1981-03-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, because of the urgency of immediately upgrading the standards at the Hobbema school in Alberta by transferring its control to the Indians themselves, and because the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) promised last September to provide $96,000 to the bands to aid in that task, yet has now reneged on that promise, I move, under Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development cure himself of his habit of making promises he cannot keep and immediately provide the Four Bands Reserve with the moneys promised.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



NATIONAL PENSIONS CONFERENCE


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that both CNR and CPR have, for many years, failed to provide adequate increases to their pensioners so that they can even hope to cover a part of the ravages created by inflation, which is now in double-digit figures, and in view of the fact that concerns expressed by the Canadian Railways Employees Pension Association that the CNR may have manipulated figures to reduce its financial obligation to the pension fund by hundreds of millions of dollars, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That this House call upon the minister to request that both the CNR and CPR appear at the National Pensions Conference planned for the end of March to provide complete details and all relevant documents, to answer any charges and clear up all misunderstandings and, further, to indicate how in the future these corporations will meet their moral obligations in providing to their former employees more reasonable pension increases in the face of double-digit inflation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43. As critic responsible for the status of men I deplore the continuing discrimination, particularly by this government, against the male minority, which does not enjoy rights granted to the female majority, which has its own advisory council and its own minister. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That this House instruct the government to establish an advisory council on the status of men reporting directly to Parliament and, further, since membership in the Advisory Council on the Status of Women is composed of women Liberals, that membership of the men's council be drawn from male members of the opposition parties.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



MIGRATORY BIRDS


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the current waterfowl depredation program, which does not provide adequate compensation for producers, is negotiated annually between the federal and provincial governments, and since the government of the United States does not accept

March 19, 1981
its responsibility of participating in this program, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo):
That when negotiations start on the waterfowl depredation program for the coming year the American government be asked to participate in the negotiations and that these negotiations focus on an ongoing program that will adequately compensate producers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Rene Gingras (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion relating to an urgent and important question.
Considering that since the beginning of the constitutional debate the House has listened to more than 170 speeches on that topic and that, as the debate progresses, we do not seem to be hearing new and valid arguments, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Tousignant):
That the official opposition agree to extend the sitting hours until midnight, if need be and if they still have something to say on the subject, so that the House may go on to other equally important problems facing Canadians, such as inflation, unemployment and economic issues.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to 8,000 western cattle producers who have not received assistance from the federal government drought plan announced last year. By the way, it was breeding time when the plan was announced last year. It is now calving time. The program has a longer gestation period than that of a cow. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That this House instruct the federal government to establish a method of appeal for the 20 per cent, or 8,000 cattle producers, the minister responsible for the program has said would not receive payment before the March 31 expiry of the program.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



SMALL BUSINESS


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker,
I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to thousands of small businesses across Canada which will be adversely affected by Bill C-57. Since in its piecemeal attempt at tax review, the government has levied a new sales tax on small businesses, businesses which will now be classified as manufacturers for tax purposes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish):
That these same businesses now be considered eligible for federal enterprise development programs designed for manufacturers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, whereas the government has unilaterally cancelled the very worth-while native sport and recreation program which provides jobs and much needed fitness and health programs to native people all across Canada, particularly in isolated regions, and whereas this program has proven extremely successful in combating many health and social problems which native communities often encounter, and whereas the government has provided nothing to replace this valuable program, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That this House direct the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to act immediately to provide interim funding so this program may continue through the summer and establish a study committee in consultation with native people to determine how best these program objectives can be maintained in the long term.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell), I move:
That this House recognizes that couples 65 years of age or over have to spend one fifth of their income on food, and that food prices are rising at the rate of 16 or 18 per cent, which means that the present system of indexing falls far short of enabling senior citizens to maintain an adequate standard of living, or even to remain above the poverty line, and this House therefore calls on the government to implement its promise to provide help where help is needed by making an immediate increase in the rate of the pension paid to Canada's senior citizens.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that Canada's claim to our traditional fishing rights off the coast of the Alaska panhandle
is considered to be fully defensible in law, and by virtue of the fact that many salmon caught off the Alaska panhandle are spawned in Canadian waters, I move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That in future boundary negotiations with the United States, the Canadian government shall insist on a seaward fishing boundary proceeding in a northwesterly direction from Cape Muzon, and not more than 12 miles from the coastline of the Alaska panhandle.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



HEALTH CARE


Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter which is not only urgent but, literally, a life and death situation. I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House on this motion, and hence am presenting it after the election campaign in Ontario but before the new government takes office. It concerns the quality of health care in the province of Ontario which is funded by the federal government to the tune of many billions of dollars. We have been informed by individuals and organizations, by doctors, nurses, physiotherapists and many other health care professionals, as well as individual Canadians who live in Ontario, that due to hospital budgetary cuts by the previous government of Ontario, people who require intensive care-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Peter Joseph Lang: -are being kept out of intensive care units, that people who require coronary care are being kept out of coronary care units, that senior citizens who require-	.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Will the hon. member conclude his motion?


Peter Joseph Lang: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki):
Thai this House urge the new government of Ontario which will be elected today to set priorities in its budgets to address the problems of lives being lost due to the deterioration of the health care system in Ontario.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 19, 1981
Oral Questions
[DOT] (MI5)



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, in view of news reports that the NDP caucus leadership has frozen out the four caucus members who disagree with their leader on the constitutional question, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman):
That the black arm bands worn by members of that caucus to show disrespect for the visit of President Reagan be reissued as a sign of mourning for disrespect for personal opinion and individual freedom within the New Democratic Party.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans I will direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, simply because the questions overlap.
Yesterday an official of the United States state department stated that no negotiations on an east coast fisheries treaty between the United States and Canada will begin until the maritime boundary dispute between the two countries is settled by the International Court of Justice at the Hague, an action which I submit will take at least four or five years. Is it the intention of the present government to continue its conservation quotas for Canadians in this area until the boundary dispute is settled?
Will the government persecute the crews of nine scallop draggers, which were raided yesterday in my home town of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, for allegedly catching undersized scallops, when Americans catch and market the same size scallops, or will an attempt be made to secure an interim conservation agreement with the United States for the benefit of the fishermen of both countries?
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Madam Speaker, I think I should leave it to my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, to answer part of that question on a subsequent occasion. But with respect to the international aspect of it, let me say that it is
very important to distinguish between a fisheries agreement, even an interim fisheries agreement, and a conservation plan.
As I understood the comment made yesterday before the United States Senate committee by a U.S. government official, he was talking about a full interim fisheries arrangement.
I think we would have to say that we sadly regard the fisheries arrangement in the form of a treaty as no longer possible of attainment until the boundary question is settled. But with respect to conservation measures, we stated very forcefully to the Americans last week, during their visit, that we not only expected to be fully consulted on a conservation measure which they would bring into force, but that we expected a conservation measure to be put into effect. Of course, that is also the position we would prefer to continue with our own fishermen.


REQUEST THAT CANADIAN DELEGATION VISIT WASHINGTON
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. In light of the position stated yesterday by an official of the United States state department before its Senate foreign relations committee that recall of the fisheries treaty is "total", and that no negotiations can begin, even on an interim solution, until the maritime boundary question is settled and, as I said a moment ago, in light of the present overfishing by Americans in this area and the potential for complete destruction of the stocks if this action continues indefinitely, will the minister take the initiative to put together a delegation led by himself, consisting of officials of his department, Members of Parliament from all parties who are interested, and fishing groups, to approach the United States government in an attempt to persuade it to modify its position on this important matter?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I am not sure we have to persuade the United States administration to modify its position, because it wants a conservation measure as much as we do. It may well be difficult to set it up with the co-operation of the fishermen of the United States.
Certainly I appreciate the fact that there is good will on all sides of the House with respect to this, and that we all have a common interest in putting forward a strong position vis-a-vis the United States government, particularly the United States Congress. I will certainly discuss with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the hon. member's suggestion about the appropriate forms of representation, including a delegation.


QUOTAS ALLOCATED TO EUROPEAN FISHING FLEETS
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. I can assure him that we are endeavouring to be helpful and will concur in any genuine effort which is made to try to come to some form of agreement.
March 19, 1981

Since we are obviously facing an impasse on fisheries problems between our two countries, has the minister considered discussing with his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, revising the fishing quotas allocated to European-based fishing fleets within our 200-mile limit, and using those stocks as a bargaining chip to induce the American government to take a more enlightened position on the fisheries management treaty, since at present there is no quid pro quo for,Canada on these fishing quotas now being allocated to European-based fleets?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, with respect to any existing arrangements by which we are bound with European countries, I think we would not be at liberty to depart from those. In fact, we are in the process of negotiating a new arrangement with the European Economic Community. At the moment it seems that it will not be very easily negotiated. Perhaps in light of that fact there may be, indeed, additional fish and additional fishing quotas about which the hon. member and I could talk.


NEGOTIATION OF WEST COAST FISHING BOUNDARY
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On March 9 in this House the Secretary of State undertook to raise west coast boundary and fisheries treaty matters on the occasion of the visit of the President of the United States. I would like to ask the minister if press reports are correct to the effect that Canada has reached a tentative agreement, not merely at the officials level but at the political level, on either the west coast fisheries salmon treaty or the boundaries issue? If not, what progress has been made in recent days as a consequence of the recent visit by the President of the United States?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, there has been considerable progress made with respect to the tuna fishery on the west coast, but with respect to the salmon and boundaries questions, those are at an earlier stage.
However, our negotiators report that they have achieved significant advances in the talks. Therefore, in the near future cabinet will have to decide whether or not to go on with the negotiations and, of course, the terms on which the negotiations should continue.


BRITISH COLUMBIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear that. In the same vein, then, I would like to ask either the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who has just taken his seat, or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, what specific boundaries on the west coast the government is prepared to advance on behalf of Canada? I ask this in light of recent submissions and resolutions passed
Oral Questions
by the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce which suggest that Canada stand firm on the traditional A-B boundary line in Dixon Entrance, insist on redrawing the fisheries boundary off the coast of the Alaska panhandle to reflect better the traditional fishing access of Canadian fishing vessels and, finally, that the federal government reflect the proposal of the provincial government that, in the San Juan extension, the southern fishery boundary follow the San Juan Canyon route rather than the equidistant line.
Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or the Secretary of State tell the House if the Government of Canada will follow these recommendations of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and British Columbia fishermen? If these matters cannot be resolved by bilateral discussion, may the House be informed as to whether they also could be submitted to the international tribunal, should that initiative be required with respect to east coast boundaries matters?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, we will take very seriously the representations both of the hon. gentleman and of his province. I think I should distinguish between the two issues. On the salmon issue, the negotiations have made great progress and are far advanced. The boundaries issue is not at that stage at this time. As I said, we will very seriously consider this point of view.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the minister offered voluntary restraint by organized labour, organized business and individuals as his flimsy solution to the problems of a 12.2 per cent inflation rate. Wage increases have fallen behind the cost of living for the fourth year in a row.
Since the doctors of Manitoba are demanding 49 per cent fee increases, B.C. doctors are demanding a 44 per cent hike, and the Ontario doctors just turned down a 15 per cent offer, does the minister intend to call in the heads of the provincial medical associations and ask the doctors of Canada to restrain their excessively inflationary demands before our medicare scheme is wrecked?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, it would be more appropriate for provincial ministers to deal with the question of rising costs in provinces. As the hon. member may recall, the last time we had a very serious increase in wage rates in Canada the provincial premiers themselves met together and requested the federal government to take action in the way of wage and price controls. It seems to me that it would be appropriate, at an early stage, for all levels of government to

March 19, 1981
Oral Questions
take into account the impact of excessive wage settlements or wage demands in the current inflationary environment. 1 appreciate the interest of the hon. member in drawing this very important matter to our attention.


REQUEST THAT OIL COMPANIES FREEZE PRICES TEMPORARILY
Mark Willson Rose: Passing the buck to the provincial ministers may be all well and good, but in this case let us examine the oil companies, those dandy corporate citizens, whose profits are up 40 per cent over the last year, and just got caught with their arm in the cookie jar for another $12 billion; $175 million on inventory mark-ups-a big cookie jar-with six cents a gallon on oil, piggybacked on the March 1 price increase.
I would like the minister to call in those oil maggots, just for a little friendly discussion, and examine with them the effect of their behaviour on inflation rates in Canada, and to ask these high rollers to set an example for the rest of the country by freezing the price of oil, at least for a while.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: All along, the government has resisted the requests of the oil industry to move up oil prices to the world level. We have taken quite a different view in that respect than the industry itself because we understand the impact which accelerating energy prices does have and is having, and which, if moved to the world level, would be even greater. For example, in the last year energy prices increased 24 per cent. We believe that is considerable. I want to assure the hon. member that that particular point has been taken into account.
In addition to that, I remind him that in the budget I did levy additional taxes on the oil and gas industry. In all honesty, I am somewhat disappointed by the lack of enthusiasm of the New Democratic Party for these additional taxes on the oil and gas industry.


PROFITS MADE BY CHARTERED BANKS
Mark Willson Rose: The minister, in his obfuscation, neglected to mention the profits and the excessive gouging. That is really what my question was about. Let us take the chartered banks. We have here-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member just ask the question?


An hon. Member:: Just ask the question, Madam Speaker said. You are not Ed Broadbent.


Mark Willson Rose: I want to ask whether the minister will call into his office the heads of the chartered banks, who have similarly been profiteering, to talk to them about the spread between the interest rates on money which is on deposit and the interest rates which they charge for mortgages and loans. If the minister cannot bring the chartered banks into his office and
ask them for help, will he take a stroll down to the Senate where all the board members of the chartered banks sit?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: A stroll to the Senate seems more inviting than to call in the presidents of the banks. But let me-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Let me tell the hon. member that it is true that the profitability of the banks, as has been discussed in the House already, has been somewhat healthy in the last period. I have asked the House to take a look at the profitability of the banks over the preceding several quarters and over the preceding year to see whether, on the basis of a fairly extended period of time, a claim can be made that profits are excessive. It is for that reason that I have asked the House to take a longer view, not only of the past period but the current period and some months into the future, and at that time make up its mind whether, in fact, there have been excessive profits. In the meantime I intend to monitor the situation, and if action is required I will be prepared to consider it.


PROTECTION FOR SENIOR CITIZENS AGAINST INFLATION
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Minister of Finance who yesterday told this House that the Economic Council of Canada concurred with his view that Canada's old age pensioners are "fully protected" from inflation by the present system of indexing. Since the Economic Council of Canada said no such thing in its report on pensions, and since some preliminary estimates by former council staff indicate that pensioners are being short-changed by about $50 million to $60 million per year, will the minister either stop the sham of insisting that pensioners are being protected through indexing, or will he put some truth into the statement by returning that $50 million to $60 million to Canada's senior citizens?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I disagree totally with the premise of the hon. member's question. I disagree totally and completely because the Canadian pension system-the guaranteed income supplement, the old age security-both systems, are fully guaranteed and adjusted quarterly, not bi-annually as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


PENSION PRICE INDEX FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that the minister has such an open mind on this subject. I should like to point out to him that the estimated spread between the cost of living index and a pension price index is in the order of 4 per cent, which means that pensioners
March 19, 1981

today are facing 16 per cent inflation rather than the 12.2 per cent that has been indicated.
Will the minister at least re-examine an indexing system which pays pensions according to data which is seven years out of date and which does not reflect the spending habits of senior citizens or will he use his considerable influence in the government to ensure that necessary studies on a pension price index will take place?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the constructive tone of the question and the constructive intention. I will be glad, as I have begun already, to discuss the matter further with the Minister of National Health and Welfare. My understanding is that if a basket of necessities commonly used by senior citizens or pensioners were put together as a basis for a cost of living index, it would not provide a significant improvement to the pensioners as compared with the current cost of living index. But I would be quite prepared to look at the studies upon which the current index is based to see whether it could be improved. My current information is that there is no appreciable improvement that could be reached through a change in the basket of necessities.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Can he indicate to the House whether the government was aware of the activities alleged to have been indulged in by the former British High Commissioner to Canada, Sir Peter Hayman and, if so, what action has been taken, or what action does the government plan to take?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, the RCMP were not aware of the matters to which the hon. member refers. We do not propose an investigation into them. If the matter requires the attention of anyone, which is not for us to say, it would be a matter for British authorities.


