:: It is an affirmative action program for disabled Liberals.


Mark Willson Rose: In spite of the government cop-out which deleted Clause 44, which would have weakened the powers of the Senate, I feel that the gains obtained by my own leader in granting extended powers to the provinces in resource management and indirect taxation, plus improvements in the charter of rights for women, natives, the handicapped and for mul-ticulturalism, do more than enough to justify my support for the package.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: But what is this rush to patriate, anyway? Following on the heels of the Quebec referendum of May 20 last a follow through was promised on the commitments made by several political leaders and parties. They promised to renew our Constitution as a means of dealing with the particular needs of the province of Quebec. Beyond that, we are all aware of the strong expressions of deeply felt alienation by the people of western Canada toward the federal government, so that there is now at least a willingness, in some cases at least and in some provinces-and involving many people-to discuss our Constitution and to expect that there will be significant movement on this matter of constitutional change.
The Constitution
Should we falter and return to the interminable and boring rounds of federal-provincial conferences, whatever momentum has been built up among the people of Canada could well be lost. So the time is now. I disagree with those who strongly advocate that this is not the time. This is the time to act decisively with respect to the patriation of our Constitution. The mere transfer of a document from one country to another is not sufficient. We must show the people of Canada that we are prepared to change decision-making processes in order to correct these sources of alienation. I insist that nothing can be achieved by further foot-dragging or delay.
I have dealt with the features of the constitutional debate which are important to me. Admittedly, much more could be said, but I have commented on initiatives I support, such as the charter of rights and freedoms, MP participation in constitution building and added provincial resource protection. I admit I have said nothing about equalization or language rights and very little about legal rights. I have been sharply critical of perpetuating the Senate prerogatives, and in addition I have made suggestions about improving the amending formula to make it more fair and just to western provinces.
Symbols are very important to any nation. We have our own flag. We have our own national anthem. Soon, if we are statesmen instead of mere politicians, I think we will be able to boast of our own Constitution. A few members are still sitting among us who furiously and sincerely fought the new flag both inside and outside the House of Commons. Who today, however, would stand up and say we should rip up the Maple Leaf and unfurl the good old Red Ensign? Who are they? They are darned few.
The same is true with respect to the Constitution. Once we get it home and it becomes part of us, which politician will stand up during the next federal election campaign and say, "Vote for me and I will send our Constitution back to England"?
I recognize that there are some who oppose bitterly what we are doing here. That is inevitable. These things are never easy. Still, passions do cool eventually, and although it is trite but true, time is a great healer. Surely the glue holding Canada together is strong enough to resist our disintegration merely because the federal Parliament, in desperation, seized the initiative to bring our Constitution home.
The Tories are fond of repeating ad nauseam a Gallup poll published some weeks ago which reported that 64 per cent of Canadians opposed unilateral patriation. They use this as an argument for rejection of the package. I know that I have quoted the late John Diefenbaker a number of times but he said that polls were "only for dogs."
I think very few people are aware of what the former, fighting United States president, Harry Truman, had to say about using polls as a basis for political decision-making. In 1954 Mr. Truman is reported to have said:
I wonder how far Moses would have gone if he'd taken a poll in Egypt? What would Jesus Christ have preached if he'd taken a poll in Israel? Where would the

March 12, 1981
The Constitution
Reformation have gone if Martin Luther had taken a poll? It isn't polls or public opinion of the moment that counts. It is right and wrong and leadership-men with fortitude, honesty and a belief in the right that makes epochs in the history of the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: I think Mr. Truman was right and I conclude by saying that I believe the Prime Minister and the leader of my party are right about this matter. The constitutional question comes down to leadership. My leader and members of my party on the committee and members of the official opposition worked hard. They did a great job. I feel that I, my colleagues and my party have done a great many things for Canadians in the past. This time we are going to help win a new Constitution for them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) on a point of order.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) was generous enough to allow a minute or two at the end of his speech for a question, I wonder if he would entertain it now?


Mark Willson Rose: Yes.


Benno Friesen: In his speech he said that most provincial governments are so right-wing that they do not have time for bills of rights in their legislatures and that those bills are usually toothless. I wonder if he would give that description to the one in British Columbia.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is precisely what I said. I did not say they did not have bills of rights but I said that some of them are weak-kneed and toothless. I also said that most provincial governments are right-wing. If the codes are not toothless, surely the enforcement is toothless.
While I am on my feet, I wonder if I could ask a question since my time has not run out. It is very important that we finish debate on the amendment before us. There are other amendments to be dealt with dealing with native and civil rights, amending formulas and a number of other things.
I wonder where the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) is? When is he going to come back from his holiday in South Africa, where he is probably studying native rights? He should get back here and let us put an end to this part of the debate.


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take part in this debate because I share the general feeling of the members of this House concerning the undeniable importance this proposed resolution holds for the future of Canada. Mr. Speaker, this constitutionally significant action of patriating our Constitution should not be taken in isolation, but be part of the constitutional reform that a great many Canadians so dearly wish and to which the supporters of a renewed federalism, including the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau), committed themselves in the referendum debate last spring in Quebec.
Having said this I must add, I am extremely disappointed that the constitutional changes which a No at the referendum was supposed to bring about have been reduced to the bare minimum; all we are left with is a resolution proposal which further restricts the legislative powers of the Quebec's National Assembly. I wonder what would have been Quebec's answer last May 20 if it had been known renewed federalism would result in essentially two reforms: First, unilateral patriation, which is unacceptable to a majority of the provinces and to all political parties in Quebec; second, a charter of rights which, in its linguistic provisions, would significantly reduce Quebec jurisdiction over the language of instruction and compel the Quebec government to amend Bill 101, and this in exchange for the right entrenched in the Constitution for francophones outside Quebec to be educated in French within school systems that they will not control, and only where numbers justify it.
We would be justified in believing, Mr. Speaker, that under these conditions, many of us who, on May 20, trusted the federal authorities to renew Canadian federalism would rather have given the Quebec government a mandate to negotiate sovereignty-association, or at least would not have fought so vigorously for the No. If I may, I would like to recall what the chairman of the No committee in the county of Charlevoix, notary Paul-Emile Tremblay, wrote in this regard in the newspaper Le Devoir on March 2, and I quote:
If I had known what was to follow, I would never have accepted the presidency of the "No" committee in Charlevoix.
To this, some will probably reply that once the Constitution has been patriated, constitutional reform can be undertaken immediately and that agreement will be much easier to achieve as neither unanimity nor the agreement of the British parliament will be required to amend our Constitution. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this is an oversimplification because the procedure proposed in the resolution may make a permanent amending formula impossible until 1986. If this resolution is enacted on July 1, 1981, there would first of all be a period of two years during which the rule of unanimity would continue to apply.
On the other hand, if seven provinces representing 80 per cent of the population could agree on an amending formula after these two years, the federal government would have to hold a referendum within the next two years asking the people to choose between the provinces and the federal government's proposals. Finally, under Section 43 of the resolution, six additional months might elapse before the amending formula approved by a majority of voters is put into effect. We would be deluding ourselves, Mr. Speaker, if we expect to be in a position to address the constitutional reform before 1984,

assuming that no referendum is held to choose an amending formula, or before 1986, if such a referendum is held.
Mr. Speaker, if the Victoria formula under Section 45 of the resolution becomes the chosen procedure, it may seem a good idea at first to postpone any true constitutional reform by a few years so that it may be carried out accordingly by a seemingly more flexible approach than the rule of unanimity which has prevailed until now. In other words, is it not true that it would be easier to amend the Constitution with the agreement of only six, seven or eight provinces and the federal government, as advocated under the Victoria formula, instead of having to seek unanimity in keeping with the constitutional practice followed since 1931? It would seem that the need for unanimity is more restricting, but how does that stand up in light of the facts? As things are now the constitutional debate rests basically on a relationship between political forces of which none can invoke the Constitution to stop the constitutional reform process. But if we do entrench an amending formula such as the Victoria formula, then the veto of the four regional blocs-Quebec, Ontario, western Canada and the maritimes-will have been lawfully and formally recognized.
It is therefore not surprising, Mr. Speaker, that those provinces, with Quebec in the lead, which want to negotiate wider legislative powers in the course of the constitutional review are reluctant to accept new rules for the game which would give Ontario, for instance, a province which would find it advantageous to maintain the constitutional status quo, a power of veto with the full force of the law. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to witness the self-confidence shown by some people who proclaim the uncontested and incontestable legality of the action of the central government in this matter. Yet they ought to know that the current constitutional debate raises many questions to which constitutional experts give conflicting answers and that, therefore, nothing can be stated with certainty by anyone whatsoever. Thus it is foolhardy, to say the least, to claim that the rule of unanimity is a red herring and that in the current state of our constitutional law the Canadian Parliament can unilaterally and in any circumstances amend our Constitution on the strength of the fact that in the past the British Parliament has always accepted the requests of the Canadian Parliament when it came to constitutional amendments, without even taking into account the objections raised now and then by the provinces.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the real red herring is rather to make people believe, after it has been asserted that the federal Parliament has the unlimited power to amend alone the constitution, that the provinces will be in a better position after patriation since they will then have the formal right to object to any constitutional change. How can anyone take such an argument seriously, Mr. Speaker, when we know that a veto will be granted to the provinces only after the federal regime has been revamped, and that only in
The Constitution
accordance with the views of the central government? Let us go back to the question of the rule of unanimity. First, one has to know that if the provinces were indeed ignored in many instances, it is because several of those constitutional amendments did not change in any way the basically federative elements of the 1867 Constitution. However, in its opinion of 1980 on the Senate, the Supreme Court of Canada pointed out, and I quote:
The 1940, 1951, 1960 and 1964 amendments concerning unemployment insurance, old age pensions, the mandatory retirement of judges, and the old age supplementary benefits were all made with the unanimous consent of the provinces.
Indeed, in the same opinion the Supreme Court refers to a passage of the white paper on the amendment of the Constitution which the federal government itself made public in 1965. It goes like this, and I quote:
The Canadian Parliament will not request an amendment directly affecting federal-provincial relationships without prior consultation and agreement with the provinces.
Now, then, no one can deny that the proposed resolution before the House substantially changes the rights, powers and privileges of the provinces, in short it changes the essentially federative elements of our Constitution. Indeed, not only does the proposed resolution contain a charter of rights and freedoms which considerably restricts the legislative powers of the provinces, particularly in the field of education with respect to Quebec, but it also includes constitutional amendment formulas which would dictate new rules of the game as regards federal-provincial relations, more particularly because of the fact that, under Section 46, the central government reserves the exclusive right to consult the people of Canada in a referendum should the two levels of government find themselves in a constitutional deadlock. That being said, Mr. Speaker, I for one refuse to go as far as to argue that the rule of unanimity is truly a principle of law to which the Supreme Court will refer when requested to rule on the constitutionality of this proposed resolution. But the spirit which prompted the 1980 advice concerning the Senate allows all kinds of expectations in this regard.
On the other hand, we must keep in mind that Section 91.1 of the B.N.A. Act specifically provides that the Government of Canada cannot unilaterally bring about constitutional amendments affecting provincial rights and powers, their jurisdiction in matters of education, the use of the French and English languages and the duration of the Parliament of Canada. If, under Section 91.1, these matters have been removed from the federal jurisdiction with respect to constitutional amendments, it is precisely because the federal Parliament was not to be allowed to unilaterally ask the British Parliament to amend the provisions of the British North America Act concerning these matters. And yet, this proposal clearly affects the legislative powers of the provinces and especially their jurisdiction in matters relating to the language of education.

March 12, 1981
The Constitution
Mr. Speaker, if only one or two provinces were opposing this proposal, we could at least argue over the legitimacy of the federal government's action. However, it is a fact that eight out of the ten provinces, representing a majority of Canadians, have publicly expressed their opposition to the federal proposal, and six of them are even protesting before the courts the constitutional legality of this resolution. Therefore, it is unfortunate that the government should resort to such an arbitrary process, especially in view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that they cannot plead an election mandate, since the constitutional issue was noticeably overlooked during the last federal campaign, nor the referendum debate in Quebec, during which the issue of a unilateral patriation or the entrenchment of a charter of rights and freedoms was never mentioned, but rather a renewal of federalism designed to bring about a sharing of constitutional powers that would be more beneficial to Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, what should we conclude from all of this if not that this proposed resolution is both politically illegitimate and constitutionally very questionable? It is politically illegitimate because eight out of the ten provinces of Canada are opposed to it and the federal government was never given any specific mandate to that purpose, and constitutionally very questionable from a legal point of view, because it is contrary to the rule of unanimity which could be required to amend the sharing of the legislative powers or any other federating element of the Constitution of 1867, and especially because it goes against Section 91.1 of the British North American Act, which does not permit the federal Parliament, as stated in the opinion which the Supreme Court of Canada gave in 1980 concerning our Senate, and I quote:
-to amend in any way the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 concerning the distribution of legislative powers between the Canadian Parliament and the provincial legislatures.
Mr. Speaker, the proposed resolution being clearly questionable, to say the least, from a legal point of view, and its constitutionality running the very serious risk of being rejected by the Canadian courts, it is easily understood why the government will not only petition the British Parliament to transfer to the Canadian authorities the power to amend the Constitution, but will also insist that this foreign Parliament amend this same Constitution by entrenching into it a charter of rights and freedoms in spite of the opposition of a large majority of provinces. If it is true that it is legally necessary to forward an address to the British Parliament to obtain the patriation of our Constitution, it is not so in the case of the charter of rights and freedoms which does not need to be adopted by the parliament in London and which could simply be enacted as a Canadian statute.
What benefit is there in having the Charter of Rights and Freedoms included in the resolution which we will ask the British Parliament to adopt by way of a bill? What we should know, Mr. Speaker, is that in this way the government is
actually asking the parliament of Westminster to legalize something which could be illegal from the start and which could have been declared unconstitutional by our Canadian courts had the government not resorted to such an exceptional measure as having a bill passed by the British parliament.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, in acting as it does, the federal government is placing itself beyond the reach of Canadian court intervention and can, strictly speaking, plead unquestionable legality, since an act of the parliament in London, passed pursuant to the Statute of Westminster, could hardly be challenged in our courts. Appearing on January 8 last before the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada, the distinguished constitutional expert from Laval University, Mr. Gil Remillard, whose opinion has indeed been used by some in support of the federal government view, summing up the matter of the legality of the proposed resolution, stated, and I quote:
In conclusion, it therefore seems to us that the Trudeau resolution could be declared illegal by our courts. That illegality could, however, become legal through the legislative intervention of the British parliament.
And he added this, which is of great interest, and I quote him once more:
However, the federative elements of that British act could be denied application to the provinces if the latter were to reject them.
Mr. Speaker, what is one to conclude from all that, if not that our political leaders, in their search for solutions to the problems of our society, tend to favour unduly and almost exclusively the legal aspect of things, with the ensuing danger of misleading us and locking us up in a perpetual deadlock? For in all probability, if the federal government persists in proceeding as it has until now by invoking, and rightly so, Mr. Speaker, the strict legality of the process, we will see for many years to come a federal-provincial legal guerrilla to which the governments will have to devote the better part of their energy at the expense of the solution of the social and economic problems of the Canadian people.
It is inevitable, of course, that the provinces should in turn also resort to legalism to oppose the application of that British act in its federative elements, and that they should also be, legally speaking, on firm ground, according to Professor Remillard. Our political leaders would do well to ponder over this thought of the Soviet dissident Solzhenitsyn who in 1978 wrote in his book "The Decline of Courage," and I quote:
A society that is set on the rule of law without aiming at something higher makes little use of the highest faculties of man. The rule of law in itself is too cold and too formal an instrument to exercise a beneficial influence on society. When life is wholly permeated with legal decision, an atmosphere of moral mediocrity is then created which stifles the best inspirations of man. And in the face of the trying times ahead of us legal crutches will be of no avail to make people stand upright.
Mr. Speaker, it is a rather subtle move on the part of the present government to change the nature of our federal system
March 12, 1981