Peter Elzinga: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that there are alleged overtones of sexual involvement with children, and in view of the fact that the High Commissioner had close links with the intelligence community in Canada, does the government not think that this warrants an investigation in order to clear the air in Canada, since he was High Commissioner for that period of time?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, any improper or illegal activities that might have involved children, as the hon. member knows, would be a matter for municipal police forces or provincial police forces and would not fall within the federal policing program of the RCMP.
Oral Questions
So far as the national security interest is involved, we are not aware of any national security interest that was prejudiced by any of these alleged acts.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Reports from Washington this morning indicate that two days ago the Defence Systems Acquisition Review Council at a meeting which was to have given the go-ahead for production of the fighter version of the F-18, decided instead to re-examine the entire program critically. Would the minister confirm the accuracy of these reports and, if they are correct, could he tell us what implications they have for the Canadian fighter purchase?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, it just happens that I had a conversation with the Canadian ambassador to Washington a few moments ago to check on these rumours and allegations that I have heard from that side of the House. The ambassador told me that there was no such rumour in Washington and that there was no question of reducing the F-18 program at the moment. No decision has been taken, and GAO report is still under consideration and a decision will be taken in due time.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, the minister did not really reply to the question that 1 asked. I referred to a DSARC recommendation that came out two days ago which says that instead of going ahead with full production, the program will be critically re-examined. This will delay it further.
I would submit to the minister that if these reports are true, that this information, coupled with all the other information about the failings of the fighter, including the most recent recommendation of the United States chief of navy materiel that the program be cancelled, indicates that the program has serious problems in the United States. That being the case, has the minister or his department any plans to cut Canada's losses now while we have the opportunity, or is he still prepared to let our armed forces be saddled with a $4 billion white elephant?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Madam Speaker, I do not know what the aim of the hon. member is in regard to the F-18. He should know, because he probably reads all the reports I get from most of the program managers, that in 1979 811 F-18 aircraft were planned. That was raised later to 1,377. Every year they review the program to see how, year by year, the United States Defence Department and the navy have performed. I would ask the hon. member to stop these rumours and allegations and to stick to the full report that he receives regularly, even from my department.
8406

March 19, 1981
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


NATIONAL PENSIONS CONFERENCE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and it relates to the participation of the provincial governments in the forthcoming national conference on pensions which, to my mind, will be very significant for the well-being of present and future pensioners. I would like to know if Mr. Levesque's PQ government has responded positively to the Canadian government's invitation to attend or have they behaved like a separatist party by refusing to take part in the conference?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I can confirm to the House that eight provinces and two territories have accepted the invitation to attend the National Conference on Pensions and that I have every reason to believe that Ontario will be there as well. We will know that for sure within a few days. Unfortunately Quebec is the only province which turned down the invitation. It did so in a letter from Premier Levesque himself, a letter in which he refused to send observers or officials to our national conference on the reform of private company pensions. What makes it even more unfortunate is the fact that it will not be a federal-provincial conference but indeed a national conference where all participants, especially spokesmen for private industry, will come to tell us what they are prepared to do to improve the lot of pensioners. I therefore regret very much the attitude of Mr. Levesque.


QUERY RESPECTING CANADIANIZATION POLICY
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines. Can the minister advise this House whether the government has under consideration or is working on a Canadianization policy or program for selected segments of the mining and mineral industry and, if so, when does the government intend to announce such a program?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, the answer is no, with the exception of uranium.


William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question, with a little longer preamble this time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is not allowed a long preamble at any time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, the extent of the Canadianization program in energy, and the massive requirement for capital in that project, will cause the other industries in Canada, many of them, including the mining industry, to seek capital on the international market. Because of the very high interest rate on debt capital, they will be seeking equity capital. Because it is expected that the mining industry needs some $50 billion to $70 billion of capital in the next ten years,
I submit-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has gone on with his preamble. I asked him not to do that. I am afraid I will not allow his question now.


WESTERN DEVELOPMENT FUND
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, without preamble, my question is for the Prime Minister. It relates to the western development fund. There is much curiosity in western Canada because this fund seems to have slipped the level of consciousness on the part of the government. The Minister of Finance indicated last week that there have been no consultations with provinces or anyone-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Enough.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -and there have been no priorities established. My question is a very simple one for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister have any deadline with respect to consultations taking place in western Canada, and when will he announce the details of the western development fund?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member understands that this western development fund was part of the energy package. As he knows, this energy package has not yet had the wholehearted support of the Conservative party or of some of the western provinces. Therefore, it is obvious that we cannot spend the fund before the energy package is accepted by this House.
We have, however, had consultations informally. We are anxious to draw in the best possible ideas so that this fund, when it is assembled, will be spent for the benefit of western Canadians.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I think the Prime Minister is mistaken because the federal government has unilaterally moved with respect to taxation on the resource industry in western Canada. This whole program is indeed a fraud. It is taking $38 billion out of western Canada and putting back $2 billion in a pork-barrel handout system. Has the Prime Minister set any deadline as to when the priorities of this government respecting reinvestment of this money in western Canada
March 19, 1981

will be established? Do we have to wait for this as long as we have waited for double-tracking?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member describes this as pork-barrelling. He will recall the government, of which he was a member, in the budget presented by the hon. member for St. John's West was proposing a scheme of things where there would be some $40 billion spent in the four western provinces over a period of three and a half years, that is to the end of 1983. We are attempting to match that figure to ensure that that amount would be spent in the west, much as the hon. member's party was doing, except we do not call it pork-barrelling. We say we want to do it in the interests of western Canadians.


An hon. Member:: You take it out first.


THE CONSTITUTION
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. He will recall that Mr. Claude Ryan, leader of the Liberal party in Quebec, speaking shortly after the announcement of the election date in Quebec and talking about the Constitution said that the first thing a provincial Liberal government would do, the day after the election, would be to communicate with the Liberal government and its head to invite them to resume reasonable negotiations and discussions on the Constitution.
Is it the position of the Government of Canada that any government elected in Quebec on April 13 would have the right to make representations on the federal government's constitutional package before the resolution was passed by Parliament and sent to Britain?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, not only every government but every leader of the opposition in this country at every provincial level has found himself quite free to make representations. I believe it is known that several leaders of the opposition did directly or indirectly make representations before the standing committee. Nothing will be changed in that sense by the date of the provincial election, any more than anything will be changed tonight by the election of the new government of Ontario, whatever it is.
Representations have been going on. As was pointed out by one of our hon. members before orders of the day were called, members of this House have made many representations. During the last part of the constitutional debate some 170 speeches have been delivered. This procedure will go on as long as this House does not decide that is time to bring the matter to a vote.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, as the Prime Minister knows, whatever he might wish, one thing which might change in the
Oral Questions
province of Quebec after the election of April 13 is that there might be a new government which might be headed by Mr. Ryan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lambert:: Then you will be in for it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Ryan has made it very clear that he would want to have the opportunity, as the head of a new government, to discuss the constitutional package in Canada rather than be faced with a decision which had been taken by this Parliament to send Canadian business to Britain.
Is it the position of the Government of Canada that any government which would be elected in the province of Quebec on April 13 should have the right to make representations, as a government, to the Government of Canada, and to the Parliament of Canada regarding the joint resolution now before this House of Commons, and that it should not be denied that right by having this government act in a way which would send Canada's business to Britain before the people of Quebec have a right to make a decision on April 13?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, we are happy that the Leader of the Opposition recognizes that the next government of Quebec will likely be a Liberal government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am surprised to hear that concession so early in the election campaign-


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -particularly since his former seatmate, the former member for Joliette, is now leading the Union Nationale Party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not think the question can be answered as an absolute. If the Leader of the Opposition is arguing that all future governments to be elected in any province of Canada would have to be heard before the resolution goes to London, the answer is obviously no. If he is arguing that that should be done only for the Quebec election, then I wonder why he is discriminating against all of the other provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VISIT OF MINISTER OF JUSTICE TO BRITAIN
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we all know that Quebec is in rather a special situation in this case because, of the elected members of that province who are sitting in this House, only one has had the courage to speak for his province against his party on the constitutional question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 19, 1981
Oral Questions


Mr. Andre:: You use Quebec as your rationalization.


Charles Joseph Clark: To remind the Prime Minister of one of his own phrases, in which he indicated it would not be dignified for the Government of Canada to be sending representatives to lobby British Members of Parliament prior to the emergence from the Parliament of Canada of the joint resolution on the Consitution, does the Prime Minister continue to hold the view that it would not be dignified for the Canadian government to be indulging in that practice? If he does, can he tell us whether the deputy minister of justice, Mr. Tasse, is now in Britain lobbying British Members of Parliament?
Can he tell us whether it is the intention of the present Minister of Justice to be in Britain next Wednesday to speak to the foreign affairs committee of the parliamentary Labour party, to lobby, in an undignified way, those Members of Parliament in relation to a matter which will still be before the House of Commons of Canada?
[DOT] (M50)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, you recognize that there are many questions involved in that.


An hon. Member:: Answer them all.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 will indeed try to answer every one of them if I can have the indulgence of members opposite. I must say that I find it rather strange for the leader of a party in this House to suggest that members elected from a province do not speak for that province. Surely that is the job of every member in this House, to speak for Canada and to speak for the province in which he was elected. To make the kind of suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition seems to me like throwing stones when you live in a glass house, because 1 could have clearly argued on the same basis that there is only one member of his party who has the courage to speak for Alberta in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What tripe!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is not how we view the role of members in this House. They have been elected on both sides to speak for their constituents as they see it in their conscience to do. One member on this side has disagreed with our government policy, but I think it is quite obvious to the Leader of the Opposition that one member on his side has done the same.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We did not sic Jacques Olivier on him.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hear about Jacques Olivier. I am not sure of what the relevance of that is.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Neither is Jacques.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the presence in London of the Minister of Justice, it is true he agreed quite some time ago to speak to the members of the Canadian Club in London next week. We
hope he will be able to keep that engagement. It will, of course, depend on events in this House. We hope we have the co-operation of the Leader of the Opposition to permit the Minister of Justice to go there and keep that engagement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. A few days ago the minister announced that the communities of Windsor, Sept-lies, and Sydney were among the first to qualify for the new program of industrial restructuring and labour retraining. When the announcement was first made about this program, the minister indicated there would be community committees to administer the program, on which there would be labour and business representation. Have labour and business groups in these communities been consulted yet, and have discussions been held with them regarding the role they will play? If not, why not?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, just to give an additional piece of information to the House, the community of Sorel was one of the communities beyond the three that were mentioned. In each of those instances a member of the cabinet went to the communities to make an announcement, meet with local leaders, and discuss the development with local community committees. Those are now being established. We expect that the chair persons of those committees, plus the membership, will be announced within a week or two. Then we will get on to the second round of assessment of other communities that are eligible for this very important and very innovative new program.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I have had an opportunity to speak with people in the steelworkers' union and the auto workers' union. I have not yet had an opportunity to talk to the paper workers. They tell me there have been no discussions with them as yet, as to their role. They are wondering if they will just be pro forma members of a large committee in which the usual government bureaucrats will be running the whole show. They wonder what has happened to the government's promise that they would be consulted in a real sense.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am not sure exactly whom the hon. member spoke to, but I can give him and other members of this House every assurance that the whole basis of the program depends on full participation of business, labour, and the municipal governments of those communities, as well as the federal government. We see it as an opportunity to provide for a very constructive partnership. I can assure the
March 19, 1981

hon. member there will be full consultation and involvement of all the key sectors to make this program work.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.

In view of the current situation in El Salvador, is the Canadian government considering any special measures to alleviate the plight of the people caught in that country?


Lloyd Axworthy: As members of this House will recognize, Madam Speaker, the civil strife has caused a serious disruption and there are now an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 refugees on the border of El Salvador. I asked the officials to investigate the situation and work with the United Nations.
The United Nations High Commissioner has requested that there be no major movement of refugees at the present time. In the meantime, we are undertaking certain special measures such as those relating to Salvadorians in Canada now on business permits. They will be landed here if they are sponsored by relatives, or will be given minister's permits to provide for employment while they are here. After six months we will review their case with a view toward landing them. As well, those in Canada can sponsor relatives who have had to flee El Salvador because of reasons of strife. Those are intermediate measures. We will continue to monitor the situation and provide whatever relief this country can, within the tradition that we have already established.


APPLICATION OF ENERGY CONVERSION PROGRAM TO NEW BRUNSWICK
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister taken a decision on whether New Brunswickers who switch from oil to electricity for home heating can qualify for the $800 grant program? If not, will he take a decision before April 1 ?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I expect to take a decision before April 1. However, I am still waiting for a commitment from the government of New Brunswick about the conversion of the Coleson Cove generating station away from oil to other fuels. As soon as I have this firm confirmation and commitment from the government of New Brunswick, I will be happy
Oral Questions
to approve the conversion to electricity as well as the conversion to other forms of energy away from oil.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who has responsibility for ensuring that Canadians are not overcharged for shoddy goods. In view of newspaper reports this week which refer to a "Rent-a-Liberal" scheme, whereby contributors to the Liberal Party who give $150 will be invited to a party with six Liberal cabinet ministers, including the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, will the minister put an end to this scam to ensure that these people are not ripped off?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I think it is a very, very good bargain, much better than some fund raising operations of my friends on the opposite side.


Walter David Baker: But we raise more money.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, may I ask the minister exactly what these individuals purchase for their $150?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake constitutes a very sizeable community of service and non-service personnel. It has been drawn to my attention recently that insurance agents in towns bordering on the base are not allowed to go on base to sell property or auto insurance, yet a company, Gold Circle Insurance, has been allowed exclusive access to the base. Why has the Gold Circle Insurance company been granted such a privileged monopoly which puts local independent agents at a great disadvantage? Does the monopoly apply to all Canadian Forces Bases? Also, can the minister name the Liberals who own Gold Circle Insurance Company?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, the question requires a lot of answers. I think it would be better to give them to the hon. member in writing. However, I can assure him that there is no question of privilege to anyone and that the company is run very equitably. There have been a lot of complaints similar to his. Each time we have inquired and found that everything was being done equitably.

March 19, 1981
Business of the House


Jack Wendele Shields: There is absolutely no competition for Gold Circle Insurance Company at Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake. All independent agents living in the towns of Bonney-ville, Cold Lake and Grand Centre, are barred access and may not even advertise in the Cold Lake newspaper. I show the minister an advertisement by Gold Circle that says, "Additional information may be obtained from the base exchange officer". Is this not a monopolistic practice?


Maurice Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I will investigate and see what kind of an answer I can give the hon. member.


AIRPORTS
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that he is reported to have stated in a letter to Mayor Eggleton of Toronto in January that:
... If the city of Toronto agrees to the use of Toronto Island Airport for STOL operations under the conditions suggested, Transport Canada is willing to seek Treasury Board funding approval for the provision of the necessary airport facilities.
Will he advise the extent and cost of these necessary airport facilities?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago I made an offer to the City of Toronto in which I stated a number of principles and practices that Transport Canada would follow should the city council revise its position and vote in favour of STOL facilities. They answered by adding new conditions to the set I had laid down. My deputy is in Toronto this afternoon discussing the matter with the mayor. Part of our offer will be to build facilities at the Toronto Island Airport for general aviation and some facilities for STOL, but the latter would be built on a cost recovery basis.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the government House leader his intentions for House business tomorrow and into next week, and would he be able to confirm that Wednesday, March 25, is in fact to be an allotted day?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, that is right; next Wednesday will be the seventh and last allotted day of this period of supply.

Today, we shall debate constitutional issues. Tomorrow, we shall proceed to the report stage of the bill to provide borrowing authority to the government. It has been agreed by the House leaders that should a vote be necessary, it would be deferred to next Wednesday at six o'clock. We hope that this will happen tomorrow so that we can at least dispose of the report stage of this urgent bill tomorrow afternoon.
As for the business of the House next week, I repeat that Wednesday will be an opposition day, and during the rest of 'the week, we shall be debating constitutional matters.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, in the event that we deal with the report stage amendment on the borrowing bill before the end of the day tomorrow, would it be the intention of the government House leader to continue with the constitutional debate for the balance of that day?


Yvon Pinard: That is a possibility that I am willing to seriously consider, but I would rather wait to see whether this occurs, and after Oral Question Period tomorrow I shall be able to confirm to my learned colleague whether we might attempt to proceed with the third reading of the bill. I would prefer this, but if we fail to agree, we shall probably carry on with the constitutional debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, may I ask the government House leader whether he has any recent word from the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs about the legislation we trust he is preparing to present to Parliament at this session?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I have heard the very honest and generous answers provided to the hon. member by the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs, and I wish to assure the hon. member that the minister is dealing seriously with this matter, and that as soon as there are further developments, he will immediately inform the hon. member for Winnipeg-North-Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Mr. Hargrave:: Madam Speaker, I would just remind the government House leader once again that he would always find a ready reception on this side of the House if he were to bring in the meat import law for quick passage so we can get into committee.


Yvon Pinard: My colleague talks about "meat". I will try to "meet" his request.
March 19, 1981



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
First report of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services-Mr. Comtois.

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates-Mr. Gauthier.

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the Special Committee on North-South Relations-Mr. Breau.
[Editor's note: For texts of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, on February 24, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) requested the government to release documents in its possession with respect to the northeast British Columbia coal discussions. After consultation with the Minister of State for Economic Development, 1 am pleased to table a number of documents relating to these negotiations.
In addition, I might mention that we can also table a list of over 100 studies on the project conducted by DREE and the B.C. government. They are available upon request from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
There are also a number of other documents dealing with exchanges between our government, the government of British Columbia and our embassy in Tokyo, various internal memoranda and exchanges with the coal companies, which will not be released because they fall under the exemption clauses of the access to information legislation now before Parliament.


CONCURRENCE IN FOURTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester) moved: that the fourth report of the Special Committee on North-South Relations be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[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. 409, 1,716, 1,718, 1,851 (revised), 2,094 and 2,095.


Mr. Orlikow: What were the actual or estimated annual increases in the price indices from 1969-70 to 1978-79 for the (a) National Research Council-Research Expenditures using 1969-70 as a base year (b) Medical Research Council-Research Expenditures using 1969-70 as a base year (c) Science Expenditures Price Index using 1969-70 as a base year (d) Implicit Price Index of the Gross National Product using 1969 as a base year (e) Consumer Price Index using 1969 as a base year?


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: In so far as the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is concerned: the problem of developing an adequate index to reflect the impact of inflation on R and D costs is a very difficult one, to which no completely satisfactory solution has been found. The federal government uses the IPI-GNP as a deflater of science expenditures in Canada, consistent with the practice of other member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Moreover, since our R and D target is stated in terms of the Gross National Product, the IPI-GNP is an appropriate index for R and D planning purposes.
However, a number of separate indices have been developed by some departments and agencies to reflect their assessments of how inflation has affected them. The following tables set out the indices referred to by the hon. member-for the years 1969 to 1978, or 1969-70 to 1978-79 as appropriate-and the annual changes in each index.
The indices are: (a) an index developed by the National Research Council, the NRC-RE index; (b) an index which the Medical Research Council (MRC) has devised; (c) the

March 19, 1981
Order Paper Questions
Science Expenditures Price Index (SEPI) proposed by the Science Council; (d) the Implicit Price Index of the Gross National Product (IPI-GNP); and (e) the Consumer Price Index.
The hon. member's question indicates his awareness of the fact that some of those indices refer to fiscal years and some to calendar years. The tables respond to his question as posed except that the MRC index is given for calendar years, since the council calculates it in this way.
			Price Indices		
Year	NRC-RE	MRC	SEPI	IPI-GN	CPI1969 (or 1969/70)	100	100	100	100	1001970 (or 1970/71)	105.5	104.6*	105.8	104.6	103.31971 (or 1971/72)	110.6	108.0*	112.2	108.4	106.31972 (or 1972/73)	117.9	114.0	120.2	113.4	II 1.41973 (or 1973/74)	132.1	125.0	130.5	123.8	119.81974 (or 1974/75)	115.4	147.0	151.9	142.7	132.81975 (or 1975/76)	177.3	162.1	174.9	158.0	147.21976 (or 1976/77)	194.7	181.0	197.4	173.0	158.21977 (or 1977/78)	211.4	197.1	215.9	185.1	170.91978 (or 1978/79)	[DOT]*	214.3	234.1	196.9	186.2Percentage Changes in Each	Price Index (compared with previous year)	Year	NRC-RE	MRC	SEPI	IPI-GNP	CPI1969 (or 1969/70)	-	-	-1970 (or 1970/71)	5.5	4.6*	5.8	4.6	3.31971(or 1971/72)	4.8	3.3*	6.1	3.3	2.91972 (or 1972/73)	6.6	5.6	7.1	5.0	4.81973 (or 1973/74)	12.0	9.6	8.6	9.2	7.51974 (or 1974/75)	17.6	17.6	16.4	15.3	10.91975 (or 1975/76)	14.1	10.3	15.1	10.7	10.81976 (or 1976/77)	9.8	11.7	12.9	9.5	7.51977 (or 1977/78)	8.6	8.9	9.4	7.0	8.01978 (or 1978/79)	**	8.7	8.4	6.4	9.0
* IPI-GNP figures used because MRC had not then developed its own index.
** Responsibility for the relevant program transferred to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has PetroCan bought, leased, contracted for or in any way whatsoever been involved with Challenger Jet aircraft or any other type of aircraft and (a) if not, does it propose to do so (b) if so, is the number of aircraft involved ten and, if not, what is the number?
2.	What are all the details of any such situation that exists including costs?
3.	Have any negotiations, conversations or anything of any kind whatsoever taken place on this subject on behalf of PetroCan, directly or indirectly and, if so, by whom?


Marc Lalonde: Petro-Canada reports as follows: 1. Yes. (a) Not applicable, (b) One Challenger 46.
2 and 3. Petro-Canada has placed an order for one Challenger 46 at a cost of $7 million with expected delivery in early 1982. Because of the lengthy delivery time involved, Petro-Canada has also obtained a position in line for the longer-range Challenger E in the event that future operations require that type of aircraft.


Mr. Cossitt: Does PetroCan own, have an interest in or is it in any way involved with the usuage of aircraft at the present time, directly or indirectly and, if so, what are all the details?


Marc Lalonde: Petro-Canada reports as follows: Petro-Canada owns and operates six (6) aircraft for operational purposes. These aircraft include: two Twin Otters, one Beechcraft 100 King Air, one Grumman Gulfstream 1, one Hawker Siddeley 125, one Britten Norman Islander.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,851 (Revised)-Mr. McKinnon:
Do the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, list an expenditure of $97,990,000 on Aircraft and Engines-New Fighter Aircraft and does the contract with McDonnell Douglas Corporation call for payments of $48,744,637 for the same period and, if so, on what is the additional $49,245,393 to be spent?
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: The table below shows the sequence of forecasts in regards to funds for the main contract and the project support elements identified in total program requirements but which are not part of the main contract with McDonnell Douglas.
The original submission which became Supplementary Estimates (B), subsequently, was made in December, 1979. The January, 1981, forecast is the total which will be spent up to March 31, 1981.
Supplementary September 1980 January 1981 (B)	Forecast	Forecast
Submission to TB in December, 1979
(thousands of dollars)
Main Contract (US)	48,771	48,771	48,771Exchange	7,315	7,315	7,800Contractor Spares	25,709	5,000	-Maintenance Support Equipment	3,000	3,000	2,925Missiles	3,066	3,400	6,460Training Publications	2.287Exchange	5,124	1,461	937Management Costs	3,277	2,777	2,770Other Support (Simulated, etc)	1,728	5,330	1,923Total	97,990	77,054	73,873


Mr. McGrath: 1.	Will the government release the findings of an inquiry into the herring and queen crab fishery in eastern Newfoundland and, if so, on what date?
2.	For what reason was the report not made public?
March 19, 1981


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: 1.	Yes. The department will release the findings of the Thistle report. However, the date of release has not been determined.
2.	My officials are currently developing long-term management plans for both the herring and crab fisheries. The recommendations made by the Thistle report are being evaluated for inclusion into the long-term management plans for Atlantic Canada. Once the review process has been completed, some time within the next few months, the report will be released.


Mr. McGrath: 1.	Under the government's new groundfish licencing program, how many (a) full-time (b) part-time fishermen will be licensed in the four Atlantic provinces and Quebec?
2.	Has this information been made available to provincial governments and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Are there appeal procedures for the licensing program and, if so (a) what are they (b) how many appeal boards have been established and who are the members?


Roméo LeBlanc: 1. The initial categorization of fishermen was as follows:
(a) Newfoundland:	11,500
Maritimes:	10,000
(b) Newfoundland:	23,500
Maritimes:	9,800
These figures are	subject to change in accordance
with the appeal procedures outlined in 3. (a).	
Note: Under an agreement between the federal government and the government of Quebec, the province licences small boat fishermen. The province has had in place for a number of years a similar program of issuing licences to full-time or "professional" fishermen.
2.	The number of fishermen assigned to each category is a matter of public record.
3.	(a) The initial categorization of fishermen is subject to
appeal to local committees consisting of fishermen, representatives of the community and departmental officials. Fishermen have the right to appear before these committees and the right to be represented.
Any individual who is dissatisfied with the results of the first level may appeal to a second regional appeal board consisting of persons not engaged in the fishery. There is a final level of appeal to the minister.
(b) Eighteen appeal committees have been established in Newfoundland. Each committee consists of four fishermen, one person from the community not engaged in the fishery and one departmental official.
The Constitution
In the maritimes, committees are presently being established. It is anticipated that there will be about 25 such committees. Their membership will be similar to the committees in Newfoundland.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 1,460 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 1,460 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deans: 1.	From 1965 to June 1980, how many orders in council were issued affecting Chrysler and its subsidiaries operating in Canada and what was the actual wording of each order in council?
2.	What amount of customs duty was remitted for each order submitted concerning Chrysler and its subsidiaries?
3.	What were the commitments from Chrysler and its subsidiaries in exchange for remitting each customs duty?
4.	Did Chrysler and its subsidiaries meet each commitment?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
RESOLUTION RESPECTING CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981 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
[Stage Direction]
March 19, 1981
The Constitution
B of the proposed resolution by deleting Clause 46, and by making all necessary changes to the Schedule consequential thereto.
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, continuing on from the interruption yesterday, let us consider the so-called Victoria amending formula, which is a method of amending the Constitution which in perpetuity would give the right to Ontario and/or Quebec individually to block constitutional amendments. I am a westerner, and this is totally unacceptable to the west. It is a continuation of a domination of the central provinces over the other rapidly-expanding, growing and vibrant regions of the country. Population is important, but the rights of the minorities in other provinces must be protected.
This amending formula will cause resentment. It will give sustenance to those who wish this country to break up and each region to go its own way. Let us imagine a situation in which nine provinces agree to amend but one province, either Quebec or Ontario, says no. Does this lead to national unity, or does it sow seeds of secession? A Constitution must be a matter of accommodation and concession by all in the interests of all. I see little concession by either Ontario or Quebec in this amending formula.
Let us take the worst case scenario one step further. Let us say that all provinces are agreed but the federal government will not agree. The proposal then calls for a national referendum to break a deadlock. Let us presume-and it certainly is not beyond the realm of possibility-that the deadlock is caused by an authoritarian federal government wishing to enhance its powers. Indeed, these very proposals are such a power grab. The federal government, and only the federal government, may call a national referendum. It picks the time. It picks the simplistic questions, and it has the power to spend millions of tax dollars on advocacy advertising in an attempt to sell its point of view to all Canadians. The provincial governments have no say in this. Indeed, if they wish a referendum on an issue, they cannot demand one. Only the federal government can do so.


Mr. Laniel:: You have two years to change it.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: This is giving awesome power to a centralist government. This is the beginning of a unitary state. This could be the end of provincial powers and the end of confederation.


Gérald Laniel: Because of the provinces.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: I will give examples of what I mean. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) told a group of native people in Vancouver that the new Constitution would continue the protection of native rights which already exists in the BNA Act. The BNA Act says nothing about native rights. The only reference to Indians is in Section 91(24), which gives Parliament exclusive legislative jurisdiction over Indians and lands reserved for Indians.
At the time the minister spoke the resolution did not even mention native people, and the amendment subsequently made in committee merely states that the aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples in Canada are recognized and affirmed. But the native peoples of Canada have never been able to establish any enforcible legal rights with respect to their land claims, and for the Constitution to affirm unprove-able and undefined rights is simply another trick to fool them and us.
What about fighting back against Quebec's Bill 101, which would make that province a francophone island in an anglophone sea? We have been told many times that the separatist option in the Quebec referendum was defeated because of the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other members of his government that constitutional changes would be made to protect language rights. The brave new Constitution refers to the fundamental right to have one's children educated in their minority language provided they reside in an area in which the number of children is sufficient to warrant the provision, out of public funds, of minority language educational facilities. No area sizes are prescribed. No population numbers are spelled out. No one is empowered to determine these points, and there is no provision whatever except an appeal to the courts to overcome a refusal by Quebec or any other province to comply with this section.
Mobility rights are said to be guaranteed in the new Constitution, and upon a quick and careless reading this appears to be right. Section 6 (2) of the Constitution Act says that every citizen and permanent resident of Canada has the right to move to, reside and work in any province. Unfortunately, the section makes this right subject to its being overriden by any laws or practices of general application in force in a province so long as they do not discriminate primarily on the basis of province of previous residence. For example, if B. C. were to pass a law establishing a quota and permit system for people wanting to move into the province, the law would be perfectly valid under the new Constitution so long as it did not set quotas according to provincial origin. Thus, mobility rights are not guaranteed at all.
There is one problem not addressed by these constitutional proposals that, from a westerner's point of view, may be the ultimate problem for the future of Canada. I speak of representation by population without a counterbalance to ensure that the central provinces cannot overwhelm and legislate in their own best interests at the expense of the rest of Canada. Indeed, many fellow westerners and maritimers con-
The Constitution
sider this to have been done over the past 100 years. I do not wish to speak of the alleged abuses of the past; I speak only of the future, and the hopes and aspirations of Canadians not only for justice to be done, but also to appear to be done.
As long as Canada uses representation by population as the sole criterion for voting purposes in this House of Commons, the 75-95 syndrome will not only offend and alienate but cause the regions outside of central Canada to consider themselves second-class citizens. Some way must be found to balance the 75 seats of Quebec and the 95 seats of Ontario in this House. It is simple to say, as population moves westward, that more seats and better balance in voting will naturally occur. I do not believe we can wait that long before an explosive resentment takes place.
The constitutional proposals have done nothing to attempt to change the Senate. Yet that is where the most rapid bringing together of this country could take place. A Senate composed of an equal number of senators from each province could provide the balance wheel against exploitation that does not now exist.
The genius of the American republic has been their Senate, where tiny Rhode Island has the same number of voting senators as the great states of New York or California. Rhode Island feels equal, feels part of the decision-making process in the American Senate. I doubt the Prince Edward Islander feels that sense of participation with a mere four seats out of 282 in this House of Commons, and three senators out of 104. Unless central Canada is prepared to share power, and share it equally, with the other regions of Canada, this country is on a collision course toward disaster. Where are the provisions in this Constitution to redress the balance and truly make Canadians equal, not only by population but by geography and region? Unfortunately, there is none, and to me it is a colossal blunder to avoid the one subject that could bring this country together as nothing has in the past. I would warn central Canada: unless it is prepared to offer equality and influence in the power and forces that shape this country, it will see the western region take the power to which it is entitled in a united country, even at the risk of breaking up the nation.
The matter of the 75-95 syndrome must be considered and solved to the satisfaction of all, or any constitutional proposals will be whistling in the wind. It is a problem that cries out for negotiation and solution while there is still time and good feelings between regions. This must be part of any future constitutional discussion.
I must say a lawyer's word about the draftsmanship of the new Constitution. In the history of mankind, no nation on earth has produced such an inept, confusing, conflicting mess as is proposed for us. It will make Canada the laughing stock of students of constitutional law throughout the world.
I urge hon. members opposite, I beseech them, to look to their conscience, to consider the overwhelming weight of evidence and testimony that this is a hastily thrown together patchwork that can tear this country apart.

March 19, 1981
The Constitution
What must be done, carefully and with great deliberation, is to begin anew and with good people-not all of them politicians-to design and create a fair and just Constitution for Canada. Once that is done, let us ask the British parliament to do only one thing, that is, to repeal the BNA Act. Then let us proclaim our own Constitution, made in Canada for Canadians by Canadians.
Countries all over the world have been able to create their own constitutions, even out of the chaos and confusion of revolution. After 1776, the American colonies sent delegates to a continental congress in Philadelphia to draft the United States constitution, and they succeeded in doing so, amending formula and all, in two years.
In 1782, George Washington wrote to representatives of the 13 colonies who were arguing over the terms of their constitution as follows:
What is needed is a sacred regard to public justice and the prevalence of that friendly disposition among the people ... which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make mutual concessions to the general prosperity, and in some instances to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the community.
Five years later, in a letter to James Madison, he urged:
Let prejudices, unreasonable jealousies and local interest yield to reason and liberality. Let us look to our national character and to things beyond the present period ... wisdom and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm.
Almost 200 years later, Washington's words are as apt and meaningful to Canadians today as they were to him and his countrymen in their time.
I urge upon this House to set this bad package aside. Let us have a constituent assembly. Let a group of good Canadians, with all deliberate speed, correct the massive inadequacies of these proposals before Parliament. Let them design a Constitution that will bind us together, not increase the alienation and separation of regions and provinces.
That is my plea, Mr. Speaker. May my grandchildren find 1 was helpful in the process of Parliament which may lead to changes in this grab bag of future disaster for my country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, although I deplore the fact that the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Ethier) is ill, I would be remiss if I did not congratulate the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) on his recent appointment, and I am convinced that he will discharge his responsibilities with great competence. Mr. Speaker, as I take the floor to join in this debate I am certain that I will not come up with anything new, let alone spectacular. Still I believe that my first responsibility is to take part in this parliamentary debate, and the aim of my speech is threefold. First, I want to keep a promise I made to my constituents when I committed myself to let them know how the situation would evolve and explain to them the very significant decision I will soon have to make.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the role of a federal member is to enlighten the people on the true meaning of the proposal we are debating in the House, of the courses it advocates, and of the interpretation it can be given with respect to the genuine interest of the people and the protection of all citizens, particularly those who are of French extraction and whom it is my duty and first responsibility to represent and defend. Third, Mr. Speaker, 1 will take the liberty of appealing to the common sense and the spirit of co-operation of all members, of provincial premiers and of Canadians generally so that a loyal and sincere effort be made with a view to trying these constitutional proposals in the honest hope of strengthening and uniting our great country, a hope we all share.
Mr. Speaker, it is an open secret that the progress of my thoughts in this debate has not been easy. It has been agonizing at times because I do not belong to that category of citizens who believe they hold a monopoly over truth and who remain insensitive to a resolution whose aftermath will be so important for the future of the country and of all Canadians. I have tried to marshall my thoughts in light of what is my first responsibility, that of a federal member of the Canadian Parliament. Mr. Speaker, I must confess to you and to hon. members of the House that during this debate as well as in the preceding weeks and months I had mixed feelings at times thinking on the one hand about what I consider my country, that piece of land where I live with my family and where I can try to be fulfilled with my language and my culture and with all the other riches left to me by my ancestors.
On the other hand, however, behind my nationalism which I do not deny there is also a deeply anchored desire to be a Canadian and, as a francophone, to enjoy my rights not only in Quebec but throughout Canada as well. I deeply believe in Canada, in its historical continuity, in its well-known generosity toward those who come to share our territory and our history. I believe that Canada is made up of people who trace their origins back to Amerindian, British and French founding nations and who, over the years, formed two distinct societies.
Ethnic groups other than English and French came to join this first component of our historic duality. Canada has acknowledged the presence and the coexistence of those two groups; I must admit there has been a lot of progress in that field, Mr. Speaker, but we still have a long way to go. I believe that the sooner those two societies or groups are recognized, which have not become solely French or English entities but rather gatherings of people who speak French or English and who are deeply scarred compared to one another, the better will be the social balance we have been seeking for over a century.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that federalism is tailored to the diversity of our people and that it can absorb without diluting the multicultural wealth for which our country stands so
March 19, 1981