through enshrining a charter of rights and freedoms. It then becomes possible to cast aspersion on avowed opponents of the proposed resolution by inferring they are opposed to giving a better protection to human rights and freedoms. We feel it is highly desirable that the basic freedoms listed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights be constitutionally guaranteed all over the world. Yet let us not overrate the importance of the passing by the Canadian Parliament of a charter of rights and freedoms and make it at any cost an absolute prerequisite for the future happiness of our people, even if it means tampering with the basic principles of Canadian federation. The fact remains that in a federative system one level of government cannot compel the other to surrender part of its sovereignty even if it is to hand it over to the judiciary. Yet in many respects it is precisely what is being achieved by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms included in this proposed resolution. If the federal Parliament wants to hand over part of its own legislative powers to the courts, it certainly is its privilege but it is intolerable that it should try to force the provinces to cede part of their constitutional jurisdiction to the courts and more particularly to the Supreme Court of Canada whose judges are appointed exclusively by the federal government.
Does it mean, Mr. Speaker, that our country is condemned, because of its federal system, to never be able to entrench in its Constitution certain basic rights and freedoms which are in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? I do not believe so, Mr. Speaker. And I should like to submit to the House some ideas how to go about patriating the Constitution, giving ourselves an amending formula and also a charter of rights and freedoms, while alleviating considerably the seriousness and the extent of the confrontations now taking place across Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the debate which has been raging since the introduction of this draft resolution in Parliament has seriously endangered Canadian unity, but it has also given rise to a show of solidarity among the provinces which was unheard of up to now in the history of federal-provincial relations. The solidarity of this interprovincial united front is particularly comforting for Quebec which, after being for so long the sole province to claim its rights from the federal government, may now view the future of the constitutional reform with optimism, a reform which is now in the nature of things and which will have to be started seriously under the pressure of the provinces. Therefore, I think that because of the new power struggle in federal-provincial relations, Quebec and its allies in other provinces can now consent to the patriation of the Constitution without jeopardizing the pursuit of the constitutional reform.
If is possible that for purely partisan reasons, the Parti Quebecois government will maintain its traditional position on this matter, but there is good reason for supposing that the new Liberal government that Quebecers will give themselves in a few weeks might consent to such a patriation. In the
The Constitution
circumstances, Mr. Speaker, the constitutional crisis we are going through could be resolved if the proposed resolution contained only the following items:
1.	The immediate patriation of the Constitution.
2.	The maintenance of the unanimity rule for the amending formula for 12 months following patriation.
3.	A national referendum to be held subsequently in order to allow Canadians to choose between the so-called Victoria formula and an eventual formula agreed to by seven provinces comprising at least 80 per cent of the total population of Canada. Failing an agreement on this matter among the provinces within 12 months following patriation, the Victoria formula would automatically become the amending formula.
4.	In case of a constitutional deadlock, a national referendum to be called either by the federal government or by seven provinces comprising more than 50 per cent of the total population of Canada, regional vetos being granted in such a referendum, as specified in Clause 46 of the present proposed resolution.
And what about the charter of rights and freedoms? It would simply be the subject of a federal-provincial conference which would deal exclusively with this matter and would be called after the stumbling block of patriation of the Constitution had been removed and the sovereign people had chosen, if need be, an amending formula in a national referendum. And should this conference still fail to produce an agreement, then the federal government would be justified in calling on the Canadian people in a national referendum to be held under the rules specified in clause 46 of the proposed resolution, which grants regional vetos to the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario and the western provinces.
So here are, Mr. Speaker, the different stages of my proposal:
1.	A federal-provincial conference in June, 1981, to deal only with the patriation of the Constitution.
2.	The patriation of the Constitution in the fall of 1981, with the maintenance of the unanimity rule for the following 12 months.
3.	A national referendum to choose an amending formula to be held in the fall of 1982.
4.	A federal-provincial conference on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to be held early in 1983.
5.	A national referendum, if need be, failing an agreement at federal-provincial conferences, to be held on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the fall of 1983.
Some will certainly say, Mr. Speaker, that since the past foreshadows the future, no agreement with the provinces will emerge from yet another federal-provincial conference on patriation of the Constitution. Yet, Mr. Speaker, one should

March 12, 1981
The Constitution
not minimize the positive psychological effect the victory of Mr. Claude Ryan's party in the next provincial election to be held very soon in Quebec will have on federal-provincial relations. As I said earlier, a Liberal government in Quebec might well agree to a simple patriation with the unanimity rule as a provisional amending formula and I think that a very small minority of provinces would object to patriation achieved under such conditions. With such a support from most provinces, if not from all of them, the federal government could then legitimately proceed with a simple patriation of the Constitution, and the British parliament would be only too happy to grant this request.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out to the House the interesting suggestion put forward by a man who cannot be suspected of any hostility towards the federal government since he is the former clerk of the Privy Council and secretary of the cabinet, Mr. Gordon Robertson, who also has been a close adviser to the Prime Minister in constitutional matters. In a paper delivered before the Forum on Management of the Government Process, on February 10 last, Mr. Robertson, who admitted that he was drawing his inspiration from a former minister of transport, Mr. Jack Pickersgill, suggested that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should only be binding on the provinces which would have specifically endorsed it by an act of their respective legislatures before the end of the four-year period following the passage of the resolution by the British Parliament or which would have implicitly accepted it by failing to denounce it by way of a resolution passed during the third or fourth year of that four-year period. If really, as it was stated by the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien), on January last, before the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution, 90 per cent of all Canadians are favourable to the entrenching of a charter of rights and freedoms in our Constitution, it should be expected that given nearly unanimous public opinion, no provincial legislature would dare denounce the charter. In addition, as stated by Mr. Robertson, and I quote:
Such a provision in the proposed amendment would remove the objection that the Parliament of Canada is seeking indirectly to impose its will on the legislatures of the provinces through the British Parliament because our Parliament could not do it directly in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, if either of the alternatives I have just described were followed to entrench a charter of rights and freedoms, and if the federal government agreed to share with the provinces the right to initiate a national referendum, the present constitutional upheaval would come to an end and the stated objectives could be achieved within a reasonable period of time.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to address the House as a Quebecer and tell the government that in my view these
compromises would only be acceptable to the majority of Quebecers if the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which would be submitted for their approval through a national referendum and which, if the Robertson solution were followed, would automatically be submitted for the approval of their National Assembly, were of much more limited scope and did not challenge the language policy which Quebec adopted in 1974. That clearly means that language of instruction must remain under provincial authority and that therefore Section 23 of the proposed resolution must be repealed. Since it is mainly because of Section 23, that I object to the proposed resolution I would like to make it clear why, in my view, it would be against the interests of Quebec to entrench minority language educational rights in the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, just as I would like to see some amendments made by the National Assembly to Bill 101 in order, for example, to allow children of Canadian citizens from other provinces to attend English schools in Quebec, I think it is essential for the National Assembly to maintain the authority it was granted in 1867 to legislate freely in the field of language of instruction. In other words, even though I would like Quebec to be generous toward its English-speaking minority, I still think it is essential for the National Assembly to be able to legislate at any time in order to maintain a balance between its two language groups. In short, Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of language of instruction, which is so closely tied to the very existence and well-being of the French culture in Quebec, must continue to come under the exclusive authority of the only legislative body with a French-speaking majority in Canada, that is to say the Quebec National Assembly.
By entrenching in the Constitution minority language educational rights, as in Section 23, the government is restricting considerably the freedom of action of Quebec with respect to language of instruction. It amounts in fact to hamstringing it if the present economic conditions in Quebec were to change due to unexpected developments and if Quebec became, in ten or 20 years, an important centre of attraction for North-American workers or people from other Commonwealth countries who, of course, would be English speaking, much the same as has happened in Alberta in recent years. Indeed, nobody can foresee what the future has in store for Quebec economically speaking, as nobody had foreseen the energy crisis and the ensuing dramatic economic boom in Alberta. With its ground full of natural resources, it is not excluded that Quebec could somewhat become the Alberta of the year 2000.
Mr. Speaker, it would be unwise, to say the least, to entrench in our Constitution the minority language educational rights to which those new anglophone Quebecers could legally lay claim once they become Canadian citizens in order to compel the Quebec government to allow their children in English schools. That is not to say, Mr. Speaker, that such a

situation is bound to occur, but there is the risk of the balance between francophones and anglophones being changed to the detriment of the francophone majority, a risk I refuse to take and which is all the more serious that no increase in the natural population growth in Quebec is expected in the coming years.
Mr. Speaker, after considering carefully all the migratory movements to Quebec between 1969 and 1978, it is fair to say that the entrenchment in the Constitution of the minority language educational rights will open the doors of English schools to 75 per cent of the new Quebecers in the next few years. It is important to emphasize also that Section 23 would even be at variance with the language policy of the Quebec Liberal party which, according to the latest news, is about to advocate access to English schools only to children of parents who attended English primary schools anywhere in Canada, which would exclude children of all the future anglophone immigrants.
If only, Mr. Speaker, this threat to the future of Frenchspeaking Quebec would improve considerably the lot of the francophone minorities in other provinces, the pill would be easier to swallow. Unfortunately, on the one hand, the government goes out of its way to give constitutional guarantees to Quebec anglophones who already have three universities, six CEGEPs, 410 primary and secondary schools financed by Quebec taxpayers and managed by 31 school boards under full control of the English minority, and on the other hand, it is very different when it comes to francophone minorities outside of Quebec who will not be able, under these constitutional proposals, to set up their own school boards and will most probably have to accept French classes in English schools, and only where numbers warrant it. Incidentally, this restriction will have little effect on Quebec anglophones since they are heavily concentrated in the Montreal area. It is a restriction which will have little effect on the English-speaking people in Quebec because of their large number in the Montreal area. But it will be a different thing for the French-speaking minorities in English Canada where in six provinces more than 45 per cent of people of French origin now declare English as their mother tongue and where francophones are very often scattered throughout the territory. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, this is asking Quebec to pay too high a price for their French-speaking brothers in other provinces to enjoy such limited rights.
Besides, I understand why the government is reluctant, even though it wishes strongly to do so, to subject Ontario to the provisions of Section 133 of the Constitution; what 1 cannot readily understand, however, is the fact that it does not show as much restraint toward Quebec which is as dead against Section 23 of the proposed resolution as Ontario is against being subject to Section 133 of the Constitution. Yet, that would only be fair and logical considering that in Quebec the judiciary and parliamentary institutions have been subject to
Business of the House
bilingualism as provided for in Section 133, since 1867. Mr. Speaker, I am as happy to praise the openmindedness and generosity of Premier Hatfield of New Brunswick over institutional bilingualism, as I am sad when I see that Premier Davis of Ontario who after having courted Quebecers during the referendum campaign, has chosen to be narrow-minded which is no credit to his fellow citizens, a majority of whom, according to the latest polls, would favour enforcement of Section 133 in their province. We can only hope that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) will try to convince his big brother in Ontario to take a more favourable stance concerning the rights of Franco-Ontarians. 1 even challenge the Leader of the Official Opposition to show by some concrete action that equality before the law of francophones and anglophones is dear to his heart, as he has so often stated, and to bring forward an amendment binding Ontario to Section 133. I am convinced that he would gain stature in the eyes of Quebecers, and that the party to which I belong would be pleased to support such an amendment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski)-Transport

Freight assistance program for rapeseed products; the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble)-Trade-Importation of Japanese automobiles-Inquiry respecting quotas; the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell)-Housing- Introduction of shelter allowance program.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with my colleagues opposite and we have come to an agreement concerning the dates of the last two allotted days for the present supply period. You will recall that, earlier today, I designated Wednesday of next week as an opposition day. However, since then we have had consultations and the following change should now be noted: the sixth allotted day of this supply period will be next Tuesday, March 17, and the seventh and last allotted day of the supply period will be Wednesday, March 25, 1981. As my colleagues are now present, I therefore state that this matter has been the subject of an agreement,

March 12, 1981
Sector Bargaining
and I am today officially designating these two days as the last two opposition days for the present supply period.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the three House leaders. That is agreeable and I thank the hon. gentleman and my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there seems to have been a bit of a misunderstanding, but we have straightened it out and what has now been proposed is agreeable to the three of us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely private bills, notices of motions (papers) and public bills. As there are no private bills under this heading in the Order Paper, the House will proceed to the consideration of notices of motions (papers).

Does the House agree to stand all items under the heading notices of motions (papers)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all orders preceding No. 39 stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


SECTOR BARGAINING ACT
Otto John Jelinek: that Bill C-239, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code to provide for the establishment of sector bargaining, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will explain the purposes of the bill by quoting directly from its explanatory note:
The purpose of this bill is to require union groups in a single public service sector to bargain with the Treasury Board simultaneously, and to negotiate contracts which would run for three years and expire at the same time. This would assure the taxpaying public that each essential public service sector would be strike free, except for the possibility of a walkout every three years.
The reason for the bill and its passage is very simple. It is the growing number of strikes to which Canada and Canadians have been subjected, particularly over the last five to six years. According to the International Labour Organization in
Geneva, the countries with the highest number of man-hours lost in a five-year average are as follows. The country with the largest number of man-days lost as a result of strikes and walkouts is Canada, followed very closely, of course, by Italy. I will not dwell on them but the other statistics show that the number of public sector strikes in Canada in the last five years was 1,213, 229 in 1980 alone, affecting 717,853 employees. The number of person-days lost as a result of strikes in the last five years was 10,060,030. And we wonder why our productivity goes down year after year, affecting the economy and all operations, from the small businessman to our over-all economy!
Before hon. members opposite prepare themselves to talk this motion out, to speak against it, I would like to bring to their attention, in as non-partisan a way as I possibly can, in a sort of chronological order, the tremendous amount of support from all walks of life, all factions, including labour, management and government, in support of sector bargaining.
I go back to 1973 when the Liberal government commissioned the Finkelman report to look into labour relations. The report, released in 1974, strongly recommended sector bargaining. The then minister of labour, now Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), presented a memorandum to cabinet on the subject of labour relations in Canada which I have here. It is marked "Confidential", but I will quote it because it is very pertinent to the bill before us. It reads in part:
Some of the problems are of a structural nature in that there are too many bargaining points, too many bargaining agents and unions. The result, as any holiday traveller in Canada knows, is something as exciting as the Olympic lottery. As he embarks on his holiday, confident that the airline pilots are working and that the machinists are also on the job, there just may happen to be a walkout of ticket clerks and other personnel. And even if all of these private sector employees are on the job, the trip could still be placed in jeopardy by collective action taken by air traffic controllers, technicians, airport electricians or firefighters. There are similar difficulties in the movement of grain, with risk of its steady flow being halted, if in the long stream handling the commodity, there is labour peace on the dockside but not on the ships or the waterways.
It is clear that the system today lacks coherence and has a great potential for conflict.
The same can be said for the Post Office which has no less than four unions. One day the sorting clerks can go on strike and shut down postal delivery, and when that dispute is solved, the next day a second union could go on strike, as it has in the past, and shut down the postal service. So all of these essential public service sectors with more than one union are clearly affected by this measure. For example, last year alone eight firemen closed down Toronto International Airport. I think the time has come for Parliament to make the necessary changes to make it impossible for eight firemen to close down Toronto International Airport.
In any event, the cabinet memorandum goes on to say:
I am proposing, therefore, the establishment of the Canada Labour Relations Council as a mechanism that will go beyond one shot, crisis or ritual consultation.
Our own objectives for the council would be:
an alteration of bargaining structures so as to reduce the number of bargaining points,
March 12, 1981