proud. Although I think that federalism rests on patient and generous negotiations rather than confrontation, I also think that all good things must come to an end and that the public interest will force us in time to make a decision. The time for speeches is nearly over, the time for action will soon be upon us. Of course at certain times we have heard from both sides very challenging and very constructive arguments. However, the time has now come to make a decision.
Canada has existed for 113 years, but it retains a last link with the colonialist era. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is healthy and not an act of disloyalty to state our differences in an attempt to find areas of agreement. Mr. Speaker, during this debate, I did not conceal my misgivings in two areas. I would like to summarize them briefly and say that I am not yet convinced that the changes that should have been made in this constitutional package would have provided a greater flexibility and made it more acceptable.
First, Mr. Speaker, and I am not the only one to share that view, even though very few have stated it publicly, I would like to deal with the application of clause 133 to Ontario. My position is simple, clear and specific. The present Constitution requires the Quebec and Manitoba governments to be bilingual at the legislative and judiciary levels, and the proposal now before us does not change anything in this connection. However, Mr. Speaker, the province of Ontario, for reasons which I consider unacceptable and inexplicable, has not seen fit to become institutionally bilingual in all areas and, contrary to New Brunswick, it refused to be realistic and show some sense by asking that clause 133 apply to Ontario so that it would not become officially bilingual in all areas but only in those where already two provinces are bilingual under the Constitution, that is Manitoba and Quebec, while New Brunswick has done much more than what was requested of the Ontario government.
Mr. Speaker, today being election day, I express the wish that the new Ontario government, whatever party is elected, realizes that it is of paramount importance that the province of Ontario, which has been a leader and which has benefited most from confederation, should make up its mind now that it no longer has to take political and electoral considerations into account. I do not mean to say that its citizens never had to work hard to benefit from confederation, but the fact remains that the system has brought them where they are today, living in a strong, rich and developed province which must now lead the way not only in the economic field but in the linguistic and cultural fields as well.
The federal government has been blamed for not enforcing section 133. 1 must confess, Mr. Speaker, that at first I found this approach interesting and that I was attracted to it for a long time. But on the other hand, one must be fair and recognize that a decision made in that area by the federal
The Constitution
government would have infringed on a provincial jurisdiction, and considering that the leaders of Ontario or Quebec not only never asked for the enforcement of Section 133 but in fact asked the federal government to disregard it, the situation was a difficult one. I think that the only way Section 133 could have been enforced by the federal government is through a joint resolution during a session of the joint committee when all the parties in the House would have risen above political partisanship and asked the Ontario government to enforce section 133 in its own province. Unfortunately, this was not possible because the official opposition was against it. Mr. Speaker, there remains-and that is my argument-an element of justice. I do not see why there should be a double standard: that Quebec and Manitoba should be required to be bilingual in their legislatures and courts, while Ontario is not.
My second point, Mr. Speaker, concerns Section 23 which requires English-speaking immigrants to Quebec-I should not say "requires" because there is a choice-after three years to join either the French or the English system. 1 feel that an immigrant to Quebec should be aware of these conditions and requirements and learn to live with them. I would have preferred that this aspect of Bill 101 providing that any immigrant to Quebec must adopt the language and culture of the majority had been left out of this constitutional proposal. I am told that Bill 101 actually provides for some flexibility and that the Quebec government apparently recognizes a special status to anglophones coming to Quebec, although there is no mention of this in the act. Therefore, it is a question of principle. I, for one, consider that immigrants to Quebec, whatever language they may speak, should adopt the French language, while maintaining their own language and traditions.
However, the Canada provision which is found in the proposed Constitution puts on an equal footing the people from Quebec who move to other parts of Canada and the people from other provinces who move to Quebec. I feel, therefore, that this provision is acceptable in the present context since we insist on equal rights for all Canadians wherever they live.
Mr. Speaker, my position on the three points now being discussed, namely patriation, the amending formula and the charter of rights, is as follows: to my mind, patriation is a neutral act. It does not imply any redistribution of powers and, as such, it is a step ordinary Canadians clamour for every day. But an attempt is being made at equating patriation with a redistribution of powers, and on that score the provinces have erred. In a way, they are to be blamed for the deadlock in which the federal government has been placed and which has forced us to propose a constitutional package that is unilateral.
Naturally, that is the type of wording the media spread around when, in fact, it is totally inaccurate, because unilateral patriation would imply patriation with the sole consent or on the sole initiative of the federal government; this is totally contrary to facts, as we know. We have the support of Ontario

March 19, 1981
The Constitution
and New Brunswick: Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia are non-committal or have more or less given their formal acquiescence, and a very important party in this House of Commons, the NDP is on our side generally with just a few exceptions.
So, patriation should really not be criticized since it does not alter jurisdictions. It even goes further than the status quo. In fact, it takes away some of the powers of the federal government. It denies the federal government the authority to change the Constitution, which it now has. So, not only does patriation not strip the provinces of any powers but it removes some from the federal government, which, when the package is accepted, will be bound by the law of unanimity for two years and, if no other formula is found, by the Victoria formula. Therefore, to my mind, patriation should be done quickly and should not lead to this carping at the amending formula.
As some hon. members have already done, I immediately gave up on the law of unanimity. We have been seeking that desirable unanimity since 1927. We might have achieved it in 1971 at the Victoria conference, had it not been for the adviser to the then Quebec Premier, Mr. Bourassa, the notorious Claude Morin, the current Quebec minister of intergovernmental affairs, whose option we all are too well aware of. Without his intervention, we may have attained our goal and, although I am not passing final judgment, I venture to say that we made a mistake in 1971. We should have intervened then and patriated the Constitution as we had intended to because, at that time, we had the support of several provinces.
Naturally, some will argue that, by a weird coincidence, Mr. Thatcher was a Liberal in Alberta at that time. It was sheer coincidence that Mr. Smallwood happened to be then Premier of Newfoundland, that Mr. Regan was the Premier of Nova Scotia during that period; strange coincidence all around, but be that as it may, let us not forget that Mr. Robarts was the Premier of Ontario and Mr. Campbell that of another province. So there was a consensus. But we wanted unanimity and, in my view we waited too long; if we wait much longer now, I am afraid the impasse might become total and permanent; that is why 1 feel we must act without further delay.
An amending formula calls for the participation of four regions, and I suggest that as far as the amending formula is concerned, one must avoid considering provinces as such. Four regions are mentioned: Ontario, Quebec, the East and the West. Of course, we still have two years to agree on a new and more acceptable formula, but in case we could not find a better one than the so-called Victoria formula, the latter will be enforced. What does this Victoria formula say? It goes like this: Quebec, Ontario, eastern Canada and western Canada will decide not as small entities, not as provinces, but rather as areas and regions. A moment ago, I listened to the previous speaker who said that western development is being overlooked. Quite the contrary, given the fast growth of the west,
particularly in Alberta, is it not quite possible that in a few years from now, Alberta will reach the 25 per cent figure and thus have a veto?
However, it should be kept in mind, Mr. Speaker, that much has been made of the Quebec veto, it is true. I think all members agree that because of its position, being the main centre of French-speaking Canadians, Quebec deserves, I would not say a special status, but a status of equality with the other provinces and regions. In my view, the fact is that there are four regions, one of them being mostly French-speaking and the other three mostly English-speaking. Hence, one must consider the matter on a regional basis and I, for one, find acceptable this formula that the Parti Quebecois refuses to talk about, because I listened to a program in which Mr. Morin, dealing with the constitutional package, took pains not to mention that federal Members of Parliament, who are taken to task here, were the first to stand for the rights of all Canadians, including Quebecers.
However, other formulas should not be left out, and I do not agree with those who say that we should retain that formula. We have two years to find another one. I believe the one proposed is acceptable. Indeed, it was accepted in 1971, but one should keep an open mind about such considerations. So, failing an agreement on another formula, I believe this one is acceptable and should remain in force.
The charter of rights, Mr. Speaker, appears to be the most sensitive subject before this House. First of all, I would have liked, and it may not be too late to come up with this idea because I have not heard it suggested during this debate, as I was saying Mr. Speaker, I would have liked the charter of rights, as is the case with the amending formula, not to be implemented before a two-year waiting period had lapsed. The provinces would then have two years to try to find satisfactory compromises and it would have, at least I think so, resulted in a better dialogue.
I still wish it could be so. Such a solution might be seen as a kind of compromise which would make the package more acceptable. Since we are looking for solutions, I did not want to merely criticize but to introduce a positive element in this debate. That being said, the charter of rights still guarantees several fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association.
In fact, this charter of rights provides a series of guarantees for citizens which is far from insignificant. However, as I have said before, there is also clause 23 and the matter of linguistic rights on which I do not agree completely concerning the matter of immigrants and the opting out of Ontario. It still remains, Mr. Speaker, that this charter guarantees certain basic rights and the protection of educational rights of all Canadians, whether anglophone or francophone. This is one of
March 19, 1981

the reasons why I entered politics, Mr. Speaker, so that Canadians who live in Quebec can have rights as francophones, not only in Ottawa, but throughout the country. This principle will therefore be entrenched in the Constitution. We have been criticized for having included this principle, but it still reflects word for word what the premiers agreed to. We have been told that the phrase "wherever the number is sufficient to warrant it" could cause problems. This might be, but it will be up to the provinces to prove their good faith. They will have to prove whether this country should break up, as certain people have said, or whether it should stay united. However, to stay united, it is essential that the rights of francophones be recognized not only in Quebec, but throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to close by simply saying that what has brought me to support, not blindly but rationally the whole package in spite of my reservations, is that I consider it a means of putting an end to separatism. Obviously, if, to put an end to separatism, the resolution suggested that the rights of francophones be jeopardized, I would not accept it. For the moment, I must give the benefit of the doubt to those who have proposed this resolution, and I would like at this time to underline the extraordinary work of our Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), who have not spared their efforts in developing and promoting this proposal.


An hon. Member:: And also the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde)!


Gilles Marceau: And also the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). But he has enough energy for many things besides this resolution. Mr. Speaker, if I have a few minutes left, 1 would like to quote a few words by Gaston Miron, the separatist poet, who confirmed my own conviction by saying a few months ago: It is imperative that the constitutional package proposed by Ottawa should not come about, otherwise the autonomy of Canada will be ensured and it will mean the end of Quebec independence.
If a separatist sees our constitutional procedure as a means to prevent him from achieving his goal, we must admit that it would be rather difficult for a federalist, or for someone who believes or states to be one, not to support it and not to put his trust in those who have developed this proposal, who defend it and who want it to be implemented. Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Jonquiere I don't carry much weight in this House, but as a member of a team who has chosen the path of democracy, I have fought as hard as I could so that this proposed resolution might be improved and become more acceptable. Within my group, both among my colleagues and among my voters, there have been consultations and I have been told: The hon. member for Jonquiere does not have the right to harm his constituents by a personal decision which would go against the wishes of the majority of his supporters
The Constitution
and his colleagues. So in a spirit of co-operation I will support the proposed resolution but under the following condition: that this proposed resolution be only a beginning, the start of bigger things to come.
Everybody on both sides of this House, Mr. Speaker, as well as the premiers will have to realize that the time has now come when we must all sit at the bargaining table and genuinely try, through the adoption of a whole series of measures, to develop and improve what is now only an embryo into a country where Canadians can live in happiness. But we must not delude ourselves. When the Constitution has been patriated, it will have to be amended and we must not forget, in keeping with the preamble, we will have to implement the tenet of the recognition of the two linguistic groups, anglophones and francophones, as well as the cultural contribution of the other ethnic groups. That is the price we must pay to keep our country united and I am confident that we will all choose to.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, in joining in this debate today, l must first of all say how humbled and thankful I am that our illustrious emperor, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), has permitted debate to go on long enough this time, to allow me to say some words on behalf of my constituents. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have had the opportunity to speak on this constitutional resolution either in committee or in this House. I intended to speak on the matter originally when it was first brought before us, but the brutal majority of the government in power was used to deny me that right. The use of closure at that time prevented me from speaking as I had intended at that stage of debate.
Having said that, I should add that I was very surprised today to hear the tone of the exchange between the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the Prime Minister with respect to the simple request of my leader to the Prime Minister that he consider delaying consideration of this resolution until a sufficient time after the Quebec election to ensure that the new leader, whoever it may be, would have an opportunity to reconsider the province's position with respect to the resolution. Presumably whoever is chosen leader in the province of Ontario today would also have a chance to reconsider Ontario's position on the resolution.
I was quite startled and surprised at the Prime Minister's offhand remark that, somehow or other, leaders of opposition always have the right to speak and that in any event there is no need to delay. 1 do not think that is satisfactory. I think it shows that an errant, arrogant, high-handed attitude is prevalent in this government under the leadership of this present emperor.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Aided and abetted by the energy czar.

March 19, 1981
The Constitution


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Having said that, I would hasten to add that in considering the resolution before us, I think it is important that we also consider the amendment of my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) to amend the main motion by deleting Clause 46 in Schedule B in the proposed resolution and by making all necessary changes to the Schedule. 1 shall come back to this point later, Mr. Speaker.
I was surprised that the hon. member who spoke before me and who is now leaving the House never even referred to the matter before the House today, the question whether or not Clause 46, which deals with the amending formula proposed by the government, should remain in the resolution. That is a very key question in this whole matter. This clause covers the question of the form of the referendum that the Prime Minister proposes. If you analyse the concerns of Canadians, of provincial governments, of many members of this House, you will find that they centre on the question of the amending formula that the Prime Minister suggests we should accept.
Coming from the province of Ontario, perhaps I can say that we do not have as much to fear from this formula as do some other provinces. In the wisdom of the Prime Minister we have been given a possible veto; likewise the province of Quebec. But yesterday I was in Alberta, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell you that people there are concerned about this matter. I think they have cause to be concerned at the prospect that the Constitution could be amended in the future against their wishes and certainly against any veto that they might care to cast-because they will not have that power.


Mr. Campbell:: Good.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: For the record, I think it should be reported that a very prominent member of the government has said it is good that the province of Alberta would not have the same veto as the province of Ontario or the province of Quebec. Perhaps inadvertently that hon. member has shown the true colours of the government on the resolution before us.
That is one question, Mr. Speaker. There is also the question of the amending formula and, if I may, I will come back to it later.
What I have found most strange in this debate is that the Prime Minister wants to foist on the people of Canada, against their will, an amending formula that will provide for referenda in future years, presumably at the request of the federal government as is spelled out in the resolution, but he says no to consulting the Canadian people by referendum prior to this resolution being confirmed.
Does it make any sense that we have a Prime Minister who says, "In the future let's consult the public through a referendum process, but today, no". He knows why. He knows why he would not test this resolution by holding a referendum in the country: it would not carry. Being the true emperor that he is, he does not like to consult his subjects in case those subjects deny him some of the rights he has grown to love.
When we touch on this question of the charter of rights and the whole concept of writing into some type of code-a new "code Trudeau" if you like, because that is what we are
considering here-I think we must first of all look at how sincere this government is when talking about rights.
I was elected in 1972, Mr. Speaker, and almost since that time this House has had before it the question of the uranium cartel. You recall that cartel, Mr. Speaker. It is the one that was involved when the government got into bed with the conspirators. They decided to rig prices. They decided to raise the price of uranium from $6 per pound to over $40 per pound. You recall that not only did they do that, but when the knowledge of this cartel became public-not in Canada but first of all in Australia and then in other foreign countries- this government was so terrified that its role in the cartel would be exposed, that it passed that infamous uranium information security regulation that denied every member of this House and every citizen of Canada the right to hold, much less speak about, the documents relating to the uranium cartel.
The regulation I have in my hand is still law. It is not law directly because of any act passed in this House; it is a regulation passed by order in council by the Trudeau Liberal government. In part, it reads:
No person who has in his possession or under his control any note, document or other written or printed material in any way related to conversations, discussions or meetings that took place between January 1, 1972 and December 31, 1975 involving that person or any other person in relation to the exporting from Canada or marketing for use outside Canada of uranium or its derivatives or compounds shall
(a)	release any such note, document or material, or disclose or communicate-
And so on. They shall not, it continues:
(b)	fail to guard against or take reasonable care to prevent the unauthorized release of any such note, document or material or the disclosure or communication of the contents thereof.
Anybody who broke that regulation could end up in jail for five years.


Mr. Neil:: Just like Nazi Germany.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Where are our rights? Here we have an emperor saying that he wants to give the people of Canada a new charter of rights, yet he was instrumental in taking fundamental rights away from every Canadian citizen.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Not once, but twice.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Speaking of cartels, I have another illustration of how absolutely inconsistent this government can be. We know the tremendous disclosure made only a few days ago concerning what the government claimed to be a massive rigging of prices within the petroleum industry. I do not know whether those who have been active in the petroleum industry have been unfair in their pricing or whether they have fixed prices but, that is why we have a combines investigation branch. What I do know is that we have certain rights in this land granted by common law. We have a certain court system which, up until now, guaranteed people reasonable protection against unfair allegations and charges.
March 19, 1981

When we read Clause 11 of this so-called charter of rights proposal and then take a look at what this very same government did with respect to certain members of the petroleum industry, we will see how totally inconsistent the government is in its position. Let me refresh members' minds about what clause 11 says. It reads:
Anyone charged with an offence has the right
(a)	to be informed promptly of the specific offence;
(b)	to be tried within a reasonable time;
(c)	to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and
public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
(e) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission that at the time of
the act or omission did not constitute an offence;
I put those points on the record because hon. members should think about what this government did with respect to the petroleum industry.
As we know, that industry has been under continuing review since 1973, a period of eight years. I ask hon. members this question: Is it trying a person within a reasonable time to have something pending since 1973? But, most important, the government came to the conclusion that whatever came out of the investigation there was insufficient evidence to charge anybody. Therefore, in open defiance of Clause 11, which the government now proposes for our new charter of rights, the government took the alternative course of saying: "We are going to open up the information, make it public and drag the whole matter through a new public inquiry over another two years."
I am sorry that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has left the House. Surely even he would agree that what is alleged is grossly unfair. For example, it is stated that the director of investigation estimated there were excess costs totalling some $12 billion in 1980 currency involved in overcharges. He said that had these funds otherwise been invested in the years when the unwarranted charges occurred, there would not have been the present loss of more than $89 billion. Do hon. members know where the investigation branch got that trash from? If we read the seven volumes of so-called evidence, we see that the investigators went through various dealings and found instances of where a spot price was below a price at which foreign crude was purchased. They asked why the crude was not purchased at the spot price, totally ignoring the fact that is not how the market works. They took that figure, which in the aggregate is less than $4 billion, and multiplied it by their created inflation factor to bring it up to 1980 dollars. That is where the first $12 billion came from. They said that if the original $4 billion, which can be challenged, had been suitably invested it would now be worth $89 billion. I do not know what they mean by "suitably invested"; I am sure their investment counsel would have done very well by them.
Talking of rights, how would any member of this House feel on picking up a parking ticket if he were told by the local municipality he would not be fined but that there would be an inquiry as to what happened? In this inquiry, the policeman would tell his story. If the member wanted to tell his story,
The Constitution
fine; but the matter would never be brought before a judge where he could say whether or not the member was guilty. Yet that is exactly what this government is doing.
The government is proceeding this way because it is part of the nationalization of the oil industry scheme. It is all part of the socialization under way in Canada today. It is all part of a government working to rally the public mood against the petroleum industry in the earnest desire of eventually nationalizing-


Douglas Charles Neil: As ordered by the NDP.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let us make one thing clear. My party and 1 have nothing but good to say about getting more Canadian content into the oil and gas industry in Canada. That does not mean that Canadianization has to be nationalization.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It does not mean that what has been built up as a common law right-that is, the right to be dealt with fairly and if a person has broken the law, to be suitably charged, to be taken to court to let the judge and jury decide his guilt-is to be set aside either.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that when we consider this resolution before us we bear in mind it is being put forth by a very untrustworthy, insincere government indeed. The government's proposed constitutional reform package contains some forty new or changed rights, freedoms or limitations of our freedom. Once it has been debated in this Parliament, it may be referred to Westminster for what the Prime Minister hopes will be a rubber-stamp approval. I also suggest that this would be against the wishes of most provincial government and, according to the polls, even against the wishes of the majority of Canadians.
On this important issue there will be one voice only in Canada. Our Prime Minister, however, has no qualms about his determination to amend unilaterally the Constitution. In fact, once the proposed constitutional package is put into effect, the Prime Minister will have succeeded in strengthening the ability of the federal government to act in a similar arbitrary fashion.
Clause 46 of the resolution before us proposes that our Constitution be amendable by holding a referendum to determine the views of Canadian citizens. Such a referendum will be held at the discretion of the federal government, which will also establish the rules and procedures and set the question. It does not take much imagination to envision the ways in which this vote can be manipulated.
In that connection, Mr. Speaker, I have given you two examples of how this goverment chooses to manipulate. They are mind-benders par excellence. That is the one thing they understand.
The recent referendum vote in Quebec gives an adequate indication of how this whole question of process in referenda

March 19, 1981
The Constitution
can be treated on all sides. Moreover, the federal government will be able, if this resolution should go through and be confirmed, to use its immense presence and budget to launch a massive advertising campaign in order to stir up emotions and influence the ultimate outcome of the referendum.
In that connection, I think we are perhaps aware that the estimates now before us contemplate this government spending almost $70 million in federal government advertising in the coming year alone. That makes them by a long shot the number one advertiser in Canada. The runner-up spends $25 million. The federal government is number one by far when it comes to spending advertising dollars.
What are they doing? They are basically spending that money to tell the Canadian public what a good job they think they are doing. When it comes to federal advertising, we in Canada are number one. The United States federal government is number 30 in that country as far as advertising is concerned.
When you bear that in mind, Mr. Speaker, and see how this government likes to manipulate through such things as massive advertising, can Canadians be at ease if we permit the government to bring in this referendum formula which my colleague is proposing be deleted from this resolution?
The important point is that the Prime Minister is proposing an amending formula which will allow the federal government to bypass the provincial legislatures and instead ask the Canadian public to make a decision in the heat of the moment. Giving the federal government such a unilateral privilege in the Constitution threatens the very basis upon which our very federation is founded. The ultimate result will be that Ottawa will always have the final voice in deciding constitutional change.
By now it should be clear to Canadians that there is a considerable difference between the Progressive Conservative and the Liberal approach to constitutional reform. Our party is in favour of bringing the Constitution home with a built-in amending formula that is suitable to the provinces. We are anxious that the Constitution be quickly patriated so that any further or more substantive changes can be made here in Canada by Canadians. Above all, we are concerned that amendments to the Constitution should not be imposed unilaterally by the federal government but should reflect a broad consensus of the Canadian population.
The Grits, on the other hand, would like to have entrenched in the Constitution a charter of rights before patriation takes place and before an amending formula has been decided on. They have persisted in this ambition even though the majority of Canadians are opposed.
In effect, the Prime Minister hopes to take advantage of the present ties still binding us to Westminster in order to bypass the will of the Canadian people. The Prime Minister wants Westminster to make our laws for us. This is extremely ironic in view of his continuing regret over Canada's lack of independence, as he puts it.
Let me read some statements made by the Prime Minister in Quebec City in 1976 before the annual meeting of the Liberal Party. At that time the great emperor said, and I quote:
-basically, what we want to do is take away from England, from the United Kingdom, we want to take away from this foreign country, friendly country, the right to make laws for Canadians; it shouldn't be very difficult to agree on that.
He went on to say:
For a hundred years now we haven't been able to agree to tell the British: please stop making laws for us. All the other Commonwealth countries have done so, all of them. In 1931, when the Statute of Westminster was adopted in England, it said exactly this. It said: from now on the British empire has ceased to exist in ... the five dominions of the Commonwealth, we will not make laws for them ... You are adults now, you can make your own laws yourselves. The Canadians said: No, no, we aren't able to do it.
That is the emperor speaking, our present Prime Minister. A little further on he stated:
Let's agree to patriate that Constitution, let's do it without discussing the division of powers, we can always fight afterwards, we don't need the Queen as arbitrator, nor Harold Wilson as arbitrator; if we don't agree, we don't agree, we won't agree; if we agree, we'll agree; we won't need the Pope either, for that matter; we can do that among ourselves.
Talk about a flip-flop! That is what he said in 1976 in Quebec City when he thought it served his purpose. I suggest those statements of the Prime Minister reflect a totally inconsistent position to what we are now asked to pass in this House. He is presently saying, "Your Majesty and Mrs. Thatcher, we would like to have our Constitution brought home, but for me, please make certain legislative changes because, frankly, I do not think I will be able to get the provinces to agree to them, and I cannot trust my subjects to understand what I want passed". Clearly the Prime Minister does not object to behaving in a colonial fashion when it suits his own interests.
Some have dwelt on the actual provisions of the British North America Act and the provisions of the Statute of Westminster. I will not read them into the record again, but clearly it was contemplated at the time the Statute of Westminster was passed that we should virtually be cut off from England at that point. However, for purely technical reasons the Canadian government asked that this power of amendment remain with Westminster. That is what is now being taken advantage of at the present time.
I could touch on the question of rights and what jurists have said as to enshrining of rights, whether it is good or bad. There are arguments on both sides. Frankly, I believe that every time you start codifying, you run the risk of limiting people's rights. I believe that is being overlooked by most people, who say without question that they accept the emperor's charter of rights proposal.
I suggest that if hon. members want to be specific, it is very interesting to look at some of the clauses we have to deal with in the resolution. Clause 12, for example, in one sense looks very innocent. It reads:
Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
There is no qualification. Not even Parliament can override this privilege which is found in our present bill of rights. As
March 19, 1981

hon. members know, the American constitution has a similar clause. The result has been endless litigation in their courts on the question whether it is legal for a state to maintain capital punishment on its statute books or pass a new statute. If Clause 12 becomes entrenched, we may face the same dilemma in Canada. However, our dilemma is going to be much more complicated than that of the United States, as capital punishment is a national and not a provincial matter.
The Prime Minister knows that any attempt to restore capital punishment through a vote in the House, then ratified by the Senate, would be challenged as being contrary to the Constitution, if he has his way and this resolution becomes part of the Canadian Constitution. Notwithstanding the Prime Minister's attitude toward Britain, he now proposes that Westminster should pass a measure which would make Canada an abolitionist state virtually for all time. Mr. Speaker, that worries me. Now, granted I voted in favour of capital punishment and I think I voted the way that perhaps 70 per cent or 80 per cent of Canadians would have had they had the privilege, as I did, to vote on that question. However, as we know, through manipulation this Prime Minister bound his cabinet to support his abolitionist move, he whipped his caucus into line and in a trumped-up, so-called free vote forced us into an abolitionist state. And now, by a constitutional resolution, he is trying to write it into law so that future Parliaments cannot change what this emperor deemed to be in the best interests of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Your leader voted for abolition.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I notice these flapping penguins over here who call themselves Grits.


An hon. Member:: Sheep.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: And sheep. I know something about sheep, although most are more useful. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, you can always judge in this House when you have hit a point. The question is: Will they have the gumption to stand up when a vote is called in this House and, if they believe that this country should not necessarily be an abolitionist state for all time, demonstrate that belief by voting against the government when this resolution is considered?
There are other changes, though. The proposed charter provides that everyone has the right to life. The effect of Clause 7 will be to strengthen the hand of the pro-abortionist faction. Let me explain. To date the Canadian courts have determined that the words "person" and "human being" do not include the unborn child, with the result that a child must be born before it can assert rights. The proposed charter reaffirms this interpretation by not explicitly providing for the right to life of the unborn child. Because of this omission, the right to an abortion will be virtually entrenched in our Constitution.
Good arguments can be made for or against an entrenched charter of rights. The point is that Canadians should be given more of an opportunity to examine these arguments. Let us
The Constitution
face this question of abortion, call it the way it is. We now have a Prime Minister who is going to try to control his caucus, first to put us under closure, ram this resolution through and virtually entrench the right to an abortion in our Constitution.
Now, Mr. Speaker, having said that, bear in mind that this is the same person who, as minister of justice, amended the Criminal Code that ushered in the predicament we are now in with respect to abortions. When are we Canadians going to stand up and say we have had enough? How many tens of thousands of abortions should be performed before not only members on the Liberal side vote according to their conscience, but the Canadian public get aroused about one of the most brutal things that could occur in any country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Touching on the question of property rights, all of us here are aware that the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) proposed in committee an amendment to the charter providing for the right to the enjoyment of property. Let me review the odd sequence of events that occurred. We find that the Acting Minister of Justice said in committee that if such an amendment was put forward by the Progressive Conservative Party, it would be accepted by the government. The following day, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre), speaking on behalf of the government members of the committee, said:
I think that Mr. Beatty has clearly demonstrated that property rights should be included in the new Constitution. Since I am the same man I was yesterday, the same man who made a commitment to his colleague opposite, I am still willing to go along with their suggestion . . . property rights have intrinsic value in Canada and we are prepared to go ahead with this.
However, what we all overlooked was "Little Eddie". Little Eddie, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), happened to be down in Montreal and said he did not like that because he thought it meant in future they could not nationalize, they could not take over private property, and he was going to withdraw his support from Mr. Trudeau if he dared to persist on that amendment. And Mr. Trudeau, being the socialist that he is, quickly agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to something that happened yesterday when Madam Speaker was in her chair and I objected to language being used by one of the hon. member's colleagues. It concerns using the proper name of a member of this House. As you know, the Standing Orders require that we refer to members by their constituency or by their office, be they the Prime Minister or a minister. There is ample precedent both in Beauchesne's fourth edition and in Bourinot that such a reference by name cannot be done even indirectly. In other words, if the hon. member is quoting someone else and still using an unparliamentary expression-that is, referring to someone by their proper name-then this is not permitted. Yesterday Madam Speaker said, just before royal assent at six o'clock, as reported on page 8396 of Hansard:

March 19, 1981
The Constitution
The parliamentary secretary is right in saying that hon. members cannot do indirectly what is not allowed directly. That must mean that if there is a word which is unparliamentary, the hon. member cannot use it even if he is quoting from an article or from something else.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, in the future, to see that hon. members of the Conservative party obey the rules of this House, which are for the benefit of all members.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member calls the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a socialist, I object. I think it gives socialism a bad name to refer to someone who is a non-socialist as a socialist, particularly the Prime Minister. I would ask the hon. member to state the facts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) has raised a legitimate point of order. We have had previous occurrences of the naming of members. It is the practice under our rules to refer to hon. members by their constituencies, to ministers by the portfolio they occupy and to other hon. members by their title, as in the case of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I would ask the hon. member to adhere to that wise parliamentary practice.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I originally referred to the hon. gentleman as "emperor". If that is a more acceptable term, then I have absolutely no objection.
I would like to emphasize that the present Parliament is not a consensus institution on constitutional questions. We certainly were not elected in the 1980 election to do what we are considering today. We were not elected to amend the Constitution of Canada; we were elected to work within the Constitution of Canada. This chamber was created by the British North America Act, and here we are studying a resolution that is opposed by eight of the ten provinces in Canada. We say that by sending this resolution to Westminster we can amend the very Constitution under which we are created.
I mentioned earlier that I was in Calgary yesterday. Naturally one runs into people in that area who have many frustrations. One gentleman I had never met before came to me and said, "Do you know what you are living with in Ottawa?" I said, "I have heard it called many things; what is the name you give it?" He said, "You are living with a parliamentary dictatorship." In my own riding citizens have often told me that we have an elected dictatorship down here. I think both these observations are correct. This House and the other place are dominated by a government formed from a majority Liberal caucus which, in turn, gets the majority of its members from Quebec.
It is a regrettable fact of Liberal life that Liberals were able to elect only two members west of Ontario. In terms of the popular vote not only did the Liberals not receive a majority vote in the last election nationally, but also provincially they did not carry by a majority one single province or territory other than the province of Quebec. Yet the Liberal caucus will
have the final say in Canada on the constitutional reforms being debated at the present time.
There is an even more fundamental issue at stake here, and that is whether it should be possible for any federal government to alter radically the nature of confederation by winning a simple majority in Parliament. In my opinion, it is totally inconceivable that Parliament, which was created by the British North America Act, should now set about to alter substantially that act without the support of the provinces of Canada. Surely our Constitution should take precedence over all other legislation and should be more difficult to amend than ordinary laws.
We have heard of the great objections raised by many of the premiers, but in concluding I would simply like to put two contrasting statements on the record because I think this point is often overlooked. In an address to the Empire Club in 1966, Premier Lougheed, who was then the leader of the opposition in Alberta, made the following comment:
We need in Canada a halt to the growing regionalism in this country-a return to a strong central government... We need an awareness by the provinces of their responsibilities to support the central government-an attitude which has been effectively stated by the prime minister of Ontario.
Speaking to exactly the same club subsequently-this was just recently-the premier said, and I quote:
I am not overstating the case to say that if the federal government's budget next fall brings in the natural gas export tax it will be considered like a declaration of war by Ottawa against western Canada and will be so resisted.
What has gone wrong in this country that premiers, who at one time spoke so favourably, should resort to using words such as "war"? Clearly it is the Trudeau Liberal government which has brought that about.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will recognize the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), but I should say that the occupants of the chair have to be consistent. I noted that the previous occupant of the chair warned the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) that the use of a personal name is not acceptable.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak this afternoon on the resolution concerning the patriation of Canada's Constitution. This debate will be very significant in our history. I understand over 170 speeches on this resolution have been made by hon. members.
The importance of patriation will be seen in the future in how we view ourselves as an independent nation, how we see ourselves as one nation and one people and not just ten feuding provinces. Equally important will be the formal mechanism which will exist between the federal and provincial governments for further modernizing and adjusting our Constitution to meet the changing circumstances and times of the last two decades of this century.
March 19, 1981

Although we have failed as a nation many times over the past 54 years to reach agreement on the substance and the method of constitutional patriation, it is essential that we succeed this time if we are to become a truly independent country. The lack of success in patriating the Constitution with an amending formula has been not only a symbolic shortcoming in our nationhood but also a continuing, divisive force used by people who wish to divide our country and promote regionalism.
I have been a member of this chamber for nearly 13 years, and during that time this issue has come forward repeatedly over the years in the House of Commons, in the Senate and in the provincial legislatures across the country. The matter has been studied more than any other issue by federal-provincial conferences, royal commissions, task forces and Senate, House of Commons and legislature committees. Never in the history of our country has that activity been greater than in the last year. The federal and provincial ministers of justice and intergovernmental affairs ministers worked at a fever pitch all last summer on a list of a dozen items of constitutional concern. Everything from a preamble to an amending formula, fisheries, communications and family law was on their agenda.
The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) and the premiers tackled the subject last September in a televised conference, but to no avail. The agreement which has alluded prime ministers and premiers since 1927 was not to be found.
This resolution does not change the balance of powers between federal and provincial governments except to give greater powers to the provincial governments in the field of resources. Any other changes as to powers between the two levels of government will have to await further negotiations between the two levels of government after patriation. This is really a first step in the constitutional renewal which is needed.
The resolution before us today is a modest one compared with the long list of proposals facing the Prime Minister and the premiers last September at their conference here in Ottawa. It seeks to do four main things. It seeks to patriate the Constitution with an amending procedure, to entrench a charter of rights and freedoms, to entrench provisions respecting equalization and to grant new powers to the provinces in the field of resources.
1 have been impressed by the tremendous amount of work done by the special Senate and House of Commons committee. There were hundreds of hours of work and long hearings over a three-month period. The committee heard over 300 witnesses and 100 groups from all over Canada. This has resulted in improvements to the resolution and especially to the charter of rights as it affects the equality of Canadians.
Gandhi once said: "Man becomes great directly in proportion to the extent to which he dedicates himself to the wellbeing of his fellow men". The Members of Parliament and senators on the special committee have dedicated themselves wholeheartedly for the past three months and done a great job for all Canadians in ensuring that we have the strongest Charter of Rights and Freedoms in existence today.
The Constitution
Some will say that the Constitution is not a burning issue on the main streets of Canada today. What is exciting politicians, premiers and constitutional experts is not the hottest topic in the local barbershops and coffee shops across our country. However, I believe that the principles of the resolution to be directed to Her Majesty are very important to Canadians, and they tell us so in our quiet conversations with them. They say: Yes, we should have our own Constitution in Canada like all other independent nations of the world; yes, we should have the ability to amend our own Constitution here in Canada without reference to the British parliament; yes, we should have the principle of equalization of opportunity entrenched in our Constitution, ensuring that geography will not condemn people to vastly inferior government services because they were born in parts of Canada less developed than other, richer parts; yes, our native people should have their treaty rights entrenched in the Constitution; yes, we should have a Canadian charter of rights and freedoms entrenched in our Constitution.
I say that if the people of Canada want these basic rights and freedoms entrenched in our Constitution, now is the moment in history to grasp the opportunity that is before us today. Otherwise we may wait many, many decades until another opportunity occurs.
A year ago we went through the trauma of the Quebec referendum on independence. A commitment was made at that time by most of the first ministers of the country that we would get on with constitutional reform if the people of Quebec opted for Canada. They did, and therefore we must move now if we want to grasp the opportunity which exists. It is time we were totally independent of Great Britian, able to amend our Constitution in Canada. Then we will be able to work together at further modernization of our Constitution to make it meet the challenges of the 1980s and 1990s that are already upon us.
No section of the constitutional resolution finds more favour in my constituency than part III relating to equalization and regional disparity, because our area is at once a donor and a recipient in this concept. Northern Ontario is a have-not region in the have province of Ontario. However, I cannot recall any of my constituents complaining about the contribution Ontario has made over the years to the have not provinces in other regions of our country. Thus we see that the concept of equalization of opportunity between regions and the sharing by the rich with the poor is a tradition in Canada. Likewise Algoma, which is in a slow-growth area, has been eligible for greater support from the government to help equalize the opportunities in our communities. Entrenching the concept of equalization and regional disparity into our Constitution recognizes an attitude that finds favour with the vast majority of Canadians.
A few years ago I visited an outport on Fogo Island in Newfoundland with the regional development committee of this House. We met with the community leaders to discuss