That is the Liberals' own recommendation to cabinet after receiving that recommendation in the Finkelman report. The Canada Labour Relations Council was formed as a result of that recommendation. It was a tripartite committee composed of labour, government and industry. It began work in July, 1975 and unfortunately ended in March, 1976. I say "unfortunately" because labour decided to quit the council as a result of that same government's position on wage and price controls. No public reports ever issued from this council, but there were several confidential reports to the then minister of labour. I will get back to that in a while. These confidential reports again recommended very strongly the sector bargaining position.
I personally have had an interest in this subject since February 13, 1975, when I asked the then government to introduce legislation dealing with sector bargaining. I have a whole report in front of me with respect to every time I wrote on the subject, but I will not read it into the record since I do not have the time.
The first positive response from a Liberal cabinet minister to this recommendation was on April 16, 1975, when the then minister of labour, the hon. member for Hamilton East, said in response to my question on sector bargaining:
Certainly on the labour side I have been receiving considerable encouragement toward this end.
Then on July 17, 1975, I asked the minister whether he could advise the House if the government intended to look at the possibility of having union groups in a single public service sector bargaining with the government simultaneously in order to avoid the fragmentation of union power and, if so, when this House could expect an announcement. The then minister of labour replied:
There is a good deal of sympathy for this type of approach. There have been discussions toward this end with the chairman of the Canada Labour Relations Board and with the business community and with the labour movement itself. There is a general disposition to achieve this type of objective. I might say that we have achieved something along these lines already.
In response to another question from me the then minister of labour said:
I welcome the hon. member's enthusiasm for this approach.
Then on July 28, 1975, I asked the minister:
The first meetings of the Canada Relations Council are now over... Can the minister indicate whether the concept of single sector bargaining was discussed at these meetings? What was the result?
The minister's reply was this:
Yes, this issue was discussed. The council decided that both were desirable objectives. They agreed to form panels of management-labour-and government. They will meet several times again and hopefully will come up with some definite recommendations along these lines.
As I said earlier, because of the wage and price controls introduced by the Liberals, labour decided to quit that council, unfortunately, and therefore it was disbanded.
As if there were not enough studies already, the government then commissioned the Bairstow report in March of 1978. It is
Sector Bargaining
a very excellent report which took a short time to publish, and it was released in December of that same year. It supported this position. I would like to quote briefly from the Bairstow report:
Above all, it is our strong opinion that a wider-based bargaining structure in those industries within our terms of reference would be in the best socioeconomic interests of the Canadian public.
The key words there are "wider-based bargaining."
As a result of this, I asked the then minister of labour, Martin O'Connell, why he had not acted on the many recommendations dealing with sector bargaining, the most recent of which was the Bairstow report. Mr. O'Connell answered in the House on February 14, 1979:
I am waiting to discuss the recommendations of that committee with its members-I am waiting for a response to my invitation.
I have brought to the attention of hon. members what I think have been four or five years of positive comments from ministers, and reports and studies which made the suggestion of bringing in sector bargaining. As I said earlier, during those five years the number of strikes increased year after year. In 1977 there were 176 strikes affecting 54,000 employees. In 1980 there were 229 strikes affecting 230,000 employees. This took place during the years when this government and many reports were recommending sector bargaining. We have finally reached the number one position among countries having the most number of man-days lost as a result of strikes. That is a shame. This government has not been able to reach a decision on this most vital of issues.
As recently as November 12, 1980, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) spoke to the London Chamber of Commerce and said:
There is as I indicated growing concern or a shock, I think, at the capacity of even tiny groups of public servants to cause massive disruptions in our lives. And moreover there is a dismay at what appears to be growing disregard of the law governing the collective bargaining process in the federal public service. These are concerns which have been expressed to me and I must say to you that I share the concerns.
I agree with the President of the Treasury Board. Further on in his speech he gave specific support to sector bargaining. In fact, he went on to say:
The right to strike is not an inalienable right. Surely in the case of essential services, there is a greater public good to be served and the right to strike surely must be reviewed in that context.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest to hon. members that Canada's economy has been hurt and damaged so much by strikes and walkouts, particularly within the public service sector, that the time has come to take one of two positions. That is to say, first, we could take away the right to strike within the public service sectors of our economy. I strongly recommend this, following on the words of the President of the Treasury Board in the speech he made to the London Chamber of Commerce. We no longer have a 14-hour working day, child labour or many of the other factors which gave rise to granting the right to strike. I believe some unions are now taking advantage of their powers.
Second, if the government is unwilling to take away the right to strike, which is particularly supported by the majority

March 12, 1981
Sector Bargaining
of businessmen and Canadians in this country, as recent polls have indicated, then hon. members at least should very seriously consider introducing legislation such as the bill which is before us now. I do not care if it is my own personal bill, as long as something along those lines is introduced. I would like to see this bill go to committee. I hope that members opposite who have heard me explain to them the support of their ministers and the reports which have been made by their government supporting sector bargaining will not talk this bill out today. I hope it will at least be allowed to go to the committee stage where these reports can be dealt with in detail and looked at in a more serious and fundamental way.
In closing, I hope hon. members will see fit to support the bill before us. I again repeat very strongly that unless and until a similar piece of legislation is introduced, along with a provision for secret ballot votes on strikes based on the Taft-Hartley Act concept of the United States, which I happen to have on the Order Paper of May 2, 1980, in Bill C-472, then we should very seriously consider taking the right to strike away from essential services in the public sector. Positive steps must be taken now to assist industry and the small businessman, who is having enough troubles as it is with high interest rates and the like. I appeal to hon. members to let this bill at least pass on to committee stage.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like briefly to respond to the motion which is now before the House, namely, Bill C-239, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code to provide for the establishment of private sector bargaining.
The hon. member opposite mentioned some studies which have taken place. As members of the House will recall, on March 9, 1978 the then minister of labour, the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro), appointed an industrial inquiry commission pursuant to Section 198 of the Canada Labour Code. This commission, chaired by Frances Bairstow, was charged with the responsibility of ascertaining the advantages and disadvantages of wider-based bargaining in federal industries, with particular emphasis on the transportation, grain handling and communication industries; any impediments, legislative or otherwise, to wider-based bargaining or the rationalization of bargaining units; any matters incidental or relating to any of the foregoing matters.
The commission began a comprehensive review of bargaining in the specified industries with 19 days of hearings in five cities throughout Canada. Many of the hearings were held in camera at the request of the parties appearing. Several of the groups which appeared before the commission returned for further appearances in exploration of some of the issues raised in earlier meetings. The commission also held frequent executive sessions and individual commission members interviewed representatives of interested organizations.
In addition to personal testimony, various briefs and correspondence were filed with the commission, both from groups
and organizations which appeared and from some individuals and organizations who were unable to present their views personally.
Between hearings and executive sessions, the commission received correspondence from the public, press accounts, innumerable telephone requests for information and responses to newspaper advertisements announcing appearances in particular cities. Background materials and research analyses were scrutinized and considered. All major allegations made in hearings and in personal interviews were checked and investigated.
Bearing in mind the limited time frame for the submission of its report, the commission concluded that priority had to be given to those sectors containing the greatest potential for disruption of services. Thus, the commission decided it should restrict its inquiry to aviation, airport services and grain handling.
The railway industry is already deeply involved in its own form of wider-based bargaining. Indeed, the experience of the management and labour groups in the railways provided many witnesses with important background information for the commission.
In the shipping industry there also exist many coalitions of bargaining groups. The commission decided that to disturb these relationships until the parties have had a further opportunity to assess their experience would be injudicious, particularly since the record of work stoppages both in seafaring and in port facilities gives some basis for optimism for the future. This has not always been the case, but it seems to have been so in recent times.
In studying the record of work stoppages and other disruptions as well as the potential for damage to the public, the commission concluded that its limited time and resources would best be deployed in a search for improvements to the bargaining process in the high priority areas of air transportation, airport services and grainhandling. Their importance to the nation's economy and relationships to other industrial sectors is a barometer by which the Canadian economy is judged by other countries. In summary, the selection of problems for study was determined on a basis of priorities.
Early in the commission's deliberations the interrelationship with the public service became apparent. Key to the grain handling operations were those who are a vital part of that industry, but whose employer is the Government of Canada. In airport services virtually all job functions are performed by public sector employees, but their impact on the highly integrated field of commercial aviation is immense. This can be demonstrated by considering that no airline pilot, flight attendant, mechanic or ticket agent can continue working in the face of a work stoppage resulting from a dispute between airport firefighters and the Government of Canada. The reverse might not necessarily be true.
A similar dichotomy between the public and private sector exists in the grain-handling industry where integration of job functions is essential to productivity. While the commission's
March 12, 1981

treatment of the public service aspect of grain handling was national in scope due to the certification structures dictated by the Public Service Staff Relations Act, its approach to rationalization of bargaining points on an integrated industry basis was limited to the port of Vancouver for a variety of economic, market, industrial relations and collective bargaining reasons.
For the purposes of its investigations, the commission proceeded on the basis that "wider-based collective bargaining" is any restructuring or coalition of the present system of bargaining which assists in reducing the high degree of fragmentation of unions and/or management units, hence, the current proclivity for sequential work disturbances and shutdowns which exist within certain industries.
The motivation for this commission's inquiry was a consideration of the socioeconomic interest of the public as well as of the interests of employers and employees within the collective bargaining process. The commission endeavoured to identify those structural disabilities which may unnecessarily impede productive bargaining between the principal parties to the process. Its fundamental thrust was to obviate the damage which such inherent defects in the bargaining structure may inflict on members of the general public who are not otherwise involved in or parties to the process. I thank my hon. colleague for sending me a note so that I could outline that.
The paramountcy of the public interest and the legislatively enshrined commitment to the process of free collective bargaining do not exist in isolation. Recent and continued conflict between these principles can no longer be ignored or denigrated by the parties. There is no question that unresolved bargaining disputes in the key industries reviewed by the commission are injurious to the public and the economy. That is not the question here.
So too are the uncertainties of operating productively a public or private enterprise while the potential for perpetual bargaining disputes clouds rational planning. Canadian citizens have the inviolable right to be protected, not only in respect of their health, safety and general welfare, but as well against inconvenience and disadvantages of an economic and social nature.
It has become increasingly clear that the public interest depends greatly on the development of orderly and constructive relationships between employers and their employees. To the extent that existing bargaining structures require adjustment in order to facilitate such development, it is in the interest of all parties, including the public, that such changes be effected. It was to that end that the commission dedicated its energies.
It is the structure within which parties bargain collectively, and not the bargaining process itself, which is the key to the issue here. A major aspect of this structural component is the occupational interrelationship and the legislative duality that arises from the application of two federal labour jurisdictions, that is, the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act. To assist employer and employee groups in the voluntary resolution and adjustment of many of the dysfunctional elements of their relationship, the commission recom-
Sector Bargaining
mended the establishment of an independent mediation and conciliation agency that would be tailored to function in the entire federal sector. The commission subscribed unequivocally to the principle of free collective bargaining as the preferable method of resolving labour-management relations issues, as opposed to artificial solutions imposed by others.
Finally, the commission dismissed as impractical the belief, widely held in some quarters of Canadian society, that the right to strike or lockout, whether in public or private sectors, should be banned.
A little earlier the hon. member said the unions are starting to use their power-I believe his term was "out of proportion to what it should be".


Otto John Jelinek: Abuse.


Gilbert Parent: The hon. member is correcting that now.
The unions have bargained for and gained the power they have, and in most cases their power is used judiciously. I would no more want to legislate unions and strikes out of existence per se than I would want to say private industry should not be making profits in excess of "X" amounts. I do not think it is the business of this legislative body to do that.
The commission also held such belief to be unworkable since evidence indicates that restrictive legislation does not in itself prevent strikes. Further, I feel it necessary to add that such proposals as Bill C-239 are simplistic because they make no attempt to address the fundamental realities of the bargaining process. I strongly and respectfully suggest that there is no point whatsoever in pursuing Bill-239 as it will not improve the climate of industrial relations in Canada.
I would like to make one more point before giving the floor to my colleagues. The hon. member stated that Canada led the world in the number of strike days lost. I suggest that if the figures were taken from the International Labour Organization, that organization does do not always use the same basis for counting the number of days lost. It is for that reason that Canada may indeed be faring much better than indicated a little while ago.
I hope all hon. members will consider my suggestions in their deliberations.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to speak on this bill which, on its surface, appears to be good. It appears to be popular. Anyone involved in the grain trade, whether he be a farmer, someone working in a port facility or someone who derives his income from farms or port facilities, would like it because it seems to indicate there would be fewer strikes and less cost to the people involved in those sectors.
It is popular to refer to problems in the air travel industry and to suggest there should be fewer strikes and interruptions faced by consumers of air services. This bill is based on what I consider to be a false assumption that the unions of this

March 12, 1981
Sector Bargaining
country are creating all the problems, or a substantial number of them. There is the suggestion that if we could get all the unions in a particular sector in line, that would somehow solve the problems.


Otto John Jelinek: The unions support this.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I represent the constituency of Churchill, and I know that it is not just the unions which are not in line. When we talk about grain transportation, we are talking about a number of different government and non-government agencies which are involved, and this complicates the movement of grain in this country. The CNR makes certain decisions, the CPR makes certain decisions, and the Canadian Wheat Board also makes certain decisions. Anyone involved in the grain trade recognizes there is not always agreement as to what should or could be done. Port authorities and the government are involved in the movement, sale and transportation of grain in Canada. People who focus on only one item, quite often fail to recognize that this is not strictly a union problem; it is a problem relating to the whole structure of Canadian industries.
It is not easy to identify which unions belong in a particular sector. Some will say that the railway lines obviously belong in the grain transportation sector. Others will say railway unions have something to do with CN Express. Others might say that they belong in the sector occupied by VIA Rail because VIA Rail moves people from area to area. Others might say they belong in the sector transporting dairy products because that sector also uses rail lines. Those unions also belong in the sector transporting live or packaged beef to various parts of the country.
In what sector do railway unions belong? Human beings as well as goods are serviced by rail lines. It may be fine to say that they are all part of the grain-handling system and therefore belong in that particular sector, but that is very simplistic. I do not think this matter can be easily resolved.
Another problem may be the attitude of government. This bill suggests that the Public Service Staff Relations Act as well as the Canada Labour Code are involved, and this is correct. However, I cannot imagine this government, or any preceding government, giving the same rights to workers under the public service regime as those given to people under the Canada Labour Code because for a number of years unions whose workers came under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, have asked governments for the rights enjoyed by people working under the Canada Labour Code, and the government has always turned them down.
When this type of legislation is proposed, under what umbrella do people come? Do they come under the umbrella of the Canada Labour Code or the umbrella of the PSSRA? That has not been answered here.
Let us look at the situation on Parliament Hill. This government and previous governments have not given bargaining rights to people who work on Parliament Hill. How can we say all these different sectors should be under one umbrella when we cannot even determine the bargaining rights of people on this Hill? Certain events in the past few months would indicate
that that is a necessary step for the government to take. A number of people, including members of this House, feel that unions are too powerful, yet this proposed legislation would put a number of weak unions into a combined bargaining unit which would probably be greater that the sum of its parts.
If there is one negotiating force with respect to grain handling, can hon. members imagine what strength that force would have in negotiations? Can hon. members imagine what strength they would have to hamper the movement of grain and other products across the country?
This bill will not resolve the problem which exists. This is not just a matter of regressive legislation which would solve the problems we face; it is a matter of an attitude on the part of the private sector and government in relation to how things should be operating.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) went to London, as a previous speaker mentioned, to speak to a Chamber of Commerce, to denounce workers in the public sector and to say that they have too much strength, which must be taken away. It disturbs me that he should go to a conference and make that type of allegation. When I asked him in committee today if he was willing to bring legislation before the House, he said he was not; but he is ready to go out and attack the workers and their bargaining rights at meetings of chambers of commerce and conference board meetings. Yet he is not ready to make a statement in this House or to bring in legislation. I think that demonstrates a poor attitude.
In committee today, the minister also said that the government is not willing to put government workers under the protection of Part IV of the Canada Labour Code which would bring them under the section that deals with occupational health and safety. The bill not only proposes to put the private sector and unions together but it seems to expect them to negotiate almost at the same time and almost on the same front.


Otto John Jelinek: Read the bill. It says "public sector."


Rodney Edward Murphy: The government does not give even partial protection to workers who come under the jurisdiction, let alone the protection, of the Canada Labour Code. It will not even give them the protection of the occupational health and safety section. Instead, it takes the view that it can issue Treasury Board directives which will give the same protection. I do not think they are worth very much, Mr. Speaker. In 1972, Treasury Board issued directives to managers telling them to hire more women in the public service. An excellent report which was issued last year shows that this directive has not been followed. Treasury Board directives are not good enough in this area or in any other.
I wonder if it is possible for legislation of this type, whether it originates with the hon. member or with the government, to resolve the problems that exist in the areas of grain transportation, air travel and many other sectors of the economy. We certainly recognize the complaints as valid and honest.
March 12, 1981

If the government's motive is to try to designate employees, as it tried to designate the air controllers' union, how can it then expect co-operation? Can the Public Service Alliance, the Canadian Labour Congress or the various public service unions be expected to work toward solving problems with a government that is attacking them inside and outside this House?


Otto John Jelinek: They support sector bargaining.