March 19, 1981
The Constitution
their economic development problems. When we were about to leave, the clerk of the hamlet said to me: "You won't forget us when you're sharing out the money in Ottawa, will you?" Mr. Speaker, this amendment to our Constitution is designed to ensure that no region of our country is forgotten when Parliament is sharing out the resources of this nation.
The charter also provides that we will be guaranteed mobility rights, so we can move freely from province to province in our country and work in any province we choose. This would stop the practice which has been occurring in a number of provinces whereby workers from other areas are denied the opportunity to seek a job. Ontario has not blocked workers from other provinces from coming to work in the province, nor should it. Without the thousands of workers from Quebec and Atlantic Canada, the rich resources of our north would not have been developed. This clause guarantees open borders in the future for those seeking work.
Another important aspect of this resolution to people in my constituency is the proposal to entrench in the Constitution the aboriginal and treaty rights of the Indian people. This was lacking in the original resolution and was of concern to many of the chiefs of the Indian bands in the dozen reserves throughout my constituency. This entrenchment was surely a dramatic breakthrough for the special committee on the Constitution and represents a considerable step forward in the guaranteeing of those rights and treaties.
Some chiefs have indicated that they would like to see more details of their rights spelled out in the charter, but most agree that a good start has been made in enshrining aboriginal and treaty rights for the aboriginal peoples of Canada in the amendments adopted.
The charter of rights and freedoms would guarantee to Canadians for the first time in our Constitution fundamental rights, democratic rights and legal rights. It would be binding on all levels of government. At a time when there is more and more government by regulation, orders in council and ministerial orders, this will be an effective way to protect citizens from abuses of power.
The existence of these entrenched rights-which will mean that both federal and provincial governments and every minister who makes laws and regulations that affect people's lives will have to conform to the charter of rights-will ensure that these laws or regulations cannot be struck down by a court. It recognizes for the first time in our Constitution the multicultural nature of our country and ensures that the charter is interpreted in a manner to preserve and enhance this heritage, a heritage which applies to almost one third of our population and is cherished by us all.
The charter will guarantee minority language education rights for our two official languages where numbers warrant the establishment of schools for minority language groups. This recognizes the agreement of the provincial premiers, in St. Andrews in 1977 and in Montreal in 1978, to provide such a right. Under the charter, citizens will be guaranteed equality before and under the law, regardless of race, nationality or
ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
The inclusion of equal rights for the disabled is a tribute to the work of the Constitution committee and the special committee on the handicapped which studied this problem during the past year. A society can be judged by the manner in which it treats its disadvantaged members. The inclusion of the disabled in our charter of rights is a just and bold step to right the injustices of the past toward these citizens of our country.
Most of the people of this land want these rights put in our Constitution; they want the Constitution brought home to Canada in a way that will provide these rights for all of the citizens of Canada. They do not want the checkerboard approach of the Conservative Party where provinces could opt into the provisions of the charter at will; where native people would have aboriginal rights in one province but not in another; where the handicapped would be guaranteed equality in one province but not in another; where freedom to seek a job would be guaranteed in one area of the country but not in another.
This country is too fragmented already, Mr. Speaker. The Tory concept of patriating the Constitution would exacerbate and increase this trend towards fragmentation. We do not want a checkerboard of rights and freedoms across this great land. We want one Constitution that applies in every province from sea to sea.
We also want to see an end to the stalemate on an amending formula and a procedure to end the stalemate. The Conservative Party's proposals would guarantee constitutional stalemate for probably another 54 years. We must seize this opportunity to move forward and patriate our Constitution with an amending procedure and a charter of rights.
One of the arguments used against the constitutional resolution is that the amendments are not being made in Canada. This must be one of the weakest arguments I have ever heard. Because that is exactly what we have been doing for almost six months now-preparing amendments to the Constitution of Canada, here in the Parliament of Canada, in the special committee, and in the discussions and negotiations between the federal and provincial governments across the country. The people have been able to watch the committee hearings on television and the debates in the House. Thousands of them have communicated with their Members of Parliament and the government.
We will be asking the British parliament to pass the resolution from the Parliament of Canada, just as they have passed every other constitutional amendment put before them for the last 114 years. Only this time it will be for the last time. This resolution, when passed here, will be supported by a majority of the members of the Senate and House of Commons of the Parliament of Canada.
Lord Acton once said:
Our political ideals are never realized, but the pursuit of them determines history.
March 19, 1981

The resolution before us today represents a tremendous amount of work and effort on the part of many people over many years. It also represents an important step toward the realization of the ideals of many Canadians-our own Constitution in Canada at last, with an amending procedure and a charter of rights and freedoms. Surely we must move forward with this resolution now if we want to make this a better country. By doing this, we will be not only realizing the ideals of many Canadians but determining our own history.
IVIr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) would like me to sit down before I say anything. This might be the only time I might oblige him since it is virtually five o'clock now, but I will have something to say later about how he tears at this country and gnaws away at it.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. 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 Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski)-Fitness and Amateur Sport-Termination of native sport and recreation program; the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer)-Transport-Appointment of grain transportation co-ordinator; the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight)-Energy-Forecast of reduction in cash flows of oil companies.
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, notices of motions (papers), private bills, public bills.
Does the House agree to stand all items under the heading of notices of motions (papers)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There being no items on the Order Paper under the heading of private bills, the House will proceed to the consideration of public bills.
Legal Tender for the Blind



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette) moved: that Bill C-235, respecting legal tender (braille numbers), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to discuss Bill C-235 for a few minutes this afternoon during private members' hour. It is a very simple and straightforward bill. I think all of us have had opportunities at various times to see some of the sad situations and problems which arise when people who are either blind or visually handicapped handle paper money. The purpose of this bill is to make it easier for these people to handle paper money with certainty, so that they are not concerned about being gypped. I propose in the bill to print paper money with Braille numbers. This is something which was done in The Netherlands some ten years ago, although admittedly not with as much success as anticipated. I have had discussions with some of the people at the embassy of The Netherlands, and my understanding is that systems are now available, through advances in technology, which in fact would make Braille numbering more suitable, more reliable, and, therefore, more useful as far as the purposes of this bill are concerned.
I am not in any way hung up on the fact that Braille numbers are the only way of assisting the visually handicapped in using bank notes. There are other ways in which paper money could be marked so that it will not present a problem to people who are unfortunately either blind or visually handicapped. I believe in England paper money is printed in different sizes so that it can be easily identified.
Before referring to one of the recommendations in the report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped, I should like to compliment those who were members of that committee. I see two of them present in the House this afternoon, the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Mrs. Killens) and the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang). I think it is an excellent report. As well there were two very good people from my party who were part of that committee, the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) and the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).
I should like also to comment on the format of this report. It is one of the easiest reports I have seen since becoming a member of the House. Not only are the contents excellent, but I think the format in which the committee presented its report is excellent as well.
I should like to refer to recommendation No. 64 which is on page 71 of the report. The purpose of this recommendation is to produce paper currency identifiable by visually-impaired persons. Recommendation 64 reads:

March 19, 1981
Legal Tender for the Blind
That the federal government instruct the Bank of Canada to announce, before the end of 1981, its intention to begin production of paper currency identifiable by blind or visually-impaired persons.
Certainly this recommendation is in line with the intentions of my bill.
On two occasions in the past-once in Saskatoon and once in Winnipeg-I had the unfortunate experience of standing in line at an CNIB booth when I saw the person in charge of the booth being deliberately gypped out of money that changed hands as a result of a transaction. All of us would find such a situation completely deplorable and unacceptable. In fact, it is hard to understand why people would behave in such a fashion. The purpose of this bill is to eliminate that kind of situation.
We all know of some of the things blind people have to do with paper money in order to keep track of it and know the denomination of the bills. They fold paper money in different fashions; they fold a $1 bill in a different method than they would fold $2 or $5 bills. At best, that is a makeshift arrangement. I see no reason why we cannot do something along the lines of the recommendation of the special committee to prevent such a thing being necessary and enable blind people to carry out normal business transactions.
Also I was struck by the comments of Denise Beaudry, a young woman from Montreal, which appeared in the task force report. She said, in part:
Except for the fear that sighted people have in my presence, I would forget that I am blind.
That is a very interesting comment on the way those of us who are fortunate enough to have our sight behave toward the blind, especially when we consider that it was made by a woman who is actually blind.
As I said, I will certainly not speak very long on this bill. I have spoken to some members in the other parties and I think there is agreement that at least the subject matter of Bill C-235 should be referred to committee. If the government is not prepared to accept the bill as such, I hope it will see fit at least to refer the subject matter to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, so that it can have a fair hearing and we can call witnesses to find out whether it is possible and practical to print paper money with Braille numbers. If not, certainly we should be looking at printing paper money of different sizes according to the denomination of the bill. In other words, a $1 bill would be a slightly different size from a $2 bill or $5 bill, and so on.
In closing, I feel this bill deserves consideration. If the government is not prepared to accept Bill C-235 as such, I hope it will be in favour of accepting the subject matter and referring it to the appropriate committee, so that we can comply with the recommendation in the report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped by ensuring that action is taken on this very important matter by the end of 1981.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is apparent that there is a good deal of sentiment, both in Parliament and in society in general, in favour of doing a great deal more than we are to overcome problems facing disabled persons. This is not just a passing sentiment related to this year's observance of the International Year of the Disabled; our awareness of the handicaps which society creates for the disabled has been growing for some years.
The House can be especially grateful for the work of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped. Its hearings across the country and the report which it published on February 16 have done a great deal to increase public awareness and understanding of the needs of disabled persons and to suggest ways of improving their situation.
The question of paper currency and what might be done to help blind persons identify the various denominations is just one of the many issues which have been raised and must be faced. The bill before us proposes the use of Braille markings to differentiate between different values of bank notes. There are differing views as to whether Braille is the best identification method, but there will be general agreement that there is a problem for blind persons in dealing with our paper currency. Some blind people have adopted special ways of folding their paper money to permit quick identification when they pay bills. Whether or not they do this, they must still rely on sighted persons at some stage to sort out the currency for them.
I should like to say at the outset that this question has been and is under careful consideration by the Bank of Canada. Officials of the bank have been in consultation with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and the Canadian Council of the Blind. They have also studied approaches to the problem which have been adopted in other countries.
The use of Braille on banknotes is not supported by either of the two organizations, the CNIB or the Canadian Council of the Blind, which is an association of blind persons. There are two main reasons given for this. First, the raised dots of Braille can become flattened and indistinct as a banknote becomes worn. Second, only a small portion of blind persons-perhaps 5 per cent or 6 per cent of the 33,500 blind persons who are registered with the CNIB-use Braille regularly.
There are, however, other approaches which can be considered. Those who are registered as blind have less than 10 per cent of their vision. But not all of these are totally blind; perhaps 80 per cent or more of them have what is termed "guiding vision". For example, many of them can read the numerals on bank notes if they are sufficiently large and in contrasting colours or shades of black and white.
Another approach which has been under consideration involves differing sizes of bank notes for the various denominations. This is the approach recommended a few years ago in a report called "Vision Canada", which was commissioned by the CNIB in co-operation with the Department of National
March 19, 1981

Health and Welfare. This is the approach which the CNIB has tended to favour.
The recent report by the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped urged that action be taken soon to make our currency more easily identifiable by blind or visionally impaired persons. Although that committee did not recommend any specific method, it did mention that other countries use different sizes of currency. There are quite a few countries outside North America which have currency of various sizes, depending on denomination. I suspect that this developed historically, for reasons other than to assist the blind. But it could be an obvious aid to a blind person provided there is a sufficient difference in size to make the different denominations readily distinguishable. That is the case in Britain, which has three main bank notes, the one, five and ten pound note, with marked differences in size. On the other hand, Canada has six main denominations ranging from one dollar to 50 dollars. I am not sure whether the six bank notes could be adequately differentiated in size without creating an oversize bill.
One other approach which has been adopted by a few countries is to use a system of tactile codes to identify the different bank notes. These involve raised dots, circles or other markings which are a good deal larger than the Braille dots. The codes are simple and easily learned. These codes are now in use on the bank notes of The Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and Israel, all countries which also have varying sizes of currency. Several other countries are considering adopting a similar approach.
I suggest that from the evidence available there are several approaches which should be considered in trying to meet the goal in this bill put forward by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer). Since there are some concerns about the effectiveness of using Braille, as proposed in this bill, I suggest we should not give it second reading. However, I believe we should refer the subject matter to committee, and I understand the government is prepared to do just that.
I should also like to mention that the matter is under careful consideration by the Bank of Canada, and I feel confident that today's debate will help in reaching a decision on this very important question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) on the introduction of Bill C-235. In doing that, although I am a couple of elections late I would like to welcome him to this House. I do so on a personal basis. He represents a constituency in which I lived for a while, on a farm, about 55 years ago. He farms near the farm on which I lived. I am happy to welcome the hon. member to this House. As I said, I am two elections late, since he came here in 1979 and back again in 1980. In any case, 1 commend him on introducing this bill.
As we have just heard, there are problems to be faced in deciding in what way to make our paper money such that blind persons can distinguish the denominations, but at least the
Legal Tender for the Blind
idea of doing something along this line is one that should be considered. I am pleased to learn that the government is prepared to have the subject matter of this bill referred to a committee. I think it is appropriate, in conjunction with our concern for handicapped persons, that we do something about this.
I am prepared to support wholeheartedly the amendment, which I assume will come a little later on, that the subject matter be referred to the committee.
I note from what has just been said that consideration has been given to various ideas. I have wondered whether there could not be added to the different suggestions we have had the printing of money on different grades or textures of paper. We who are sighted may not notice it, but if I may refer again to my past as an old printer, by feel we can tell the difference in paper, and blind people are so sensitive in terms of touch that they might do so as well. I am not moving any amendment, I am just adding one more suggestion. I think all of these ideas, the thought of Braille, or special larger dots, or of large printing for those whose blindness is not extreme or total, are all ideas to be considered.
I am glad that the hon. member has brought this bill forward. I am very pleased that the government will not talk it out, but that it will let the subject matter be referred to committee. I hope that that committee will come up with a solution and bring a measure back to the House, where we will be glad to support it.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks in this debate. First, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) for having brought this bill forward.
I have a number of friends who are either blind or visually impaired, and I can appreciate the problems they face on a daily basis when dealing with currency. The member for Portage-Marquette has indicated problems that he has seen, for example, where a blind person, because of his inability to identify currency, was gypped out of money.
I do not know what the cost would be with respect to putting braille on currency or making a change to it. We in this country spend a great deal of money in a manner which I consider very foolish. We spend many millions of dollars on advertising. We have many programs which I think do not serve any real purpose.
I am encouraged by the hon. member opposite who says that the government will refer the subject matter of this bill to committee for consideration. I hope that in referring the subject matter to committee the study will take place very quickly.
We have been a country for over a hundred years. We have had currency for over a hundred years. It seems to me that at this point in time we should do our utmost to make certain that necessary changes are made in the currency to assist the blind and the visually impaired.

March 19, 1981
Legal Tender for the Blind
It gives me a great deal of pleasure to lend my support to this bill, I am happy that the government is not planning to talk it out but, in effect, will accept it in principle.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I too want to commend the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) on his initiative. In our report we asked that everything be done before December, 1981. Of course we are aware that implementing the recommendations of the Obstacle report will probably take ten years or so. Committee members are realistic enough to know that no one can expect those recommendations to be acted upon during the International Year of the Handicapped.
Very briefly I would like to say that we already have enough problems. The handicapped experience difficulties when seeking employment, looking for housing, travelling and trying to gain access to public buildings, so for them to be able to identify currency may be a minor point. In my opinion, however, it is not a minor consideration for the blind. We have to go beyond the suggestion made in Bill C-235. We should also be able to identify coins, not only paper currency. I am pleased to see that the government is prepared to refer the bill to committee because the proposal of the hon. member for Portage-Marquette can certainly be improved in several respects. Fair enough. It is a beginning and I am sure that all parties in the House are unanimous and I am glad of that. Of course several amendments will have to be made if we are to meet the real needs of the handicapped. I would go even further and say that the committee responsible for studying such a bill ought to ask the blind to appear as witnesses. We heard a great many witnesses, we gathered evidence and put it on record. We are barely broaching the subject because we want to satisfy the clientele. When the committee gets the bill it will simply have to call witnesses who will be able to help us make a decision so that in the future it will be easier for them to identify currency. I am very glad that the government has agreed to refer it to committee.


Peter Joseph Lang: Mr. Speaker, 1 would first like to congratulate the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) for introducing this bill. I think we all know from hearing hon. members of all parties here that there is support for the bill in the House. I and other members of the special committee on the disabled travelled across Canada to hearings in all the provinces and the Northwest Territories as well. We are well aware that there is popular support for this kind of bill.
The blind really should not have to rely on sighted people in order to manage their financial affairs. This is almost a civil rights issue. This is why we made the recommendation in our report that currency be made accessible to blind people, and
made accessible in such a way that blind people can distinguish different denominations of notes.
The second reason I want to see the problem resolved this year, in 1981, the Interntional Year of the Disabled, is that I want the public to be aware of the situation. If the currency is changed, it will have an impact on all Canadians. They will have an increased awareness of the problems not only of the blind but of all disabled persons.
It is really with great pleasure that I join other members of our party in the House in supporting the principle of this bill. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Mrs. Killens):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-235, an act respecting legal tender (Braille numbers), be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I raise a very small point of order. I do not like to be technical, but I believe that the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Mrs. Killens), having already spoken in the debate, is ineligible to be named as the seconder. It is too bad, as I think it is appropriate for her to do it; but either there should be unanimous consent, or someone else should do it.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed, unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: First, the Chair thanks the hon. member for drawing this error to the attention of the Chair and the House.
Second, the hon. member has proposed a manner in which the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Mrs. Killens) may be afforded the pleasure of seconding the amendment. The Chair will therefore determine from the House whether there is unanimous consent that the hon. member for Saint-Michel second the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Lang) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall the motion, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Accordingly, the order is discharged, the bill withdrawn, and the subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
March 19, 1981

Is it the disposition of the House to call it six o'clock or to seek further business?


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: By unanimous consent I call it six o'clock, and I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 5.28 p.m. 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.
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. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to share some thoughts with you this evening, particularly as I am a Member of Parliament from one of the western provinces, the province of Alberta, which at this time in our history feels quite aggrieved by the actions of the federal government. It feels that way in two areas, first of all about the Constitution and then with respect to energy pricing. The anger flowing through my region is doubly felt to the extent that I doubt very much if the Liberal members of this House recognize the seriousness of what is happening among people in another part of the country.
1 want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that while all political parties will conduct polls from time to time-and I know there have been polls conducted in western Canada to see whether there is a mood to trigger western separation, which have indicated such is not the view of western Canadians-I want you to know that this government has embarked upon a very dangerous course if it assumes that separation is the only thing it has to guard against.
These people, by and large, have already been separated for a long time from the style of government of the party opposite. They are separating from a group of people who will not allow two aspects of their aspirations to come to pass; that is, a sense of equality of treatment, and participation in the Canadian
The Constitution
family. That is clearly demonstrated by the clandestine way the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has attempted to turn the rest of Canada against the province of Alberta. The truth of the matter is that not only would western Canada grow and develop to match its aspirations but, within central Canada in particular, there would be an enormous boom and growth of opportunity, jobs and increasing wealth. It is that atmosphere, in which the Liberal government has marinated the minds of Canadians in the poison of their own thoughts, and in which we are now debating the Constitution of Canada-a Constitution that by the written word gives the opportunity to the federal government to hold a referendum to resolve what it might see as an impasse in future deliberations.
At this time we are talking about an amendment to strike from the proposed Constitution a clause respecting the referendum.
Before I go on to that I want to make two things clear. The first is that this party, the New Democratic Party to my left- I might say to my far left-the Liberal Party and the majority of Canadians, all want the Constitution of Canada brought home to Canada. That is not the problem. It is also fair to say that this proposed Constitution is a far better Constitution than that which was proposed on October 2. While the Liberals will chastise us for the time we have taken in debate, Canadians should be proud of that achievement having a far better Constitution than that which was proposed on October 2; by the admission of the Liberals as well as the NDP and this party.
I will single out tonight about five or six fundamental reasons why this Constitution should not go forward. It is dangerous and, irrespective of polls at this moment, it still has the potential literally to tear our country apart and the potential through the clandestine policies of this government to destroy this most blessed and fortunate people in all the world with an inheritance to the greatest nation on earth. For its own purposes it wants to ram a Constitution through, regardless of the fact that the major opposition party is opposed to it, or that there is some dissent within the New Democratic Party. Even one government member is opposed to this procedure. There is some dissent in Liberal ranks in the other place.
According to a recent pool, 64 per cent of Canadians are also opposed. Eight provinces say the method is not right. Six of them believe that to the extent they are taking the matter to court. Yet against that milieu and background, the government is running off with the Constitution of Canada as if it were its own. I ask on what basis can the government do this. Can it do it on the basis of a majority government elected in February, 1980, although it was never once mentioned during the campaign that that was the issue at hand?
We had an 18-cent election. We had an election on the basis of what the price of gasoline would be. We know what happened. People voted for cheaper gasoline and they got nine

March 19, 1981
The Constitution
increases. But the people never voted for anything respecting a Constitution.
If this Constitution goes through, if this majority government can give us a new Constitution, what is going to be the position of any future majority government? It may presume it has the power to change the Constitution willy-nilly, irrespective of the will of Canadians. This is a dangerous precedent.
I do not believe there is any mandate whatever to give these people representing Canadians in every region of Canada, the majority of whom by a recent poll, are opposed to what the government is doing, any right to do what they are doing. We, as members of Parliament are here for the purpose of representing them.
Let me take a look at some of the specifics of what I believe is wrong with this legislation. First, there is the unilateral nature of what is taking place, and the single-handedness of the federal government in changing the Constitution in a federal system which has both provinces and federal governments. In this case there are eleven governments, all with equal power although differently and separately defined. One of the eleven players is saying the Constitution is his and he will change it. I could accept that if the changes being made were only those changes which affected the federal government, but they are not. This government is making changes which change the powers of the provinces. I simply do not believe the government has the legality to go ahead and change the Constitution. This is analogous to one player making changes devising a whole new game and forcing all other players to play. The federal system itself is therefore destroyed. This government destroys by absorbing power, and then takes the position that it is the dominant power and the provinces are subservient. As soon as the government takes that position we no longer have a federal system. We are now moving on a track toward a unitary system, something with which I cannot agree.
To be clear, I want hon. members to know that I have no objection to the principles of unitary governments. If they work in Belgium, Holland or England, that is understandable because of the geography and the size of those lands. However, Canada stretches from Victoria B.C. to St. John's, Newfoundland, and is populated by a ribbon of people scarcely more than 100 miles from the United States border. We have a central government which separates east and west by the Canadian Shield. This gives the people of central Canada a geographical opportunity to travel south to Vermont to ski, to New York to ship or to Florida for the sun. In western Canada people go to "lost wages", Nevada, to lose their money or off to Hawaii for the sun. For the most part Canadians do not travel east and west.
A unitary government will not work. The style of government which will result from this Constitution, will lead us in future years to central power in Ottawa being dominant over the rest of the country. People at the grass roots level will have neither an association nor an affiliation with the central system because they will have more trust in their provincial government, if for no other reason than proximity, or that they
cross paths with their MLAs more frequently than with their Members of Parliament.
I go now to another aspect, that of the amending formula. The amending formula is one which defies the aspirations of the lesser populated provinces. It puts provinces, such as New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, and others, into a secondary class to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
We cannot continue with peace and harmony within the federal system when two provinces have been granted in perpetuity the right of veto which enables them to out-vote and even outcast other provinces. That part of the amending formula is absolutely wrong. If there is no agreement on an amendment among the provinces and the federal government, the federal government then has the right to resort to a referendum. Some people might ask why that is so wrong. Why is it wrong that we could use what would appear to be a very democratic process in making a decision, the people's vote? It is wrong because the federal government will have all the control relating to that referendum. As it took place in Quebec, it will take place federally-


Mr. MacBain:: Quebec lost on it.


Arnold John Malone: -with the government having control on the timing, on the advertising and how the question is worded. If in the federal system there is to be a referendum situation, a procedure I do not like, then surely the mechanism for a referendum should be the provision that if seven provinces agree they could also trigger a referendum. But this government has said we will have a federal system in which only one player can trigger the referendum mechanism. That is not a federal system. We would no longer be like West Germany, Australia or other federal systems. We will have changed to where we have a dominant superpower with subordinate provinces.
I suggest that changes Canada in an unacceptable way. People in this country will not tolerate, nor will they accept dominance. There are players in Canada who want to be good members of the family. They want to co-operate with all Canadians, but they are being bullied by a government which gets its popular vote from two provinces. It writes off the rest of Canada.
I disapprove of the manner in which this government is moving to patriate the Constitution. The nature of the request by the Canadian government is to give us colonial status. I have heard voices from the other side saying we are making the amendments here and just sending them to Britain for Westminster to ratify. The last stage of ratification is by Members of Parliament from another country, elected by other members outside Canada representing British citizens. These people sit in the British House of Commons, and vote on British legislation. They are the ones who would be casting^the last decision on our Constitution. It is this Canadian government which has asked Great Britain to make the decisions for Canada.
March 19, 1981

The Canadian government has asked that we accept colonial status. That is unacceptable and wrong. All it had to do was ask Great Britain to return the British North America Act with or without an amending formula, then Canadians and Canadian councils and chambers such as this one could have made the decisions affecting Canadians.
The leaked document of September 8 last indicated the motives behind the government's desire to have Great Britain handle this. The advisers to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) warned that if he did not get his wishes through Great Britain, Westminster and the British parliament and only got the British North America Act, if he tried to implement those changes here and the provinces did not like them, they could challenge them through the court system all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The courts might rule that the act is unacceptable in the context of our present situation. Therefore, the Prime Minister's advisers told him to try to get the British to pass what he wanted passed because the Canadian courts have no jurisdiction over British law.
Those on the other side choose to hide behind the skirts of England, and Canadians should be aware of their reasons. They want to avoid a test in court, and they know that our courts have no control over British law.
Colonial status is utterly demeaning to Canada and her citizens. It belittles this government. Canadians should rise up with the greatest strength and ask this government to ask only for the return of our Constitution. The rest of the work can be done in the Parliament of Canada by those who are elected here.
1 want to talk about another reason the Constitution should not come home in its present form. It deals with the charter of rights. 1 suppose at first blush what I will say next will sound to many new Canadians and young Canadians as a statement that is wrong. I do not believe in charters of rights because they follow upon the Napoleonic code. He enumerated all the rights of the people. He told them they had the right to freedom along with some others.
That makes the presumption that all power is vested in government and the government has the privilege of saying what is right. That is not the Canadian way. We follow the British model. In the early history of that country the people had no power whatsoever. The king was almighty; he had all power. The people were not even called citizens, they were called subjects.
That lasted until King John wanted to build a new castle. In order to do that he had to tax the people more. They revolted, took away the power from the king, and made him sign the Magna Carta which gave all the power to the people. In that Magna Carta the people said they would have a Parliament and a House of Commons so that common people could sit there and represent the people. For almost 725 years all the power has been vested in the people of that land. They changed all of the laws.


Mr. Kelly:: Wasn't that a charter of rights?
The Constitution


Arnold John Malone: Yes it was a charter of rights, but it said the people have all the power whereas this charter of rights takes that away and gives it to government and delineates-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arnold John Malone: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is laughing. He does that because he is nervous. He did not have the courage to put into the charter the right to ownership of property. He followed exactly what they have in the communist countries and the military dictatorships of Africa.


An hon. Member:: He has no guts.


Arnold John Malone: I heard that last heckle. I defy anyone to say I have no guts.
If we were to lock a random group of Canadian citizens into a room and give them copies of constitutions from around the world, it would not surprise me one bit if they chose as their favourite constitution that of the Soviet Union. It is a guarantee of an extended set of rights that is unparalleled by any other nation in the world. The Cuban constitution is similar as are those of most of the military dictatorships of Africa and Latin America.
The principle in every one of those dictatorships is the fact that property rights are not included in their bills of rights. That is extremely fundamental. It means that communist countries can give you all the rights they want because they know if you own nothing, nothing else matters. What use is freedom of assembly when the government owns every place you can assemble? I quote from page 114 of the communist manifesto:
In this sense, the theory of the communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
Some members opposite say we need a charter of rights because of the horrible thing that was done to our Japanese brothers and sisters on the west coast during World War II. They give other examples of why they think we need a charter of rights. However, in every example they give the changes have already been made. The people of this country made them through their House of Commons.
Had we had a charter of rights in 1867, we may not today even be considering women as persons, or as being able to vote or sit in this chamber. I would ask why? It is because the courts of the land interpret charters, not politicians.


David Orlikow: What about the United States?


Arnold John Malone: The people of the United States do not want busing in their education system. They have it because their courts are powerful. Their elected representatives cannot change this because the courts made those decisions.
Canadians should know that when decisions are made in the courts, when there is a charter of rights, power is stripped from the people. Members of Parliament can say what they want, this will not be changed because the courts will have become all powerful. This institution will be less valuable in serving democracy.

March 19, 1981
The Constitution
The courts become more powerful as they adjudicate the rights of people, as shown by the United States which has a charter of rights. Little children are bused 30 or 35 miles in one direction while children of another race are moving in the other direction in order to achieve some racial equality in the schools. The people of those communities do not want nor do they see any purpose in having their young children travelling that distance on buses. They have complained and complained to their elected representatives, but it is the courts which make the decisions. This government is asking that Canada adopt such a system. I tell you, sir, it defies democracy.
For over 700 years, since the signing of the Magna Carta, all rights in our democratic system have been presumed. What this government is trying to do is pluck out certain rights and say: These will be yours. And the people will look at them and say: Gee, those are great; we have the right to assemble. They do not recognize that when you start to codify rights, when the government pretends it is all powerful and gives you rights, you only have the rights it extends, not those left off the list.
Going down this long list we ask: What about the handicapped; what about the right to a job; what about the question of presumed rights? Obviously they cannot be put in a charter of rights so the only way it can be handled is to give them back to the people and leave the concept of the charter of rights.
The other aspect we should bear in mind, sir, is that a charter of rights will hinder us in those areas where we want to be selective. 1 come from a province where, in the town of Fort McMurray, more native people are hired than would be the case if this was done on the order of application or by random choice. That is positive discrimination. In this city, Canada's capital, the federal government will hire more females in the upper echelons of the civil service than might otherwise be the case because they have a policy to do so. But, if we introduce a charter of rights, then that is discriminatory. So I say to you there is some inherent danger in not having a situation where you can move in a very positive and equitable way.
Moving then to the mobility clause of this charter, I can appreciate that we should be able to move freely across this country and be able to get a job in any part of Canada. By and large we do that now. There are places such as Newfoundland where, I believe as a western Canadian, there is some legitimate reason why that province should have a selective policy. Newfoundland generally has had a lower per capita income than other provinces in recent years. If oil is struck in Hibernia that province should not give just those people trained in the industry in the west or the head office cities of Toronto or Montreal, the first chance at those jobs. I believe that province has a legitimate purpose in saying: We will give our people preference in job hiring. I also think they have the right to promote this, because in a democratic system we trust this principle will not be abused. It takes place only in those provinces that by and large have been in a disadvantaged position over the years and are trying to catch up, whether it be in the economy, language or whatever.
I believe this country is at a crossroads. I see the people in Central Canada coming to different conclusions on major issues than do people in other regions. At one time I thought that was because they were somehow unique. I do not believe that now. The reason we come to different conclusions is that we are fed different information in different parts of Canada. There is a great misunderstanding today concerning energy because what the people in western Canada think about energy and their role in Canada is quite different from what they are hearing in central Canada.
I note that the city of Toronto is the headquarters for CTV and CBC news, for CHUM Radio, which owns stations all across Canada, Maclean's magazine and others, and it literally has become the information dissemination centre for all of Canada. There are those in the national media who believe that somehow the central perspective is gospel, but the regional carriers of information living in a different milieu, or environment, are recording information different to that fed to the central regions of the country. What we end up with is a country which has national news made in Toronto but with very little regional news coming back. We then have this great myth that somewhere in western Canada there are greedy people, and that is dead wrong.
That is why the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources can develop a policy which Fits into this Constitution. It fits in with the anger of the moment. He is unwilling to pay more than $17.75 for western sweet crude but will pay the Mexicans the world price for their oil in spite of the fact it is Maya crude, a heavy sludge oil for which we have not enough refinery capacity and which takes a barrel and a half to equal the amount of gasoline from a barrel of Alberta sweet crude. For that reason we can argue that a barrel of Mexican crude costs upwards of $60 to $70. In addition, Mexico, for whatever reason, says their oil cannot be passed through to any other country, but must be refined in Canada. It must be refined in a heavy oil refinery, so we ship it to the Saskatchewan refineries. Because of overloading there we have to ship Saskatchewan oil to the U.S. for refining and bring the fuel products back. When you put all these transportation costs together, knowledge of which central Canadians basically did not have, we are not paying something near world price, we are paying almost 50 per cent more. Yet at the same time, for some reason, some are trying to make the people of central Canada believe that western Canada is greedy.
I will tell you just the opposite. If this government did not have the attitude it does with respect to the development of the west, if it were not so afraid of western Canada's present success, and if it had allowed them to go ahead with the kind of pricing regime they were looking for, which is well below world prices, there would be two tar sands plants on stream today. Central Canadians should know that the 25-year lifespan of one tar sands plant will result in direct spending of $108 billion in the province of Ontario. That is made up, in part, sir, by the expenditure of $800 million for iron and steel development; $370 million for metal fabrication; $325 million for transportation equipment; $740 million for manufacturing
March 19, 1981

and processing; $370 million for financing; and $750 million for other trades and services. So multiply $108 billion over 25 years by eight or nine, and you come up with an amount pouring into this country and into this province of Ontario that is absolutely enormous.
Let us look at it in other ways. If we are not sending $4 billion to Mexico, Venezuela or the Middle East but keeping $8 billion in Canada, that money helps reduce our deficit. That money stays in Canada. It means we do not have to tax our people or borrow more money to pay interest. For every four tax dollars we collect, one is used to pay foreign debt. We could keep that money at home and build Canada. There are 110 million people in Japan. The only resources there are fish and tin, but what an economy they have! Germany is one of the leading nations of the world with respect to economic strength. When world oil prices started to go up in 1971 Germany adapted and charged world oil prices. Did that hurt the German automotive industry? It did not? Germany is one of the leaders in the auto industry today.
This government chose to intervene and "protect" our industries. What are we doing now? We are bailing out Chrysler Corporation because that corporation continued to make 14-foot long Chryslers. Then all of a sudden the shock came. The government would not allow sudden increases in fuel prices, but its protectionist policy worked against it. On the one hand this government will not allow jobs to be created in Ontario, and on the other hand it is killing and stifling the initiative of the industries which are already here. That policy is wrong.
We have a clandestine government causing deep anger. That anger runs deep in the citizens of my region. West-Fed meetings are being held all over western Canada. That makes me bitter and angry with those people opposite. They force me to go home to my constituency, a good part of this country, to face people who say: "What the heck, why do I have to stay with this any longer when this government will not hear about western aspirations?" West-Fed has now held about four or five meetings in my riding. I have received many letters. One writer wrote the following:
As a westerner I have adopted a "helpless and hopeless" attitude toward our federal government. I feel we really have no voice and no artillery to fight the Trudeau Machine, but that is no reason to give up the fight.
Another person wrote, and I quote:
Myself like thousands of others have joined West-Fed as a last hope.
The important words are "last hope". They have given up on the Government of Canada, and they have done that because of this government's energy pricing and Constitution policies, which will make my province a second-class province in this country. The letter goes on to say:
With ^Trudeau in the saddle the western provinces stand as much hope as a snowflake in hell.