Rodney Edward Murphy: A voice in the wilderness says the government supports sector bargaining. That is true to some extent. The government's submission to the inquiry into wider-based bargaining indicates that it wants a lot of other changes made at the same time. It has proven unwilling to make modifications in the present act which would affect its treatment of people here on the Hill or people affected by the occupational health and safety section, those who do not come under Part IV of the labour code or anything else.
The danger of this bill is that it would take protection away from unions; it would not give them protections that are necessary to make it work.
I have to oppose the bill, Mr. Speaker. It is not practical and it is not complete. Considering the government's present attitude toward workers, it could never be successful.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) regarding his private member's bill which is now before us.
As I have stated on many occasions, I share with him and other members of this House, a deep concern for the disruptive effects of public sector strikes on the economy and well-being of this nation.
It has been self-evident for years that no one really wins in a strike situation. There are not even any runners-up. Victories are often claimed by either management or the unions, and sometimes by both. But both sides can be classified as losers, as can those not directly involved in the disputes.
What angers me is that the situation has been allowed to continue and that no effective corrective action has been implemented.
To this government's shame, it has allowed public sector strikes, like death and taxes, to be considered inevitable. I vehemently disagree. How can we possibly accept as inevitable the repeated disruption of essential services which are so costly to individual Canadians and to the nation as a whole?
There comes a time, and that time has long past, when we must take rational measures to ensure that the effect of strikes is minimized.
A step forward in this regard would be the passage of this bill, an act to amend the existing Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code to provide for the establishment of sector bargaining.
Sector Bargaining
Madam Speaker, this makes a great deal of sense. As the hon. member for Halton has stated, the purpose of this bill is to require union groups in a single public service sector to bargain with the Treasury Board simultaneously and to negotiate contracts which would run for three years and expire at the same time.
This would assure the taxpaying public that each essential public service sector would be strike free, except for the possibility of a walkout every three years. Such a move would force bargaining units, which represent different job categories in a common service, to resolve their disputes with management at the same time.
This would effectively eliminate successive strikes in a particular sector, strikes that obviously disrupt the work of the entire common service. Thus, a small number of people would be prevented from using the power of intermittent and vitally-timed strikes to hold up for ransom the government and the country because an essential service is being denied. This is what is happening now and this is what must be stopped.
From 1975 to 1980 there were more than 1,200 strikes in the public sector in Canada. Almost one million people were directly involved in the strikes, with millions more affected, and these strikes resulted in about ten million lost working days. And, as the record shows, things are definitely not improving. The figures for 1980 were the highest for the previous six years. I repeat, this has to be stopped.
It would have been reasonable to assume that after the major postal strike in 1975, this government would have been seriously working to prevent these situations. That infamous strike involving the Post Office ran from October to December, a total of 45 days, involved nearly 1,800 workers, and cost the department a loss of 700,000 work days.
I am quite sure that instead of 1,800 workers, the figure involved was around 19,000, including the inside workers. Other postal workers had to give up their jobs because of the strike.
No one has ever been able to come up with that strike cost in real dollars to everyone of us not directly involved, but you can be sure it was in the millions of dollars. I think a ballpark figure was $50 million, and that probably was too low. A great many small businesses suffered seriously and some went bankrupt. That was the result of only one of the bargaining units within the common service. The others each had their day, and again Canadians were the ones to pay.
As I have said before in this House, I am not against the right of the labour force to strike. What I am opposed to is allowing a group of people working in essential services the right to tie up this country every few weeks or months in order to force their employers to award them sometimes unreasonable and excessive increases in pay and benefits. Through this bill, such blackmail would cease. By containing public sector bargaining within a specified three-year period, the issues could be resolved on a more stable pattern, and all at the same time.
8196

March 12, 1981
Sector Bargaining
The result of such government action would be to remove the burden of sporadic strikes from the economy. It could have a direct and helpful influence on strikes involving the private sector. The private sector could use a helping hand. Its strike record in the past six years is less enviable. From 1975 to 1980 there were close to 5,000 strikes in the private sector which involved more than 2.5 million people and cost the economy about 40 million lost working days. How anyone can claim there are winners in strikes is beyond me.
The adoption of the bill can only serve to ensure that there will be fewer losers and, if the system works as it should, possibly none. I would go further to suggest that, nearing the end of the proposed three-year period, if the two sides fail to reach agreement, binding arbitration be made mandatory.
If management and union representatives cannot, in three years, settle their differences, someone should have the authority to step in and do it for them and for the rest of us. I am well aware that there are dedicated people on both sides of the bargaining table who take their responsibilities very seriously and work to achieve a fair and equitable settlement. I know also there are people in those chairs who relish and seek to perpetuate the role of adversary. If these people knew there was a mechanism in place, such as binding arbitration to override such posturings, things would probably change. We have to let them know we are serious. We should lock the representatives of management and union in a room, give them only bread and water, and not allow them any dinner breaks until they come to terms, and I am quite sure within a week or so they would be able to hammer out a settlement. For example, the union which affects most Canadians is the postal union, it is usually CUPW, so we would have the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) and Mr. Jean Claude Parrot locked in a room. Then we would be able to see which one has the staying power. I am sure it would not be too long-four or five days- before they would be out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: Canadians need a halt put to the chaos of strikes, especially when it involves essential services.
We have to put a halt to transportation strikes during those times when Canadians traditionally travel home, such as at Christmas and in school breaks. We have to put a halt to the disruption of mail services which affects the delivery of government cheques to those in need and affects the commerce of thousands of firms, large and small. We have to halt communication strikes which deprive large segments of the population of their right to know what is happening in the world. Year after year we fumble around with these issues, and year after year nothing happens. Why not? It cannot be that difficult to get our act together. It cannot be that difficult to put the good of the country ahead of the demands of the minority. People have been fed up with the situation for a long time. Now is the time for us to act on their behalf. All the talking in the world does not seem to have done a bit of good. The message we must deliver to the unions and to management obviously has to
come in the form of legislation, a law to show both sides just how serious we are.
Therefore, I urge prompt passage of this bill before us. I hope those of us assembled here will vote to have this bill go to committee. I am quite sure the bill would get a positive response, particularly if we were all given a free vote, because I think deep down members on all sides of the House are fed up with strikes. I guess I am one of the minority here, but I have said it time and again that there should be no strikes in essential services. There should be binding arbitration on the bases I have suggested. I think people who take jobs in the post office, the fire department or the police department should take those jobs knowing they will not have the opportunity to strike. If they want the privilege to strike, let them go to work for General Motors or Ford, in the private sector or elsewhere in the public sector. But it should be a privilege to work in an essential service. Other countries do not seem to have nearly as many labour problems as we do here.
Again, I hope that serious consideration will be given to having this bill passed today and referred to the committee.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to come to the same conclusion as the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), namely, that I cannot support this bill because it is impractical, but I cannot associate with the remarks he made about the record of performance of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). For example, we have no less an authority than the young-although he is quite perceptive-hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) who sits in this House and contemplates with envy the record performance of the responsible President of the Treasury Board.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It is nice to see you have a sense of humour.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I share, with hon. members opposite, the concern about what strikes of any kind do to members of unions, management and to the productivity of Canadians. This is a major problem we all have to face. I can think of five reasons why this bill does not address the issue.
First, in requiring the sectoral approach, and dealing with the Treasury Board only, it ignores the fundamental reality of our present system. We have two groups which deal with labour problems under our present regime. We have two different acts. The jurisdictions are separate. We have to deal with both of those before we can come to grips with this issue. This bill contemplates dealing with only one of them.
Second, and briefly, because time is running out, this bill fails to recognize the way in which the Public Service Staff Relations Act Structures our present bargaining unit. We are not organized along sectoral lines at present. For example, a person who is a clerical worker can move from any department to another within government. This privilege is designed to ensure job security and equality. A person should not lose his or her job if a particular department is abolished. A person should have the opportunity to move from department to department.
March 12, 1981


Otto John Jelinek: What has that got to do with the bill?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: We believe that is the way we should continue, and we will continue.
I would like to talk about the three-year mandatory term which this bill contemplates for all collective agreements. It is customary in North America, in Canada and the United States, to have far less than a three-year term in the private sector. There is a minimum one-year term, but it is not customary to impose a three-year term in a collective agreement. Why is it not customary? It is not customary because we have volatile economic circumstances. Conditions change. Labour and management need the opportunity to readjust their priorities to changing circumstances. We do not want to create a climate of hostility and lack of trust.
Fourth, the reason why this bill does not address the problem with which we should be dealing, that of labour unrest, is that it would deny employees in certain areas the right to strike.


Otto John Jelinek: That is not true.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: If you deny people in certain areas the right to strike, you would not be able to stop them. If hon. members think for one moment that they can stop a strike by making it illegal, I ask them to look at the recent example of what has happened in Poland. There, the full authority of the state was unable to overcome the indignation-


Mr. McKnight:: The only comparison is between the two governments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[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.
The Constitution
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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. When the debate was interrupted at five o'clock, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs had the floor.


Louis Duclos: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes I have left I would like to speak briefly to the issue of resorting to a national referendum. I have already indicated that I agree with the idea of seeking the opinion of the sovereign people in the case of a constitutional deadlock. I believe, however, that it would be contrary to the very nature of federalism if the federal government alone had the right to consult the sovereign people to break out of a constitutional deadlock which might develop between Ottawa and the provinces. The fact that one of the two levels of government unilaterally would assume the right and the twofold privilege of deciding when a national referendum will be held, and of drafting as it sees fit the question to be put to the people, can only create such an imbalance between the two levels of government that the spirit of Canadian federalism will be basically altered to the benefit of the federal government.
I would like at this point to make a distinction between the referendum held in Quebec and the referendum possibilities legislated by the Alberta government, and the referendum process provided in this proposed resolution, because the Quebec referendum, for instance, was only for consultation purposes, that is it did not bind anyone either constitutionally or legally, and only had a certain moral value. This is why I believe that Section 46 of the proposed resolution should be amended to allow the provinces, providing that seven of them representing more than 50 per cent of their total population agree to it, to initiate a popular vote across Canada in order to break a constitutional deadlock.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to complete my remarks by quoting, without comments, from a statement on the constitutional issue published last January 29 by the Assembly of Quebec bishops:
We do not see how social peace can be built on a Constitution which has not been agreed to by the contracting parties and the major partners of public authority. The possibility of achieving this peace would be even more remote in Canada since, according to the spirit of confederation and our legal tradition, any substantial amendment to the Constitution requires the agreement of Quebec for reasons which are deeply rooted in the basic duality of our country.
Mr. Speaker, because in its fundamental aspects this proposed resolution represents a step backward for Quebec, which expected a very different aftermath to the referendum, as clearly evidenced by the unanimous opposition to this proposed resolution of all provincial political parties in Quebec, whether

March 12, 1981
The Constitution
federalist or independentist, I shall unfortunately have to oppose it in the forthcoming vote.
Mr. Speaker, when I reflect deeply on the implications of this proposed resolution for the future of Quebec and of Canadian federalism, I cannot help thinking that the constitutional status quo before the referendum was not so bad after all.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to commend the hon. member for Montmorency, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Duclos) for his very fine and eloquent speech. I was most impressed with his frankness, sincerity, the depth of his feeling and indeed the courage with which he placed on the record his genuine feeling about this constitutional package.
He identified a number of serious flaws. I must say it was most refreshing for a man of his stature to stand in this House of Commons, and I am sure it was not easy for him, and speak with such deep feeling.
I want to say as well that I found his approach very reasonable. I think it is fair to say that many of us on this side share some of the feelings he expressed in his comments today. He not only pointed out some of the deficiencies and inadequacies in the resolution before us, but coupled it with a number of constructive suggestions which I hope his leader and members of his caucus will seriously consider. In many respects some of the reservations he has expressed here tonight are reservations which we in this party share.
I suspect there are a number of Canadians and, indeed, some members of this House who are torn sometimes between a compelling obligation on the one hand to get involved in this debate and an obvious reservation on the other over the fact that there is a perception that this constitutional debate has gone on too long. Many Canadians are undoubtedly becoming weary and bored with what appears to be an endless constitutional debate. I am sure there are a number of Canadians who are saying: whatever it is, let us get it over with, let us pass it and go on to some of the more important issues before us such as the economy, energy, jobs, transportation and agricultural matters.
I suspect it is fair to say, in talking to people in my constituency and across the land, that the Constitution is not all that appealing, at least to the vast majority of Canadians, nor is it considered a priority item.
Regardless of whether it is boring and somewhat incomprehensible to many Canadians and whether or not it should be of major priority, we have this resolution before us with which we have to deal. We have a responsibility and an obligation as members of this House to attempt to explain the contents of this resolution to Canadians. Our duty on this side is, of course, to draw attention to some of the weaknesses and try to
warn about imminent dangers as a result of the passage of this package.
I must say-and I am sure you will share this view-there have been some excellent speeches. This has been an excellent debate. There has been a tremendous amount of work put into the speeches made in this House of Commons, and it is important that we consider them.
The importance of this measure has to be considered in the context that it will form the basic ground rules by which our country is to be governed economically, politically, culturally and socially. It also should be borne in mind that constitutions do not operate by themselves; they require people and institutions in order to work. Therefore, it requires a maximum amount of participation in the formulation of this basic structure, in addition to an eminent amount of good will, understanding and a solid commitment of the vast majority of Canadians, if the proposal is to work and provide that structural framework wherein our country can move ahead and function in a climate of harmony and fulfilment.
What I find most unfortunate and, indeed, disappointing is that this particular proposal is dividing our country as never before. The divisive and embittered environment within which this debate is being carried out is a result of the confrontation-ist tactics of this government. This has been brought about by the sleazy strategy outlined in that infamous leak of a cabinet document prior to the introduction of the resolution. This has been caused by lack of candour, and I refer here specifically to the exchange in this House about the government's relationship with representatives of the British government. This unfortunate situation is the result of unilateralism, to which the hon. member who just resumed his seat referred as well, and the result of ignoring the wishes of the provinces.
Thrown in with this proposal is a very discriminatory energy program which is the most destructive policy ever perpetrated on an industry in this country. This government

and this as well has been alluded to by the parliamentary secretary-did not receive a mandate for constitutional reform at the last election, just as it did not receive a mandate to take over the pricing of oil. That is a provincial responsibility and, indeed, it has been worked out in the past through federal and provincial co-operation. Nor did this government have a mandate to confiscate or nationalize, as is proposed, and as is being done, under the National Energy Program.
One finds it passing strange that a resolution, ostensibly designed to renew our federation, should be greeted with such concern. A resolution, if it was going to renew our federation and provide that new impetus for renewed nation building, should be received with joy, enthusiasm, excitement and great expectation. It should be a cause for celebration. It should be a mechanism which is seen and perceived as one that will unite rather than divide us.
I submit, as I did earlier, that this proposal is dividing our nation. That division, I submit, will continue if the proposal is passed and it will cause irreparable harm to our country. This proposal is challenged by more than half of our federation. Some eight provinces are now opposed, with more than two
March 12, 1981

thirds of Canadians in opposition to it. It is rejected by a total region, that region wherein there are no elected representatives in this government, the western region. It is met with apprehension and deep concern. There is concern about the federal structure being under attack, concern about resources, concern about a possibly unitary state, concern about property ownership and a concern that the traditions and roots on which this country was built are being subverted or ignored.
Yes, this measure, in my view, does violate the spirit of federalism and the integrity of the provincial domain. What is most sad is that, in the process, our nation, instead of being drawn together, is being driven apart.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his Liberal caucus, together with what is left of his left-wing rump, may very well, in crass political terms, win this issue. They will ram it through, and legally they may even win. However, will Canada and Canadians be winners in the process? It will be some victory when you consider that, in addition to the provinces and growing numbers of Canadians, as the parliamentary secretary pointed out, all political parties in Quebec are opposed. The New Democratic Parties in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and Quebec have publicly spoken against the action.
We have a number of senators in the other place who are speaking out, including Jean Paul Deschatelets, Andrew Thompson, Eric Cook, and John Godfrey of Ontario who said he would hold his nose and vote for the package, notwithstanding the fact he has some very serious reservations. Maxwell Cohen, one of the Liberal government's expert witnesses before the committee, opposes the constitutional proposal. Gordon Robertson also is in opposition, and I could go on and on. This would be some victory.
One wonders, with a victory of this nature, how Canadians would respond in the final analysis to this constitutional package. Will there be a positive attitude? Will they feel comfortable with it? Will they feel a part of it, or will it perpetuate further bitterness and distrust? Attitude, in my view, is one of the most important elements that cannot be defined in words or in law. There must be a genuine sense that this law, which is not an ordinary one, will be respected and upheld voluntarily in spirit and, indeed, in fact. That can only happen if there is an attitude on the part of Canadians that this Constitution is a real, living, dynamic reflection of the Canadian way of life as interpreted through the individual eyes of Canadians.
There must be a sense of attachment, a sense of fulfilment and a sense of communion. There must be the assurance that one can preserve ones individuality within the oneness of a nation.
There are a number of other elements which are part and parcel of this resolution which are not defined in words. There must be trust, and trust must be fostered by actions, and by words. In order for unity to prevail, there must be trust and respect for the truth.
The Constitution
No community can survive, Mr. Speaker, unless there is a basic trust amongst its citizens. It is true of governments as it is of leaders, of business and indeed of the world of politics. The community must build on a foundation of trust so that co-operation and a sense of partnership can develop and indeed flourish, and that is the way it is in nation building, especially in our type of federation.
When we look at what has happened in this constitutional renewal process, we find that time and again we have witnessed the federal government and its spokesmen being less than candid. We have seen this government renege on its commitments, we have seen it withdraw and subvert; certainly their actions hardly create the climate of trust and confidence.
There is a deep feeling of mistrust in our nation today, a feeling that somehow someone is being had and is going to be had. There is anxiety where there should be confidence, goodwill and optimism, and when we look at the root of that problem, Mr. Speaker, we find it in the fact that this government is pushing through its constitutional reform proposals on the same platform of deception as it did in the last election campaign, as it is doing now with its imposition of the misleading fact of the National Energy Program which is confiscatory, which talks about Canadianization but in effect is nationalizing, pitting region against region, Canadian against Canadian, and singling out and attacking one industry in one particular region.
I repeat, this government has no mandate to do that. It did not receive one in the last election and does not have one now because it does not enjoy majority public support. Canadians are becoming increasingly suspicious and have serious doubts about this package.
The process, combined with other deliberate attacks upon the region of Canada from which I come, has caused bitterness and deep division, and I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this will escalate with the passage of this resolution.
Now, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), our spokesman on this resolution, has outlined in fairly succinct terms the reservations that we as a party hold with respect to this measure. There are three fundamental objections with which I want to deal briefly. One is the amending formula, and as the hon. member for Provencher indicated, as far as we are concerned, the Victoria formula represents an outdated mechanism, which no longer corresponds to the reality of Canada and is rejected by the vast majority of provinces. It is unfair because it creates different classes of provinces. Quebec and Ontario have, and always will have, veto power, and with the amendments which were passed in the committee stage it looks as if we have different classes of provinces in western Canada and the Atlantic region, and I cannot accept the principle of inequality in the status of provinces.
I cannot accept that western provinces, my province, will be treated as a second or third-class province in Canada, while other provinces have a perpetual veto. We have political alienation, an unhealthy mood in western Canada right now,

March 12, 1981
The Constitution
and this proposal will further exacerbate that issue and will create a double form of discrimination. We can only suspect there will be further alienation and bitterness as a result.
The reasons that we in western Canada are opposed to the amending formula are summed up quite succinctly on page 11 of the submission of the Premier of Saskatchewan, and I would like to put it on the record. It reads:
The proposed amending formula is the most unacceptable part of the federal resolution, the part which does most serious violence to the basic principles of federalism. Saskatchewan cannot endorse the resolution unless major changes are made in the amending formula.
In a federal state, the procedure for amending the Constitution is the most important part of the fundamental law. And the amending formula proposed in the resolution is so weighted in favour of the central government, so biased against the interests of the provinces, that it threatens to destroy the balance that is crucial to the maintenance of Canada as we now know it.
I think that sums it up fairly well.
Dealing with the interim amending formula, I can only agree that it is nothing more than an illusion, as has been alluded to by the hon. member for Provencher. This party offered an alternative amending mechanism. It may not be perfect, but I believe it is an approach which more accurately reflects the reality of Canada and at the same time sustains the fundamental federalist structure. I believe it can provide a basis for a strong central government without limiting the cultural and regional characteristics of Canada and, above all, it will respect the equality of the provinces.
The referendum proposal is something to which I object as well. To me, the binding referendum is a radical departure from the principle of parliamentary democracy. This particular feature of the package has the potential of being the most divisive element in this resolution. We were told it was only going to be used as a deadlock-breaking mechanism, but the reality is that the federal government could trigger it at any time, and, in effect, it becomes a form of amending formula. It is a device which could circumvent provincial authority and thereby significantly alter our federal system. And we know what can be done in terms of manipulating public opinion, manipulating the rules and the question and, what is most important, and as has been alluded to by other speakers as well, only the federal government has the right to initiate a referendum. If you can manipulate the question and the kind of advertising for which this government is so famous, you can certainly receive the kind of answer they would naturally want.
The process is another issue to which I object and much has been said about it. I cannot accept unilateral action. It just does not work in this country and is not in keeping with the Canadian tradition. Asking Westminster to invoke changes without the consent of the provinces is certainly most unfair. We are asking Britain to do what we cannot do legally in this country.
There are other deficiencies and omissions. A lot has been said about the perfection of this package, there has been a lot of fanfare, but what I find, Mr. Speaker, is that when you sort out the rhetoric, you find that this resolution is deficient in many ways. What I find most unfortunate is that, throughout the process, some glaring inequities, which have been with us
for many, many years, have been overlooked. They are inequities which have caused division in this country, which have caused alienation, and which have been ignored in the past and are being ignored in this measure as well. In many cases, those irritants are being exacerbated.
I give you as an example, Mr. Speaker, the matter of removing the equality of status of the provinces. The west is now, in effect, a minority. This measure will simply exacerbate that situation. Having total disregard for the provinces, in terms of its unilateralism is another measure. But what has been totally disregarded and ignored is the political inequality which exists in this country, inequality which shuts out one half of the country from the political process. To me, that is the number one issue in this country.
If it is language and cultural inequality which have caused the problems in Quebec, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is political inequality that is causing problems in western Canada today. That is what is at the root of the energy problem. It is at the root of western alienation. It is at the root and core of western separatism. Those irritants and those issues have not been addressed by this government, nor have they have been addressed in this resolution.
The west is dissatisfied because it is being ignored in the decision-making process. It is being left out. The west is a very dynamic and growing region, but it considers itself impotent because it does not have the political clout. That is why we have splinter groups and separatist movements springing up in the west. Unless there is some redress to this political inequality which will fester and continue to mount, it could be very detrimental to this country. We need electoral reform, be it Senate reform, be it proportional representation, or be it some other method. That balancing mechanism which was to be provided in the Senate has deteriorated to the extent where it is no longer useful.
I quote from page 41, of the Task Force on Canadian unity, which outlines the thought behind the Senate. It reads:
The role of the Senate and the method of selection of its members were extensively debated at the time of confederation. The method adopted was meant to counterbalance the principle of "representation by population" applied in the House of Commons. The Senate was intended to act as a house of "sober second thought" in reconsidering the legislation of the more "radically democratic" lower house, to protect the interests of private property (hence, the property requirements for membership), and to reflect provincial and regional interests.
The task force goes on:
Because of the method and the practice of appointment of its members which give the Senate at least the appearance of an institution rewarding friends of the government of the day, its credibility as a body representing regional interests and its general effectiveness have been undermined.
So we do not have that mechanism to provide for regional balance. The political inequality must be redressed. This is indispensable before the country can function harmoniously. All regions of Canada must be able to participate effectively in the decision-making process of our national government. If this is not done, tensions will build, divisions will grow and our federation will crumble.

As a westerner I can tell you very confidently, Mr. Speaker, that we as westerners want to build and not dismantle. But we as westerners must have an effective voice in the decisionmaking process. We must have a voice in plotting the direction and course of this nation.
I turn now to another major deficiency in this resolution, which is the failure of it and of the government to address the continuing erosion of our economic unity-this economic union called Canada.
I believe that in order for our country to be strong, the Canadian common market must be strong. Since we have been so preoccupied with issues that divide us, we overlook the fact that many of the factors which can unite us can also provide economic stability and growth and foster interdependence and opportunity.
We must not overlook the tremendous potential of our economic partnership in this country. The balkanization of our economy by provincial governments aided and abetted by federal policies-which are sometimes inward looking policies and sometimes very selfish-do not augur well for our national economic future. What is most unfortunate, given the kind of climate, the poisoned environment in which we find ourselves now, is that I do not hold out a great deal of optimism for that to improve. That is so because this government does not consult and co-operate. It employs the tactic of confrontation. And the situation is not improving; it is deteriorating. I must say that in the past 13 years, this Prime Minister has failed to address that very fundamental problem.
To emphasize the importance of the point I want to make, I would like to quote from a document entitled, "Interprovincial Economic Co-operation Towards the Development of a Canadian Common Market" issued by the minister of industry and tourism for the province of Ontario, the Hon. Larry Grossman. At page 6 it states:
If we are to succeed in our quest for a strengthened nation and a renewed Canada, then we must in fact begin by making a commitment and a conscious decision not only to rework constitutional arrangements but to build solid economic relations among the regions of Canada.
We need a new set of economic and political relationships that can accommodate our existing strengths across this country-in the maritimes, in Quebec, in Ontario, and in the west-in such a way that we reinforce each other in a genuine partnership that creates a stronger and more united whole.
But the problem has been that in recent years the traditional economic links between the Canadian provinces have been eroding.
And it is that erosion of economic links that could, if not reversed, threaten our very survival as a nation.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if this nation is to survive, it must do so not only as a viable political unit but as a viable economic unit.
For my part, there are far too many impediments and far too many restrictions to the free movement of goods and services, labour and capital, in this country. We must start removing the barriers rather than constructing new ones. The same study cites another fact which I would find amusing if it were not true. It is stated at page 6 that:
The Constitution
In fact, Canada's ambassador to the European Economic Community has stated "that there are now fewer barriers to trade among the countries of Europe than among the provinces of Canada."
What has been done in the last 13 years? There has been a build-up of barriers and impediments, not a removal of them. There has not been co-operation; there has not been a working together. All the fault does not lie with the provinces. It is stated in the same study:
However, the "barriers to trade", issue is really only symptomatic of a broader and perhaps more important problem: that is, the lack of co-ordinated regional economic development strategies.
In fact, it is the development of competitive rather than complementary regional economic development strategies that is threatening the very economic framework that is necessary to sustain us as a nation.
Barriers are not only frustrating, they are costly. They retard progress and create tension. The provinces have tended to internalize the economic benefits of their provincial economies. In so doing, they have borne a cost in terms of greater economic integration and specialization. As a result of this specialization, our import level of manufactured products is the highest of any nation in the world. Why? Because we have fragmented our own domestic market. We have failed to look at the whole, and have simply addressed the parts. We have adopted a tunnel vision approach. We have failed to recognize our own market potential. If we do not do something about this, our manufacturing sector will continue to flounder and we will fail to achieve a vibrant economy. There are many, many impediments: provincial procurement policies, the equivalent of many non-tariff barriers, the lack of uniform provincial standards, and liquor buying practices. In my province of Alberta there has been a beer strike for almost a year. Whom did it benefit? It benefited the Americans; there has been a real market for American beer. Also there are licensing and certification practices, barriers to capital and labour mobility, competition and land purchase policies, hiring practices, marketing boards, restrictions on the mobility of professionals, fiscal and non-fiscal measures, and so on. We forget that we are not only political partners; we are economic partners.
Transportation is a subject which is very near and dear to me. I should like to refer to Part III of the National Transportation Act which was passed in 1967. It was to provide a framework for extra provincial trucking in Part III. It has never been passed or implemented. The federal government regulates rail, air and marine transportation through a system of regulations, and provides the mechanism for policing and enforcing. In the area of motor vehicle movement, there are ten different sets of regulations; there is no uniformity. It frustrates the orderly movement of interprovincial trade. It is costly and creates dead heading. At this time when we are looking at improving our energy efficiency, it is wasteful and, above all, it mitigates against establishing an integrated multimodal national transportation system.
These impediments, restrictions and unco-ordinated approaches mean lost opportunities for Canada and for Canadi-

March 12, 1981
The Constitution
ans. Surely it is time to talk about regional co-operation in Canada. At page 9, the study concludes as follows:
We have a clear choice: We can, at this critical time in our history as a nation, continue to balkanize our country's economy, or we can develop a unified Canadian Common Market, with combined interests, shared objectives, and mutually beneficial goals.
We can use our differing strengths as a basis for building a strong Canadian whole. Or we can restructure the individual units, failing in the end to ensure a firm foundation upon which we can develop and strengthen as a nation.
This is the kind of impetus I would like to see not only in the resolution but, indeed, in action through federal-provincial co-operation. I have had some experience in this area; I know it can be done, but it depends upon the attitude of the federal government. Rather than confronting, if the government used a policy of consulting and co-operating, many of these issues would be overcome. The government has been an absolute failure over the last 13 years. It has further perpetuated the barriers and impediments to the free interprovincial movement of goods and services.
I should like to speak briefly about the charter of rights. Again, there are deficiencies. There has been much misleading rhetoric by members on the other side. If we listened to them, we would be led to believe that all of a sudden Canadians will receive a host of new freedoms and rights. That is nonsense. Quite the opposite is true. I submit that the charter will probably limit our freedoms. It will place a new emphasis on the courts, without any changes in the selection process, without any modification of the checks and balances. It will be the judiciary rather than the legislatures who will have the final say.


Mr. MacKay:: Who has more compassion?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, who has more compassion? We have heard a lot said about multiculturalism. I welcome the incorporation of the spirit of multiculturalism in the Constitution, but when it comes to implementing the spirit of multiculturalism and adjudicating which institution is best qualified or has the most compassion to see that it is instituted in a human fashion, certainly it is not the courts. I would suggest that Parliament is more appropriate.
I should like to deal with the areas of property rights. I am appalled by the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party and the blatan-cy of the NDP. If ever there was a fundamental right and freedom near and dear to me and the people I represent, property rights are one of the most profound that westerners and all Canadians want preserved.


An hon. Member:: What about P.E.I.?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We have talked about P.E.I. I think there is a way around that. The right to own and enjoy property is very basic and fundamental. That right is denied as a condition of NDP support. The NDP members do not want it because they say it will impede the government's ability to expropriate, confiscate or nationalize. The right to own land, be it farmland, recreational or family residence, is enshrined in the constitutions of many western nations. It is protected by law and by custom. The right is as fundamental as the
well-being of the society, a right we all know and share. It is as fundamental as freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press. Many of our ancestors in western Canada were lured there by the thrill of owning their own land.
Finally, any charter which does not recognize the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person, or the pre-eminence of a family as a unit, is absolutely deficient. This is the foundation upon which our society was built, upon which our society rests. I could speak about this matter for quite a while, but it has been referred to by most Members of Parliament. Every day we open our proceedings here with a prayer and we swear our oath of allegiance on the Bible. At the end of each throne speech delivered at the opening of a session of Parliament, we ask Divine Providence for guidance in our deliberations. One wonders, when the supremacy of God is omitted, whether this package can be taken seriously. Obviously there must be some reason for the omission. Perhaps it was a condition of the NDP support. It looks as if this package were a package of convenience. When one looks at the dissenting views and the way in which the government has accommodated some and rejected others, one must question the seriousness and whether in fact this is a resolution of convenience.
If we choose to exclude the reference to the supremacy of God, where are we and where are we going? This hypocrisy is further evidenced in the government's refusal to entrench the right to life and to stop the legalized slaughter of the unborn. What could be more fundamental in a charter than the preservation of life itself? I see those as major deficiencies.
In conclusion, I reiterate that the government was not given a mandate to impose a unilateral constitutional package on this nation. It was not given a mandate to impose the degree of state intervention and domination that we see in selected areas of the economy.
It is this deceit, dishonesty and total lack of political integrity which are causing very serious problems and divisions in the country. I submit that the passage of this resolution will exacerbate, not ameliorate, those divisions and that bitterness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of this crucial debate on the future of our country, I would first like to pay tribute to all those hon. members and senators who devoted their time and their very best efforts to the work of the joint committee. I congratulate too the co-chairmen of the committee for their judicious and sober guidance. Most of all, I recognize and congratulate the many Canadians who travelled to Ottawa, many at their own expense, to exercise their right to be heard. This was perhaps the noblest act, for they are the Canadians participating directly in drawing the blueprint for the survival of Canada.

Just in the past month, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) said:
The kind of opposition we bring against ourselves 1 find exhilarating.
He said this in the Liberal wilderness of British Columbia. This is perfectly in keeping with a man who would subscribe, in this day and age, to the manifesto of Machiavelli rather than to the supreme majesty of God. Nothing characterizes the spirit with which the Prime Minister entered into his latest attempt to change Canada through constitutional reform than that guiding epigram of the Italian manipulator. I quote from his epigram:
There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than the introduction of a new order of things.
The Prime Minister is fond of quoting classical dictums from sources as diverse as Shakespeare and Plato. Indeed, he values them not just rhetorically, but as matters of guiding principle. We saw this in his attitude at the first ministers' conference last summer. His being so keen a student of Machiavelli, I recommend this quotation to the Prime Minister and ask him to take heed:
Many have imagined republics but he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done, will bring about his own ruin.
By the way, Machiavelli also remarked, with admirable relevance for today, that:
When neither their property nor their honour is touched, the majority of men live content.
I suggest that the Prime Minister's greatest exhilaration-if, indeed, he is exhilarated by opposition-will come when the people of this country turf him and his party of sheep out of office for having impinged upon both their property, by failing to protect it, and their honour, by imposing closure on their elected representatives in this House. I might add that they are tarnishing the honour of all Canadians, as my friend, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), said, by: shaming and embarrassing them all by having the Parliament of the United Kingdom reject a joint resolution of the Parliament of Canada.
The Prime Minister is the first to take the unprecedented steps. He is the first to move unilaterally on matters of Constitution. Why does he speak in such horrified tones? Why does he speak in veiled and threatening language when the possibility of the British parliament using unprecedented steps is raised?
We are playing under the rules of the Prime Minister. It is he who has dictated the length of the game and the object of its goals. He has appointed the referee and the place where it is to be played. Why does he squawk now and say that he will take his ball home if people who are not on his team realize that his game is rigged from start to finish?
Since 1979 members of the Liberal Party of Canada have enjoyed absolutely no power at the provincial level in the country. In 1980, they were brought back, led by the invisible man, a non-leader, on false promises and big carrots. They have absolutely no representation west of Winnipeg, and representation there, for a start, has, rightly, alientated 51 per
The Constitution
cent of the population of Canada. More than half of their members are from the province of Quebec.
It is absolutely ludicrous that the Prime Minister even presumes to speak for Canada on a matter such as this, on the matter of our futures and on the matter of the futures of every single person in Canada now and who will arrive in the future. Does it have to be reiterated that fully eight of our provinces, two of them original partners in confederation, vehemently oppose both the matter and the manner of his initiative-or, should I say, his ambition? In the face of this, in Vancouver he said that he has managed, to use his words, to split both parties on this side of the House. He has the unmitigated gall to say such a thing when he alone is responsible for perhaps the biggest split and the gravest divisions which have confronted our country for generations.
How is it that the Canadian people, at least as far west as Winnipeg, allow themselves to suffer what has been termed, in philosophical studies by Lacan and others, as "charismatic abuse"? Why do they allow this same abuse to be brought down upon them to the extent that their Prime Minister, their political leader at home and abroad, feels that he can afford to provoke a confrontation between Canada and Britain for internal political gain which threatens to poison relations between our two countries for years and decades to come?
Is this the image they want abroad, the "tough-guy" Trudeau sneering behind his cloak of innuendo, misstatements and false report? His Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) is the laughing stock of the diplomatic world, when the Department of External Affairs was the hero of the world a mere 14 months ago. His representative at the court of St. James consider themselves latter-day gumshoes-the James Bonds of the north-and make ridiculous suggestions and equally ridiculous recommendations as their strategy for the coming fray.
Good Lord, I daresay that Canada's image abroad has taken such a beating that the prestige gained from the great diplomatic triumphs of the fifties and the sixties have undoubtedly been lessened. This crew, this band of cowed and deluded people across the floor, presumes to carve out a new constitutional image of Canada, new rules of life and new rules of behaviour. It has the audacity to point to alleged splits in the opposition-especially with regard to members of the left- thereby demonstrating again its collective vanity and arrogance. At least in the socialist party there is some attempt to provide for sincere dissent in the ranks. At least in their position one can see some co-relation between party philosophy and party action.
What of the sheep opposite? What, in their constitutional manifesto, is markedly and specifically Liberal as opposed to Conservative or socialist? What separates them from other policies such as the National Energy Program, which confirmed them to be socialists in sheep's clothing?
I am sure that a classic and quite recent definition of political Liberalism would be instructive at this juncture in order to inform members opposite what it is they purport to be. Liberalism in politics, said Wayne Lyman Morse:

March 12, 1981
The Constitution
-can be defined in terms of objectives. A major objective is the protection of the economic weak within the framework of a private property economy. The Liberal... emphasizing the civil and property rights of the individual, insists that the individual must remain so supreme as to make the state his servant.
Indeed, just as the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) reminded the House last week, governments cannot be supreme. It is the people in a democracy who must be supreme. This is a principle which I and my colleagues on this side of the House, at least, heartily endorse.
Would any socialist Liberal opposite care to subscribe at this moment to that classic definition of Liberalism? Would the Prime Minister? At least the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), through a momentary aberration or "fit", no doubt, subscribed for a short time to the right to own property before being brought to heel by his master's voice and reversed his previous decision and voted against the right to own property.
Next to freedom from religious persecution, I doubt that any right has more respect in Canada than the right of the individual to own property. Many Canadians can say that is why they came to Canada. These Liberals, however-and I use the term loosely-did not allow the right to own property in their charter. Are they who control the state truly servants of the people, as their particular philosophy maintains, or at least should maintain? The three principles of federalism are: diversity, rights and consensus. What did the Prime Minister and his partisans make of these three principles? For diversity they substitute sameness; for rights they substitute prejudice and discrimination by omission, and for consensus they substitute confrontation and unilateral action.
I remind hon. members opposite of what the hon. member for Provencher so rightly stated, and I quote his words: "Governments cannot be supreme; it is the people in a democracy who must be supreme."
Professor Peter Russell of the University of Toronto said, and said very plainly, "I believe that this country is built on an understanding that the fundamental terms of our federation, particularly the powers of the respected levels of government, will not be altered by unilateral action-"
He added that "[DOT]-there is a very strong, arguable case that, unless the statute of Westminster is amended there is a legal bar on the British parliament to go ahead without provincial consent for a resolution of this kind."
Professor Russell also pointed to the use of the word "dominion" in the constitutional arrangements between our two countries and noted, "Dominion might mean more than the dominion parliament."
This brings to mind the timely reminder to the House made by the hon. member for Provencher that the Fathers of Confederation themselves preferred, as a guiding passage, the spirit of divine majesty paramount in this country. "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea."
In his futile attempt to justify the government's attempt to change the nature of confederation according to its own
wishes, the hon. member for Hochelega-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal) stated in his speech: "The level of government that is actually losing the most power in this process is the federal Parliament."
On the contrary, as Professor Russell pointed out, if this proposal should go through, "-it would seem ... to.. . put the provincial legislators in a subordinate position in the Canadian constitutional structure." He also pointed out to the Canadian people as the co-chairman of the committee hoped he would, that if that proposal went through, "-it would mean that the British Parliament can reduce the powers of the provinces without their consent, which is not happening to the federal Parliament." Professor Russell concluded that this course of action will "-rearrange our federal system into a system of a hierarchy of power rather than a division of powers between sovereign legislative bodies."
I hope that I have impressed upon the House the clear fact that, try as the government might, to legitimize its proposed resolution by selective quotations from the past, in fact it is a bogus process and one that will simply reorganize the division of powers between the bilateral levels of government in this country without the consent of one side of that division.
Patriation, an amending formula and a charter of rights: these are the three elements in the resolution. The government wanders through a hall of mirrors in its priorities as it favours a charter of rights above the other two elements in the package that express contradiction to the polled will of the people whose primary concern is to patriate their Constitution. Let us discuss this step by step.
As we have repeated endlessly, Her Majesty's loyal opposition, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) stated on October 2, is entirely in favour of the principle that "the Constitution should be brought home to Canada without delay." We in the opposition and the people of Canada have absolutely no difficulty with this admirable aim, and the Prime Minister should be gracious enough to stop trying to suggest that somehow we are against this, because we are not.
Resistance to the government's proposal began to build when we encountered the amending formula which it has attached to patriation.
First and foremost, if the entire package came to the country under the very formula being proposed, the Victoria formula, it certainly would not pass. What is more, it would not pass at either stage-the consent of the provinces stage where Ontario, Quebec, two Atlantic provinces and two western provinces have to approve, or the referendum stage where it is put to the people.
This fact, above all, must condemn the resolution as it stands before this House; that under its own terms it would never be approved by the Canadian people. Resistance reaches a crescendo, however, when we come to the third element of the package, the charter of rights.
As the joint committee heard, and as the people of Canada should hear, for it bears any amount of repeating:
March 12, 1981

-the process of entrenching rights in the Constitution is about as serious a constitutional act as a nation can ever undertake for it means in theory that certain powers are to be withdrawn from the representatives elected from time to time by the people, and it establishes a new set of limitations on what elected legislatures can do for the people.
In that sense, it involves nothing more nor less than a change in the social contract between the governed and the government and it entrusts the judiciary with the task of interpreting the terms of that contract.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that I mentioned earlier the hon. member for Rosedale's (Mr. Crombie) three guiding principles of Confederation: diversity, rights and consensus. To these may be added three more from one of our leading constitutional authorities: that the process of constitutional change should be considered, that it should be popular, and that it should be unifying.
This brings us to the point where we can crystallize the essential difference between the government's proposal and the Conservative alternative. That crystallization is the matter of process, for it is here that we differ fundamentally; it is here that the government has departed from the will of the country; is here that it has affronted the rights and dignity of the provincial legislatures, and it is here that it threatens to provoke a bitter feud with the Parliament of Great Britain, perhaps our dearest and most amicable friend in the world.
Let us examine this point of process as it applies to both the amendment formula and the charter of rights. Under the proposed formula, any province attaining "a population of at least 25 per cent of the population of Canada" according to any census, past or present, would be forever armed with the power of veto over proposed amendments. The reasons for this clause, as it applies to Ontario and Quebec, are very clear. It implies that for a very long time to come, all the other provinces will be relegated to a second-class status, without having, singly, the power of veto.
However, it seems to have escaped the attention of this government and, indeed, of the entire country, that this veto power could be extended to a third province in the future by virtue of this entrenched requirement.
Could not Alberta or British Columbia, for example, be viewed as major contenders to become the third province in Canada to attain 25 per cent of the total population and thus acquire the power of veto over all parts, all regions, of the country, if it was in their interest to do so?
Let no member mistake my remarks that somehow they constitute an anti-provincial or an anti-western position; rather, they are meant to indicate a position of national democracy based on broad consensus and not on regional prejudice.
As an expert witness to the committee pointed out, the Victoria formula gives any province that acquires 25 per cent of the population the power of veto. In this regard, he said, "You must remember when you are talking about constitutions that you are not talking about a law for today or tomorrow or this decade. We are talking about a law for centuries ahead."
The Constitution
This is a point of view that I could heartily endorse. I encourage all members to realize that what we are debating will be conceivably a matter of importance for centuries, not just for the last year or two of the Prime Minister's tenure.
This describes just one example of the shortcomings of the amending formula. Another no less important weakness deals with the area of native and aboriginal rights, so hard fought for in the committee and over the years. It is instructive to look behind the highly publicized recognition of aboriginal rights which have been given recently.
In Section 35(2) of the present proposal, in Part IV which deals with constitutional conferences, provision is made to include in the agenda of the conference the following:
-an item respecting constitutional matters that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of Canada,-
Section 35(2) further on reads:
-and the Prime Minister of Canada shall invite representatives of those peoples to participate in the discussions on that item.
Who will the Prime Minister appoint to represent these people? Which representatives of the native people will the Prime Minister invite to attend? Who will decide the item on the agenda?
In the aftermath of all the delirious self-congratulation in the committee on the recognition of aboriginal rights, what has been the more sobre upshot of it all? What do the native peoples themselves say to the doubletalk of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), the member for Hamilton East, who said that failure to entrench the charter of rights "would be an intolerable disappointment to the native people-" if aboriginal rights were not entrenched?
What are the native people saying to the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) who said in his speech that "no one in Canada, no government or individual will again be able to disregard the rights of Canada's original people." In a word, they are saying "nonsense." These rights may be entrenched, but how will they be interpreted? They will be interpreted by the courts, by government appointed judges to the Supreme Court. They are the ones who will interpret difficulties or confrontation over aboriginal rights. That is the "government" and the "individuals" mentioned by the Leader of the New Democratic Party who, in the future, will decide native rights.
Del Riley, the President of the National Indian Brotherhood which consists of ten provincial and two territorial groups and represents 300,000 Indians, said he will resign over constitutional amendments that ultimately provide for the courts to define aboriginal rights. Indian provincial groups in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec have threatened to withdraw from the National Indian Brotherhood unless these constitutional amendments are dropped. And I know that Indian groups in my own riding in Ontario, represented by the Union of Ontario Indians, are opposed to the government's constitutional amendments.

March 12, 1981
The Constitution
This is clear to the Indians and the native peoples of Canada. They know what the government is trying to do. They will not be fooled again. The native people realize that what these constitutional amendments really mean is that the government is seeking a cowardly and ignoble way out of fulfilling its responsibilities directly to the native peoples, as it is required to do by the BN A Act, and trying instead to devolve that power to the Supreme Court, an appointed, not an elected body. Where is the democratic representation in that move?
So much for the minister's intolerable disappointment. He either does not understand the implications of the charter of rights or he is in collusion with this infamous attempt to rob the Indians of their ancient rights.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that indeed this proposal does not guarantee the continued participation of the native people of Canada in their own constitutional destiny; that it does not guarantee their rights, as alluded to in Section 33; and that it does not guarantee that fair and representative native counsel will be sought during the two-year interim period between passage of the act and the coming into force of Part VI of the act.
Briefly put, the amending provisions of this act do not accommodate, beyond the two-year interim period, any future participation, of the native peoples of Canada in any further constitutional change that may affect them, their treaty rights, or their aboriginal rights; none at all.
Furthermore, under Section 132 of the BNA Act and the natural resource transfer agreements, it is clear that Indian rights are the responsibility of the federal government, and the federal government alone. While there is provision in the amending formula for at least a measure of provincial participation in future constitutional change, there is absolutely none for aboriginal peoples. Clearly this gives rise to an obvious constitutional contradiction. It will be quite possible that in the future the provinces will be part of a decision-making process which might change the Constitution as it relates to native and aboriginal rights. Indian and native rights are exclusively and always have been the responsibility of the federal government.
As I mentioned before, these are the shortcomings in the amending formula before us. As if they were not bad enough, the greatest resistance to the package must be when it comes to the third part, the charter of rights. Resistance, the voice of reason, must be heard with respect to this part in two distinct ways: first, as a matter of principle, and second, as a matter of substance.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has asked with passion how can we, the members of the opposition, "stand each in turn and move preposterous amendments to the charter of rights and then the next day ... vote against it."
I am very happy to endorse the hon. member for Provench-er's reply to this. He said that "-in order for the charter to find agreement among Canadians, it must be more than words-it must enjoy consensus and legitimacy-and-what Canadians want is a charter which is carefully considered and approved by Canadians in Canada!" And that is why I can
approach the charter from two points of view, the point of principle and the point of substance.
Now, as far as the principle of a charter of rights is concerned, I agree entirely with the hon. member for Rosedale who said that one of the things "our forefathers learned about rights was their rights lay in the common law, that they did not need to have their rights listed; that the only listing came when those rights were reduced, that if they can write it down then they can take it away."
I also agree entirely with Professor Russell of the University of Toronto, who said in January that "I am not one that sees a need for a great deal of change, we have one of the oldest Constitutions in the world (dating back to 1215) and I think we have done pretty well by it-." As Professor Russell said later, "I have not heard any strong, good, clear reasons why the entrenchment of rights has to take place now and through the British Parliament."
I consider this to be very sound reasoning, notwithstanding the tedious and, at times, hysterical screams from across the floor about the need in Canada for a charter of rights. What members opposite constantly fail to point out in the midst of their high-blown speeches on equality and so on, is that it is not so much that these rights are new and will be newly protected on the passage of this charter, as that the process of interpreting these rights will be new. Make no mistake that in the aftermath of the passage of this bill, if it occurs, and for literally centuries afterwards, the Supreme Court of Canada will judge the validity and extent of these rights and will stamp their interpretation on them for all time. These rulings will be binding.
Now this means essentially that the function of interpreting human, civil and democratic freedoms in this country is to be taken out of the hands of the 282 elected representatives to the House of Commons and put in the hands of the government-appointed judges to the Supreme Court of Canada. This is the devolution, or should I say the centralization of power that we are talking about, and the people of Canada should make sure they are fully aware of this before this bill goes through.
What we are doing is Americanizing our judiciary and imposing upon the Supreme Court a political burden of great weight, one that they have never had before. Who knows how, in future decades, the Supreme Court will interpret these marvellous and noble rights that everyone is going on about?
As was said in committee, this charter does not guarantee rights or freedoms, what it does is guarantee a change, a very significant change, in the way in which decisions are made about rights and freedoms.
Can members on both sides of this House be assured that Canadians want to Americanize their system of government? Are they being given that clear choice? The Prime Minister, quite simply, is taking away from Parliament the power and the process of democratically discussing fundamental principles of freedom and is putting that power into the hands of a few, a very few, members of the judicial branch of govern-
March 12, 1981

ment, members who will be appointed by the government in power. I want to inform the people of Canada that their rights and freedoms presently protected and advanced by Parliament will in future be manipulated and interpreted for them by the imaginations of lawyers, as one expert witness said, and the size of an individual's bank account, for that shall be their only recourse.
This is the clear and simple fact of the case, and it is futile for members on the other side to try to attach some sort of anti-motherhood, anti-rights and freedoms bias on the voices of opposition here. They know that we speak the truth and the situation will be a I have described it. For the benefit of these true detractors of freedom opposite, I would like to acquaint them with the words of the eminent twentieth century philosopher, Hand, who addressed this question in 1942 in a far more eloquent and pertinent way than I have heard any hon. member opposite do. He said that a society so driven that the spirit of moderation is gone, no court can save; that a society where that spirit of moderation flourishes, no court need save; that a society which evades its responsibility by thrusting upon the courts the nurture of that spirit of moderation, in the end will perish.
The Progressive Conservatives want our Constitution brought home and we want it brought home immediately. Last October 2, that was made very clear in this House when the motion was moved by our leader. That motion was voted against by members of the government. The Progressive Conservative Party wants a fair and workable amending formula, arrived at by consensus. The Progressive Conservative party wants the rights and freedoms of Canadians guaranteed in our Constitution.
Our members on the constitutional committee worked effectively to improve the draft charter of rights and freedoms. Thanks to PC initiatives, significant improvements were made in provisions dealing with the handicapped, the deaf, the denominational schools, and the territorial representation at future constitutional conferences.
We would like to see more improvements, too. We believe our Constitution should acknowledge the ultimate supremacy of God, it should guarantee the right of individual Canadians to own property, and it should be strengthened to ensure the true equality of men and women. We want the best possible charter of rights and freedoms for Canadians. But we insist that our rights be approved in Canada, not finalized by the colonial act of another country.
We have proposed that kind of formula-the Vancouver consensus-which as late as last September was accepted in principle by all of the provinces. The Vancouver formula would require that any constitutional changes involving both levels of governement be approved by the federal government, plus at least seven provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the Canadian population. It would protect essential provincial interests involving the rights and powers of their legislatures and the ownership and control of their property and natural resources, all areas in which the provinces have been guaranteed protection since confederation began in 1867.
The Constitution
The Vancouver formula would allow constitutional changes to be approved by Ottawa plus a reasonable provincial majority. It would treat all provinces as equals. The Liberals want a very different kind of amending formula. Under their proposal, two provinces, Quebec and Ontario, would have a permanent veto over any constitutional change, regardless of whether or not they had at that time 25 percent of the population. There would be a different set of rules for Atlantic provinces, and still another set of rules for provinces in western Canada. Provinces would cease to be equals; instead, we would have first, second and even third-class members of the confederation.
The Prime Minister also wants to give Ottawa unilateral power to use a referendum to make constitutional changes without any reference whatsoever to the elected provincial governments and legislatures. That would end completely the partners of Canadian federalism.
There is no doubt in my mind that what this country is moving toward is a new type of government. Perhaps you can call it socialism, perhaps you can call it a republic, but the most important and most dangerous aspect of this move to a new form of government is that it is changing what we have grown to know, understand and appreciate as a group of equal partners coming together freely and willingly. It is changing it into a strong, central, unitary government and it is not going to be accepted by the majority of the people of Canada.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is fond of pointing out that the debate on the Constitution has been going on for almost 50 years. He has said that the consent of the provinces has been sought for 53 years and that for 53 years we have failed. Before I finish my remarks this evening, I intend to point out the fallacy of these statements together with a number of others.
To take part in this historic debate on the twelfth day of March in the year of our Lord 1981 is, of course, a privilege, a privilege that must be extended to every Member of Parliament. It may be difficult to place a different perspective or perhaps a perspective more meaningful to the area I represent in light of all those things that have already been said by those who have already spoken. However, to not enter into the debate and by my silence perhaps indicate, even directly, a support of the government action which is not there would be unthinkable.
I did not personally sit on the committee that undertook an extraordinarily heavy workload for some 14 weeks. Some might say because of that the voice of Prince Edward-Hastings was not properly heard on the committee and in the debate, and that my brief intervention here will not be sufficient. I suggest that I was well represented on the committee, as were the people of Prince Edward-Hastings.
I say with all the emphasis I can muster that on February 4 when the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) introduced an amendment to write into the Constitution that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth of Canada is indeed the Queen of Canada

March 12, 1981
The Constitution
that my interests were being fully represented and properly expressed, as were the wishes of the majority of the people of Prince Edward-Hastings. That was not so when one of the Liberal members of the committee, Mr. Lapierre, stated that within two years we would be rid of the monarchy.
I believe in the rights we enjoy through the parliamentary system, the rights we enjoy through the common law, and the rights which are protected by the Crown. I believe it is important in our Constitution that we guarantee the role and the status of the monarchy, and I for one want to retain that heritage rather than have the republican system being forced upon us.
I was well represented on the committee, and so were the people of Prince Edward-Hastings, when the Hon. Perrin Beatty introduced, with great clarity and detail, an amendment having to do with the right to own property. The family farm, the family business and the family home represent some of the most fundamental elements of Canadian society. Yet, anyone who has ever dreamed of owning his home, farm or business will be disturbed by the fact that, while the Diefen-baker Bill of Rights included the right to enjoy property, the charter of rights proposed by this government in the Constitution is mute on the subject. I believe the right to own property is a fundamental right, a right which should be enjoyed by all Canadians, yet the government opposite with its majority voted down that right.
It is interesting to note that the particular amendment was supported by many organizations from all across Canada, including the Canadian Organization of Small Businesses, the Canadian Bar Association and many others, yet it was turned down. It is indeed frightening that a socialist Prime Minister, supported as he is by a supposedly socialist opposition, purposely wants to omit this right from his charter of rights.
Once again I was well represented on the committee, as were the beliefs of the people of Prince Edward-Hastings when the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) introduced an amendment having to do with the position of the family-and that is the belief of the people of Prince Edward-Hastings- affirming that the Canadian nation is founded upon principles, and acknowledging the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free individuals and free institutions; affirming also that those individuals and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values under the rule of law.
While perhaps not as many people think about it as often, I know my interests and, therefore, the interests of the people of Prince Edward-Hastings, were being well served when the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) spoke on the clause dealing with the freedom of information. We all know the extent of government in Canada, the growth of the bureaucracy and the threat it imposes on the individual in terms of an individual's right to know what the government knows about him. With the computerization of information
and the use of the SIN by the government and by institutions, wrong information and, in some cases, information no longer relevant, can plague a person for the rest of his or her life. Surely under these circumstances they should be entitled to know exactly what is in the file, and they should have that right under freedom of information.
To deal with a more technical aspect of the process, Senator Duff Roblin, on February 2, spoke eloquently on why the so-called Vancouver formula should be used rather than that proposed by the government. Senator Roblin is no stranger to Prince Edward-Hastings, having spoken there on a number of occasions, as indeed have all the other members of that committee.
Basically, what Mr. Roblin was proposing was that the provinces be consulted and given a far more equal chance to create the changes necessary in our Constitution rather than having the federal government do it alone.
So without being present at the committee hearings and without taking an active part in the committee itself, I am content that my interests and those of the people whom I represent were well cared for by that committee. It is indeed unfortunate that each of those rights I have just quoted were turned down by the Liberal majority.
It is my considered opinion that over the almost 114 years of our confederation, we have had very little to be concerned about by way of freedom. It seems to me we are more endangered now by the implementation of the Prime Minister's charter of rights than we ever were before. Not to have these various rights written down has never bothered me. I knew they were there. To write down only some of them indicates that the rest are not available to me, and that concerns me very much.
Why is it so necessary to force a charter of rights through the British parliament at Westminster? Why must we rely on another Parliament to do what we should be doing here at home? Before I answer that, I want to make a point which is particularly important to the people in my area.
The Prime Minister repeatedly and emphatically refers to Great Britain, the United Kingdom, as a foreign country. As one whose parents were born in that foreign country, I resent that allegation very deeply. I resent it more for the way in which it is said than the words themselves. I am confident the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) does not consider Greece a foreign country. I am confident the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) does not think of Germany as a foreign country, at least not in that context. These are the countries in which their parents were born. These are friendly nations, along with many others, which are the birthplaces of many Canadians. This does not make them foreign in the context the Prime Minister uses those words.
As a matter of fact, my father who came to this country in 1913 and voted in every election from the time he was old enough, now, of course, requires a citizenship in order to vote. He, like many others who thought of themselves as British
March 12, 1981

subjects, now must have that piece of paper before they can vote.
It is very obvious to me, and apparently a large number of Canadians, that it is not necessary to involve our friends at Westminster. We could and should do the job ourselves. The Prime Minister made it very clear in his statement of October 2, in his Regina speech of October 29, and at many other times and places, that he cannot achieve an agreement with the premiers of the provinces of Canada. I wonder perhaps if it is not possible that the fault is not all with the premiers. Let me review for a moment just who those ten men are.
The Premier of Quebec, a dynamic and controversial public figure in modern Quebec, was a war correspondent in battle torn Europe. The Hon. Rene Levesque was one of the first western journalists to enter a concentration camp after the war. In political life he was, in part, responsible for Quebec Hydro, but he left the Liberal Party to become the leader of the Parti Quebecois and a separatist government. He has no support for his actions in this House, but one wonders about the strain imposed by a former colleague on him, the present Prime Minister, perhaps causing such actions. It is interesting to note that another colleague, the Liberal leader of the opposition in Quebec disagrees just as fervently with the Prime Minister.
Premier William Bennett of British Columbia knows the world of family business, having operated his own furniture and retail appliance store in the interior of the province for many years. Could it be that the reason they cannot agree is that the Prime Minister has absolutely no knowledge of the working of private business and, frankly, has never had any interest in it?
The controversial Mr. Peter Lougheed, premier of the province of Alberta, has played football and climbed mountains and done those athletic things that the Prime Minister seems to revel in. In addition, he has a Master of Business Administration degree. Would that our present Prime Minister had any knowledge of administering a business! Perhaps we would not be in the trouble we are in today if he did.
Premier Allan Blakeney is an interesting comparison, a highly intelligent individual, as is the Prime Minister, a Rhodes Scholar and one who has socialized or nationalized, industry, whichever you prefer, in the province of Saskatchewan, just as the Prime Minister intends to nationalize the oil industry and perhaps others in Canada.


An hon. Member:: What about PWA?


John Raymond Ellis: Surely they should have much in common, yet Premier Blakeney cannot abide the plans of the Prime Minister. Not only has he withdrawn his support for the proposal but so have the federal Members of Parliament from this province.
Premier William Davis, one of the oldest in terms of length of service to his province, has agreed to support the package after receiving certain concessions from the Prime Minister.
The Constitution


Henry Perrin Beatty: Order, order. Show some courtesy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis) has the floor.


John Raymond Ellis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Their heckling does not bother me. It shows, as it did to others in this House, the respect they have for the Constitution.
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that Premier Davis is philosophically opposed to many of the policies of the Prime Minister. Let me make the point here that Mr. Davis has spoken out strongly about entrenching the monarchy and those rights of which I spoke a moment ago. His support is therefore very important to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Hatfield, another Conservative premier, has also agreed to support the Prime Minister's package. Again philosophically opposed to the Prime Minister in many areas, he has seen fit to support his proposals without some of the concessions gained by Mr. Davis.
Premier Brian Peckford of Newfoundland, a former school teacher, some would say a brash young man, who sincerely and with tremendous spirit fights for the people of Newfoundland, wants for them a better way of life and sees the offshore oil as a way of achieving it. It seems to me that a common sense application of provincial rights, as has been proposed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), would make an ally of this man.
Premier John Buchanan of the province of Nova Scotia is a lawyer and the son of a coal company employee in Sydney. He worked in the blast furnaces of the Sydney Steel Corporation before entering university, and obviously knows what it is like to work, and work hard, for a living. Could one suppose that this is the reason why he and the Prime Minister disagree so strongly on this matter?
Premier Sterling Lyon, who grew up in the rural province of Manitoba, took over that province after the socialists had virtually bankrupted it. He found absolute chaos, and only by the toughest of legislation was he able to start turning the province around. Perhaps'it is because he is so tough and so very Canadian that he is the leader of those who oppose the Prime Minister in his Constitution attempts.
Last, but certainly not least, our very, very good friend the Hon. Angus MacLean, Premier of the province of Prince Edward Island. There is so much that one can say about this quiet Canadian who has done so much for his province, both in the federal House and as premier. Perhaps when you understand that he was shot down as a bomber pilot over Germany during the Second World War, that he escaped from imprisonment and walked the length of Europe to escape from the Nazis and return to fight again, when you compare that with the picture of the present Prime Minister driving around Montreal on a motorcycle with his black leather jacket and his helmet with a swastika on it, perhaps you have some idea of the deep philosophical difference-


An hon. Member:: I thought you had class.

March 12, 1981
The Constitution


John Raymond Ellis: Of these two men, I leave you to judge who would carry the admiration of the majority of Canadians.
So that when the Prime Minister says it is not possible for him to achieve an agreement with the premiers of Canada to go to Westminster, as he should with their unanimous support for this package, maybe, just maybe, it is not the fault of the ten premiers. Maybe, just maybe, it is the fault of an arrogant Prime Minister who will not listen, who does not understand and cares little for the fabric of life of most Canadians, the same Prime Minister who for a number of years got away with arguing against wage and price controls and then put them into effect, who argued against an increase in gasoline prices and home oil costs and then implemented higher prices, who talked about free enterprise and now nationalizes the Canadian oil industry. Is it any wonder that a growing number of Canadians, some 64 per cent at last count and probably much higher now, want nothing to do with the Prime Minister and his package?
His Excellency, Jules Leger, in a speech to the Prime Minister at the time of his appointment as Governor General, finished with these words of Paul the Apostle:
Who makes you, my friend, so important? What do you possess that was not given you? If then you really received it all as a gift, why take the credit to yourself?
How different, when on June 17, 1864, in order to gain co-operation for his dream of a new nation, John A. Macdonald went the extra mile and called on George Brown in his St. Louis Hotel to bring about the broad coalition that ultimately became the federation we call Canada. It was not the first time he had bent, had compromised and, through discussion and negotiation, brought about an agreement between opposing views. How different the persuasion by logic and reason to the confrontation tactics of our present administration.
His Grace, Archbishop Ted Scott appearing before the committee said:
Governments have jurisdiction but they do not have rights in the same sense that people do-they are called to be servants of the people.
And I would quote, Mr. Speaker, the editor of the Trentoni-an, a small newspaper published three times a week in a town just adjacent to mine where my hon. friend, the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) has his constituency, and distributed in my riding, who said this:
Thus the problem which is the major one in what is now happening is one that has affected everything the Trudeau government has done since it first came to power. It tries to do essentially right things by wrong methods. In a true democracy, which is what we are supposed to be, the method is as important as the end in view. Trudeau's present course of action reveals an attitude on his part which we have seen all too often, which being spelled out, means that he seems to think the end justified the means. That is bad philosophy.
Finally, the last of my quotations, Mr. Speaker, is from my good friend, Phil Dodds, the sage and conscience of Cherry Valley. Writing in the Picton Gazette he said:
The change will not mean a great deal to the majority of Canadians; it will not provide jobs and help the million unemployed; it will not reduce the crushing
burden of debt; it will not reduce inflation, or in any general way make for a better life. One thing it is sure to do is to cause further disunity in a country that can only really progress if there is unity and co-operation.
Certainly there is need, and I think an expressed desire by many, perhaps the majority of Canadians, to have their own Constitution in Canada. I feel that way. Certainly it is time that it was done. But the reason for doing it should not be to satisfy one man's ego. It should be done by Canadians, for Canadians, with the help of all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Raymond Ellis: Our party has offered an easy out for the Prime Minister, and that is to split the bill, bring back the Constitution with an amending formula that, while not entirely agreed upon, is very nearly so. It seems to me that the best thing the Prime Minister could do for his country would be to step down, retire and allow someone else who has the best interests of this country at heart to a far greater degree, rather than personal egotism. I am confident that those ten men, whose various backgrounds I described a few moments ago, would come together with someone of the right calibre and move ahead to make this a better Canada.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, at seven minutes to ten I am not about to embark on the substance of my remarks. But tonight I want to put in the right perspective what I will say tomorrow.
When I first came here, which is longer ago than I want to reflect upon, we in Yukon felt neglected. There was a sitting Liberal member at the time who had been here for eight years. We have had a member since 1903, which is before many of the provinces became provinces. We thought that perhaps a solution to assist in our economic ills, our lack of development and our lack of progress-since the Marshall Aid Plan was still in force at that time-was to declare war on the state of Alaska, lose it, and then apply for Marshall aid. This gives you some idea of the view which we in the north held with respect to the manner in which southern Canadians viewed themselves-their mentality reached to the sixtieth parallel and no further.
The other event that I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members, in order to put things in proper perspective for tomorrow, is with respect to a great deal of reading I did before I came here. To my shock and dismay I found that of the three districts in the Northwest Territories, the Mackenzie, Keewatin, and Franklin districts, there is only one which was represented in Parliament, namely, the Mackenzie District. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who is entering the chamber now, was not here at the time I introduced my private bill. But I am sure he is aware of the fact that the Franklin and Keewatin districts of the Northwest Territories were not represented in Parliament. The Mackenzie District was. The member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) now represents that area; but in 1957 there was no representation there.
At that time, I introduced a private member's bill which would have given the franchise, the vote, to those Canadians
March 12, 1981

who live in that part of Canada. There was some resistance to that bill. I wondered why and I made inquiries. When the answer to the question came forward from the Privy Council Office as to why there should be resistance to a measure which would give the franchise to these Canadians in these two districts of the Northwest Territories, the answer was that they were mainly Eskimos in that part of the country and they would be extremely susceptible to the views of the Anglican church, which dominated those two areas of Canada. Therefore, they said it would be too dangerous to give these people the franchise. That was the answer given to me. Of course, it was an answer which I rejected out of hand, which every fair-minded Canadian would reject. Eventually the measure was passed the same year it was introduced. Hence, we now have sitting in this place the hon. member for Nunatsiaq.
Those two illustrations might give hon. members some idea of the sense of isolation that we in the two northern territories have felt for a long time. It is what I often call the "southern mentality" or the "southern Canadian syndrome." So often in this debate, I have heard expressions like "federal-provincial", "across Canada" and "from sea to sea." There has been nothing said that takes the mental vision of Canada beyond the sixtieth parallel which, after all, composes some 40 per cent of our country in land and water mass. That is very difficult to understand for Canadians who have lived in the north. The only place I have heard the expression "from sea to sea to sea" has been on this side. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said it in his remarks, as did the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), and as did others from our party who have participated in this debate. They have mentioned the three seas of Canada. They have used the phrase "throughout Canada" instead of "across Canada."
At this time of one minute to ten o'clock I want to leave that thought with you, Mr. Speaker, before embarking tomorrow on the substance of my remarks as to how I feel about the fact that we in the north have been left out of these constitutional considerations and how, in all justice, we should fit into these constitutional considerations.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the question I wish to raise tonight was raised in the House on February 20, 1981, and can be found at page 7513 of Hansard. It was a question which was directed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) asking him to give the House an assurance that the interim freight assistance program for rapeseed products, which expires on March 31, would be extended. I was also asking whether consideration would be given for allowing an increase in the amount of the subsidy to allow for inflation and the increase in the movement of rape-seed products.
I was very disappointed by the fact that the Minister of Transport sluffed off my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray). Then I repeated my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who indicated that the matter was under consideration. I find it strange that the Minister of Transport would not attempt to answer this question. He is well aware of the fact that numerous representations have been made to him directly by the rapeseed processing industry.
The name "rapeseed" has recently been changed to canola. Over the course of the next few months and years, I presume the term "rapeseed" will disappear and the term "canola" will take its place. So when we talk about rapeseed or canola, we are talking about one and the same thing.
The interim rate subsidy provided funds to meet the difference between the freight rate applied to the movement of raw rapeseed and that of processed rapeseed. Unprocessed rape-seed moves to export position under the statutory freight rate, which is roughly a half a cent a tonne mile. Prior to 1976, processed rapeseed products moved at the going commercial rate. Of course, this mitigated against the rapeseed crushing industry, which is simply after parity in terms of freight rates. In other words, it wants the freight rate on processed product to equal roughly that on unprocessed products.
Of course, the reason is very clear. The rapeseed crushing industry is perhaps one of the very few significant, indigenous, value-added, agriculturally-based industries in western Canada. Its growth and development has created a new market. It has provided a very valuable source of domestic vegetable oil. It has become a very major and important export market. Above all, it creates economic opportunities within the regions where rapeseed is produced. It creates jobs. It is an area wherein we can broaden the agricultural base by encouraging the further processing of agricultural products.
A minimum compensatory rate was established by order in council in 1976. Of course, there has been some question about the level of that rate. Certainly it is not a rate which only covers the variable fixed costs. It is a freight rate about which the rapeseed industry has some serious reservations. They asked the Minister of Transport to propose an independent

March 12, 1981
Adjournment Debate
review. The freight rate was established by the Canadian Transport Commission, but it has never been totally accepted. Until such time as the whole question of the statutory freight rate would be resolved-and back in 1976, Mr. Otto Lang, the former minister, felt it would be resolved in due course-an interim freight subsidy was established to help processors defray the gap, so that there would be some semblance of parity between the two freight rates. It was established at $3 million. As one can appreciate, the amount of product moved has increased and the prescribed freight rates have increased.
As a matter of fact, on February 11, the existing minimum compensatory freight rate was increased by 10 per cent to 15 per cent. We are really looking at two issues. First, we are looking for assurance from the government that the interim freight subsidy will be renewed after its expiration on March 31 and, second, on behalf, of the rapeseed industry, we are asking that consideration be given to increasing the level of that subsidy to cover more closely a sizeable portion of that gap-
I hope the parliamentary secretary who will be responding tonight will give the rapeseed crushing industry some assurance that that will be continued because I am sure he well appreciates that forward sales and markets are now being made, and the increase of 10 per cent to 15 per cent in the minimum compensatory rate has now already reduced the margin by $2.50 to $3 per tonne. So I hope the parliamentary secretary will give us a positive response because I can assure hon. members that it will be welcomed by the crushing industry and by producers of this very valuable product for western Canada and for all of Canada.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), the former minister of transport for whom I have the highest esteem. Although he may regret that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has referred his question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), whose parliamentary secretary I am, it is with pleasure that I shall try to answer his question although I know in advance that I may very well be unable to meet his expectations since the hon. member wants to know definitely whether his requests or his recommendations will be accepted. Mr. Speaker, in my answer I will explain the program and at the same time try to convince the hon. member that his hopes may soon be fulfilled.

The freight assistance program was initiated by the federal government in December, 1976. As the hon. member said, it was meant to compensate the western processors by giving them an adjustment for higher freight rates for rapeseed oil and meal.
The hon. member seems to be interested in the prolongation of this program, and I agree with him. He referred to the need
of the processors, but he forgot-and it would have been a good occasion at this time of night-to give detailed information to this assembly on the benefit this program has brought about. Since its inception, the program has given extensive assistance to processors. As much as $12.9 million has been given to the seven processing plants in western Canada. The program has been useful in contributing to the financial viability of the processors.
Since the 1970s-and, in fact, since the beginning of that decade-as hon. members will be aware, the rapeseed processing industry has demonstrated significant growth. Crushing capacity has expanded by more than 25 per cent over the past five years. This has been in line with rapeseed oil production in Canada, which has increased to a level where it now meets 50 per cent of the total domestic market requirement.
The hon. member spoke of exports. Our export performance has also been very impressive over the past five years. Rape-seed oil exports have increased from 20,000 tonnes to 120,000 tonnes. Our export performance for rapeseed meal-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Answer the question.


Gérald Laniel: -over the past five years has been more spectacular and has increased from 21,000 tonnes to 162,000 tonnes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Gérald Laniel: The answer will come, Mr. Speaker, by the end of the month.


TRADE-IMPORTATION OF JAPANESE AUTOMOBILES-INQUIRY RESPECTING QUOTAS
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: On February 9,1 asked the Minister of Industry Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) whether, in light of his failure to secure concessions from Japanese automobile manufacturers to fabricate their vehicles in Canada and in light of Japan's establishment and maintenance of non-tariff barriers, it might not be prudent for this government to impose quotas on the importation into Canada of Japanese automobiles.
I expressed major concern at that time for the Canadian autoworkers who have been and will continue to be laid off if Japanese automobiles manufactured in Japan continue to flood the Canadian market. I drew the attention of the minister to actions that had been taken by the government of France and pending United States legislation which would enforce such quotas. The minister's response to me was to the effect that the Japanese automobile industry was privately-owned and was not government controlled. I recognize that fact, else how could it have been so successful?
What the minister did not say, although I am convinced he was so informed, is that there exists in Japan a close liaison between government and industry. The government of Japan is intent upon protecting its industrial base through the imposi-
March 12, 1981

tion of non-tariff barriers of the very kind that the minister acknowledged in his response to me. For years, the Japanese have skilfully managed to preclude entry into their markets of the products of foreign nations which have been manufactured while at the same time flooding other countries with their own finished products. Their chief tactics have been prolonged negotiations and substantial delay in the removal of the nontariff barriers.
In the interval, their manufactured trade surpluses have soared, while ours have declined. As a specific illustration, in 1980, the importation of Japanese vehicles to Canada increased 151 per cent over the level established in 1979. Knowing these facts, the minister responded to my question with respect to quotas, as reported at page 7020 of Hansard, as follows:
With respect to the matter of quotas, if the U.S. Congress legislates quotas, in my view it will be necessary for the Canadian authorities to consider taking parallel action within our own legal framework and in light of our own circumstances. That is why I said we are watching the Canadian situation and the American situation very closely. Because we have an integrated industry on a North American basis, I think we must be very careful about the timing and extent of our actions.
At the present time I think our priorities, in the interests of Canadian workers, should be to strive to increase the level of Canadian content in Japanese vehicles sold in North America and around the world and, in the meantime, to keep in touch with the situation so that we are ready to take other action in the interests of Canadian workers and the Canadian economy should circumstances make that necessary.
I was troubled by that response, Mr. Speaker. What the minister is suggesting, in essence, is that the automobile industry in North America, between Canada and the United States, is integrated as a consequence of the Auto Pact. We may, because of that integration, consider following a policy established by the United States, but we must do so being careful to watch our timing and the extent of our actions. The one thing the minister has not suggested is that we do anything on our own.
Last weekend, the Secretary of Commerce in the United States commented that the United States administration intended to impose quotas on Japanese manufactured automobiles. The minister, who was in the House a moment ago, appeared on television that same evening and indicated that Canada would undoubtedly follow suit.
Why is it that if Canada and the U.S. are linked in an integrated automobile industry, the U.S. can take that initial necessary step but our country cannot? Why could Canada not have taken the lead for once in remedying a known ill? The answer lies in the administrations of both countries. In the U.S. we now have a government determined to force the hand of the Japanese by taking those aggressive steps necessary to convince them that now is the time for business. In Canada, on the other hand, we have a government which will wait, hope and pray that something is done to save the Canadian automobile industry and the employees who work for that industry.
I submit that the minister should spend less time, and I quote his words, "watching closely, keeping in touch and
Adjournment Debate
monitoring situations" and spend more time taking strong action and taking that action to determine that the present ill is remedied.
Unfortunately, under his tutelage, Industry, Trade and Commerce has become the department of indolence, timidity and cowardice, and I do not think that serves the people of Canada well.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble), I want to say that, to my mind, leadership means to achieve the achievable. It does not mean to dream about something that you cannot realize. Maybe you can base your life and day to day decisions on the ultimate solution and possibilities, but you do not always reach them.
As far as the automobile industry and its difficulties in our country are concerned, the Canadian government has been vigorously pursuing its interest in greater sourcing by Japanese companies of Canadian auto parts as well as in mutually beneficial investment in Canada, with the aim of achieving a significant Canadian content in Japanese cars sold in North America and in world markets. Anyone would hope that all of the Japanese cars sold in Canada would be made in Canada. One of these days we might reach that end, but let us do it one step at a time. To this end, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) visited Tokyo last year for high-level meetings with the Japanese government and the private sector automotive interests.
His visit has been followed up by exchanges of government and private sector missions between the two countries and a number of specific interests and opportunities have been identified and are being pursued, particularly in the auto parts area. Honda's purchasing activity in Canada has increased significantly. While the Canadian government would prefer to see current automotive trading problems resolved through a positive and faster approach, we are watching very closely developments related to the level of vehicle imports into Canada and the import-restrictive pressures which are building in other markets, including the United States and Europe. We have been keeping in close touch with the U.S. administration on further developments in this area-as the hon. member mentioned, but he does not seem to appreciate that-including recent Congressional initiatives, and we believe, particularly in the event of any U.S. action, that, Canadian authorities would need to consider parallel moves within our own legal framework and in the light of our own circumstances.
In the interim, we have formally expressed our concerns to the Japanese authorities regarding the question of vehicle imports and, as a result, the Japanese ministry of international trade and industry has requested that Japanese auto manufacturers exercise caution in exports to Canada.

March 12, 1981
Adjournment Debate


HOUSING-INTRODUCTION OF SHELTER ALLOWANCE PROGRAM
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, on March 9, I directed several questions to the minister responsible for CMHC. I asked whether the minister intends to use shelter allowances as a means of doing away with rent controls since he was quoted on March 2 in the Toronto Star as advocating the lifting of rent controls as a means of holding down inflated house prices. This is a theory I cannot comprehend because I believe that shelter allowances without rent controls inevitably will inflate, not reduce, shelter costs.
The minister asked me to direct these questions to provincial ministers, despite his earlier outspoken statements opposing rent controls. Of course, we know that he was muzzled by the Ontario election. The minister also refused a direct answer to my question about who will benefit from shelter allowances and how the minister intends to prevent rent gouging by landlords when there are no rent controls.
I was even more concerned when the minister gave no reassurance that the S400 million required for shelter allowances would in no way limit the amount of CMEIC funds which are urgently needed for non-profit housing and for community service grants required for municipal land banking programs.
My concern was based on the fact that CMHC capital funds recently were cut back by $2 million and allocations for non-profit housing were reduced by 5,000 units, very severe cutbacks when affordable housing is desperately needed throughout all regions of Canada.
I cannot agree with the minister's theory that housing allowances would be less effective where there are rent controls. Rent controls allow landlords annual increments based on the rate of inflation, and they can deduct their costs from their income tax. One cannot expect landlords to subsidize low-income tenants, but they must not also exploit tenants by raising rents, as they would be tempted to do if shelter allowances were provided. Therefore, we must also have fair rent controls.
In British Columbia, a single parent with two children on social assistance is allowed $325 maximum for shelter. Since most two bedroom apartments cost close to $500, the difference must be paid from food allowances. Rent controls are essential to ensure that any additional shelter allowance would go to help pay present rents and would not result in rent increases.
According to a CMHC background paper, shelter allowances could relieve the housing woes of more than 400,000 families who spend a disproportionate amount of their income on rent. This proposal would cost close to $400 million. I sincerely hope this is possible, but I am somewhat skeptical. In B.C. the SAFER program of shelter allowances for senior citizens costs approximately $9 million and covers only 30 per cent of those over age 65. Most of them pay close to 40 per
cent of their incomes on rent, and only a small portion of this cost is covered by the SAFER allowance.
Although I support the concept of the shelter allowance, I would not want other social housing programs to suffer. In 1978, a report by the Canadian Council on Social Development contained the following statement:
No one program can answer all needs. At best, housing allowances would be a suitable program response for 51 per cent of problem households.. . . Housing allowances will not and should not serve as a replacement for the direct provision of subsidized housing units. Housing allowances are not a panacea. They are at best stop-gap measures.
I had hoped the minister would answer my question by saying that shelter allowances are needed, perhaps administered provincially and with shared funding from the Canada Assistance Plan. They should be part of a multifaceted approach to solving Canada's housing problems. However, if there are not enough apartments to rent or if these are of poor quality, all the allowances in the world will not provide adequate affordable housing. Therefore, we must protect and increase CMHC dollars for non-profit housing units and affordable land. We must extend RRAP home repairs, especially in older parts of Canada, and we must return to improved public housing to house low-income Canadians who desperately need help.


Mr. Raymond Savard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) concerning shelter allowances and rent controls, I would say her question is twofold. As regards the shelter allowances, the minister did not announce that he had the intention of establishing such a program. I insist on that. He simply said that it might be a good idea to examine the subject. Mr. Speaker, the shelter allowances would represent a significant and additional advantage of social housing programs. He mentioned this subject so it could be discussed at the national conference on housing. The hon. member is aware that a certain number of sessions during that conference were devoted to social housing. The minister delivered a speech on social housing and housing for native people. There again he wanted to launch a discussion on that issue. I might add that at the closing session all the experts who took part in the forum said that although the conference had been very productive, not enough attention had been paid to the question of native and rural housing. It has emerged from the discussions held during the conference that the shelter allowance program may replace the current social housing programs. It has also emerged that non-profit co-operative housing programs are fulfilling a serious need in a tight rental housing market. I share this point of view and I maintain that the shelter allowance program has the advantage of better conciliating the current programs with the needs of tight renting housing markets. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it should be clearly understood from what he said that the shelter allow-
March 12, 1981

ance program must not be considered as a substitute for the existing social housing programs. The non-profit co-operative housing programs would be maintained. As to the second part of the question, Mr. Speaker, dealing with rent control, I can only repeat what the minister has already said in this House, that it should be referred to the provincial ministers concerned.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.26 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


END OF VOLUME VII