An hon. Member:: Watch your language.
The Constitution


Arnold John Malone: Another person wrote to me and said the following:
I am deeply concerned with the way the constitutional issue is being handled by the federal government.
Then in a later paragraph he said:
For that reason and because of the way the west is being treated generally by the central Canada dominated federal government I am prepared to vote to separate if asked this question in a provincial referendum.
These letters document the fact that this government is callous, cruel, fails to understand and does not govern Canada.
1 come from a province in which 21 Members of Parliament are elected. The Liberal Party which forms the federal government today holds only 21 seats from eight of the provinces and two territories. All the rest of the power of this government comes from Quebec and Ontario. Hon. members opposite do not represent Canada. There is room for my region in this country. It is a good member of the Canadian family, but when those bastards on the other side-


An hon. Member:: Watch your language.


Mr. Cousineau:: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) has definitely used unparliamentary language, and I ask him to withdraw those words.


Arthur Allister MacBain: Be a gentleman for a change.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to withdraw. I am not sure what I have done is wrong. I have made reference to these people and the way in which I believe they are bastardizing the nation, which I think is wrong. They are very much the cause of this nation being in the situation it is in. We have a phony government, and it is that phoniness to which I am referring.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I regret to inform the hon. member that the time allotted for his speech has elapsed. He can continue if he seeks the unanimous consent of the House.


Arthur Allister MacBain: No bloody way. He is a separatist.


Charles James Mayer: Shape up, MacBain.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on this very important issue tonight because I was one of the Members of Parliament denied that right by the government's imposition of closure last winter.
Before I get to the issues I would like to praise the efforts of the special committee on the Constitution. That committee laboured long and mightily to improve the document put before it. Many members from all parties immersed themselves heart and soul and ate, lived and breathed this Constitution for a good long time.
I would like to single out for particular praise the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), whose contribution to this entire process cannot be overestimated. The chairman of the

March 19, 1981
The Constitution
committee, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal), impressed everyone with his fair-minded, evenhanded treatment of what sometimes evolved into raucous debate. The commitment and the enthusiasm of the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) were inspirational to many.
There were differences of ideology, but the way the committee functioned and the suggested amendments that were accepted serve to show us as Members of Parliament how a committee can and should function.
For example, all parties moved amendments to the resolution. We did not get all we wanted, but some of our efforts were successful. The people of Canada were able to watch the daily proceedings of the committee and were able to learn and understand better how Parliament works.
The Progressive Conservatives moved an amendment of which I am proud. That is the amendment which deals with denominational schools. In my riding, as in other ridings across Canada, there exist a number of Christian schools. Many of these schools expressed the fear that they would no longer be able to function in the way to which they had long been accustomed. They were afraid that their special status would be denied them, but we intervened and their rights were specifically outlined and protected in the proposed charter.
The Progressive Conservatives were equally successful in ensuring that those who suffer from mental or physical disability were granted equal protection and equal benefit under the law without discrimination. This is a major step forward, and it echoes my party's commitment to the handicapped in this Year of the Handicapped.
However, despite our successes, there were battles we fought in vain. Sometimes alone, and sometimes in conjunction with their friends in the NDP, government members saw fit to defeat amendments which could have gone further in protecting the rights of individual Canadians. Our amendment respecting the right to own property was one of those with which we could see no problem. After all, there are more than 30 countries in the world which include the right to own property as one of their fundamental constitutional rights. The government in the person of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), who was pinch-hitting for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), agreed with us. Who are we to doubt the word of a cabinet minister? We soon found the answer to that. In a move which perfectly illustrated the lack of good faith typified by this government, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), after consulting with the leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent), coldbloodedly withdrew the support of the government for our amendment.
There was no principle involved in his decision; it was political expediency, pure and simple. It was a case of "scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours". The Solicitor General was tossed unceremoniously to the wolves, repudiated by his own leader in a cynical, dispassionate attempt to purchase Mr. Blakeney's support. Alas for the Prime Minister, his ploy did not work. Alas for Canadians, for they now have not the right under this resolution to own property.
This is not a red herring. This right to own property should be the cornerstone, the fundamental linchpin of a renewed Constitution. Shelter is one of the basic needs of humankind. The urge to build a nest is deeply engrained in our psyche. Our language is full of references to the ancient need. "A man's home is his castle." We have all heard that, and we all know what it means. It means security, privacy and freedom to be one's own self, away from the judgmental eyes of strangers.
The purchase of a home is the single biggest purchase most people make. To buy one's home is a basic ambition and, as such, plays a large part in our economy. People work, strive and save to buy that little corner of earth they can call their own. And now this government says, "No, you do not have that right any more. We can take this away from you any time we deem it expedient."
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is this the kind of motivation that will send people out to work and encourage them to put their hard earned money into property? That is not likely, for why should people take the risk when that property can be taken away from them at the government's whim?
Our economy, which is already suffering from a severe drop in construction, will certainly not pick up and start booming under these circumstance. Perhaps this decision by the government will mean that even more people in the construction industry will be out of work.
The urge to own one's home is one of the factors that brought the settlers to Canada in the first place. I know that my own forefathers, who came from Pennsylvania in the year 1800 and settled on the shores of Lake Erie in what was then the township of Bertie, acquired land from the Crown and farmed. They came here because they wanted to have freedom of religion, because they wanted to farm on their own land, and they found that freedom here.
The homesteaders came and they developed this country. Their desires and the good of the country coincided. Now, with this right denied, where will the country go? Who will want to put their sweat into it when the government can snatch it away? No, Mr. Speaker, this denial of our amendment does not bode well for Canada, for its future, or for the future of its people.
Recently five members of our task force studying North-South relations were on a trip to Asia. We visited the Philippines, Bangladesh and Singapore. As 1 was travelling through the countryside in the Philippines I learned that many people are denied ownership of proprety, either for political reasons, because of poverty, or perhaps both. In Bangladesh also, to own property is an almost sacred right. Half the people in that country do not own land. If all the land in that country were evenly distributed, it would mean only three quarters of an acre per person. You see, Mr. Speaker, ownership of property is precious, so let us not take it for granted.
I should like to read into my speech a news release from the Ontario Real Estate Association under the dateline of January 27. It reads:
March 19, 1981

The 25,000 member Ontario Real Estate Association is appalled that the government has apparently reneged on its agreement to include property rights as part of the charter of rights in the constitutional process.
Maurice W. Park, president of the association, said in a telegram to Prime Minister Trudeau and other MPs that property rights are "basic to the freedoms of Canadians and are intrinsic to the freedom and growth of Canada."
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) on a point of order.


René Cousineau: 1 must rise once again, Mr. Speaker, to point out to the hon. member that he should respect the traditions and customs of the House by not referring to a member or a minister by his name, but rather by his title.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I understand the point raised by the hon. member for Gatineau. However, I was also listening carefully to the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz), and I heard that he was quoting from a text which referred to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The hon. member for Gatineau on a point of order.


René Cousineau: I would not want to question your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to make a comment on a ruling made by the Chair last evening. I do not have before me the page to which I am referring, but the opinion was expressed that members should not quote from texts that contain unparliamentary expressions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please! I find it improper for a member to appeal a ruling of the Chair. It has been clearly established that the hon. member for Erie was quoting a text mentioning the person in question, and I must point out that this reference was quite proper. Obviously, a member who quotes a text associates himself with it in a way, and as he is taking for himself the text quoted, he must respect the spirit and the letter of our rules as much as possible. Having said this, I believe that the ruling I made earlier is in accordance with the tradition of the House, and I think that we should allow the hon. member for Erie to continue.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Hear, hear, Mr. Speaker, let the hon. member not waste our time any further.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, apparently the hon. member cannot stand the truth. I should like to continue reading the news release as follows:
"Our society was built on the premise that ownership of private property is a freedom inherent in our society. Refusing those rights is, in effect, refusing part of our freedom."
He added: "Throughout the years, people have worked and saved with a view to eventually owning property. For in ownership of property lay the concept of being free, of being master of your own fate, of having a measure of control over your own destiny."
To deny that right as one of the basic rights of being a Canadian is to deny all that Canada has stood for in the past 114 years and to deny all that our forefathers strived for, Park said.
The Constitution
"We in the real estate industry deal closely with the public and with the land. We are the ones who bring buyer and seller together. We assist in the private ownership dream and we increasingly see the erosion of the right of property ownership in this land.
It is imperative, he added, "that those who are concerned with property rights and with the maintenance of a fair and just balance between private property rights and the public interest stand up and be heard. But the maintenance of the balance must include the entrenchment of property rights within the charter of rights."
The Ontario Real Estate Association is the largest provincial real estate association in Canada and represents 48 local real estate boards in cities and town across Ontario.
Our forefathers came to this country to seek land, to seek wealth, and to seek a new way of life. We know that first came the French, then the British who began to explore, to chart and then to govern this vast and unknown land. Across the conference table they combined their strengths, and an equal welcome was extended to all who came. Millions came from many parts of the world, people of varied racial origins. Now we possess this land in common under the Maple Leaf, the symbol of the great forests we have hewn together.
Historically, Canada's story has been a troubled one. It was put together following the colonial wars between Britain and France, which left us a legacy of distrust between the French and the English cultures and made nationhood even more difficult to attain.
We are now a nation of varying cultures and ethnic groups, British, French, German, Ukrainian, Scandinavian, Dutch, Chinese, Japanese, Italian, Dukhobor, Indian and Eskimo. All of these, while loyal to our country, have different backgrounds, cultures and ways of life.
As we read the records of the pre-confederation years, we come to realize that Canada became a nation because the confederating fathers had come to a point of mutual agreement where they were willing to set aside those things that divided them in favour of standing together on the basic areas of mutual concern and conviction.
For at least seven years before 1864, George Brown, the leader of the Liberals, and John A. Macdonald, the leader of the Conservatives, were not even on speaking terms with one another. Yet, in 1864 they came to an understanding which resulted in working together to bring about confederation. The confederating fathers agreed that the most important minority of all was the individual who, as a human being created in the image of God, should have those freedoms which in the past 100 years have been the basis of the Canadian way of life. They were utterly convinced that government had no right to assume it could grant or take away those freedoms. They dedicated themselves to the premise that it was the responsibility of government to protect and to perpetuate those freedoms which belonged by right to every individual and to every group of individuals, minorities or majorities. It was determined that Canada, in its destiny, must be a nation under God.
It was on October 16, 1864, that the decision was made to go ahead with the drafting of the constitution. Sir Leonard Tilley, reading his morning devotions, was impressed with the
8438

March 19, 1981
The Constitution
eighth verse of the seventy-second psalm. He became convinced that if they were to succeed in their objective, Canada would have to become a nation under God. When he arrived at the conference session that morning, he convinced his fellow politicians that the motto of this new nation should be: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea". Therefore, inscribed in the east arch of the Peace Tower of the Parliament Buildings were these words: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea", and over the west arch were these words: "Where there is no vision the people perish". This government needs a vision of what this country can become. The work that they accomplished has not perished, but the question we can ask ourselves tonight is: Will it survive?
1 want to speak to another amendment which the Liberals saw fit to deny, the amendment whereby the Tories attempted to have the preamble to the Bill of Rights, written by Mr. Diefenbaker, included in the charter of rights of this resolution presently under discussion. I remind hon. members opposite of the wording passed by Mr. Diefenbaker's government in 1960. The following sentiments and thoughts were applicable then and, as far as I am concerned, they still are:
Affirming that (a) the Canadian nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person, and the position of the family in a society of free individuals and free institutions, and (b) individuals and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law.
For some inexplicable reason hon. members opposite saw Fit to defeat this amendment. What could their reasons be? Is it because these words are the words of a man who was their political foe? No, I really cannot believe hon. members opposite are so petty. Is it because hon. members opposite are irreligous and deny God's existence? No, that cannot be either. Is it because they do not believe in the dignity and worth of the human person? No, for surely they are dignified and worthy persons opposite.
This is a mystery, but could there not be a simple explanation? Could it be that the Right Hon. Prime Minister has delusions of grandeur and does not wish to acknowledge that there is someone who is superior to him? After all, the charter of rights was his idea. He was the one who pushed and manipulated to have it included with the patriation of the Constitution. He is the one who forgot to tell Mrs. Thatcher that he would include it. He is the one who forgot to tell the premiers last September that he would do it. It was his idea, and he will not let us forget it. We might think that our rights come from God, but we all know they come from the Right Hon. Prime Minister!
The people of Canada know better. Even those who call God by another name know rights flow from something greater than a mere man. The government cannot dispense rights; rights are an intrinsic part of a human being.
We have heard of the phrase "the spirit of the law". What does it mean? It means more than the mere words, the dry legalities. It means the spirit in all people, all of us who recognize that there is someone or something greater than ourselves, that there is a higher authority than government. It
is that greater power which awes, instructs and inspires man to be greater himself. This is what we want recognized, and the people of Canada know it. All members on all sides of the House have received letters, cards and telephone calls. Today I received another stack of letters, all indicating the same thing: "Do not leave God out of the Constitution-all rights and privileges flow from him; how can the government deny that?" The people do not understand; neither do I. It seems such a basic, fundamental premise that the people are mystified by the government's reluctance to include it.
The Prime Minister said he is willing to listen to suggestions so that he can get broader support for his resolution. I know a lot of his opposition out there in Canada would have been silenced had he accepted the Progressive Conservative amendment. I urge him most strongly to listen, not just for his own sake, for the sake of all people.
The proposed charter provides that "everyone has the right to life." The effect of this clause will be to strengthen the hand of the pro-abortionist faction. Let me explain. To date the Canadian courts have determined that the words "person" and "human being" do not include the unborn child, with the result that a child must be born before it can assert rights. The proposed charter reaffirms this interpretation by not explicitly providing for the right to life of the unborn child. Because of this omission, the right to an abortion will virtually be entrenched in our Constitution. Once the charter is in place, Canadians will be locked into rights and relationships permanently, far beyond what may be fully understood today.
In light of this, it is better the charter be amended specifically to deal with the rights of the unborn and the assertion of those rights prior to birth, rather than leave it to the courts only to find later that a constitutional amendment is required. Therefore, clause 7 might be amended to read as follows:
Everyone, including the unborn, has the right to life, which life begins at conception and which right is assertable from conception. 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.
It has been "noised about" that the Tories are against a charter of rights. This is not the truth. We are in favour of a charter of rights. In fact, the members of my party on the special committee worked hard to improve the charter originally suggested by the Minister of Justice. No, there are two reasons we have misgivings about the charter. Those reasons relate not to content, but to the method of imposing the charter on the provinces, and the fact that Parliament will no longer be the final arbiter in questions of human rights. That responsibility will be taken over by the Supreme Court.
Many things have been said about the charter and the concept of the charter. It is a noble and laudable goal. The sentiments and hopes expressed in the wording of the charter are ones which exemplify the Canadian attitude of fairness and justice. We will be the envy of many nations if the charter is realized.
But, will it be realized? Will its genesis, its form of coming into being, militate against its acceptance? In many cases the charter is seen to infringe upon provincial rights. The prov-
March 19, 1981

inces will be less than ecstatic about implementing changes in their legislation, when those changes are perceived to have been imposed unilaterally by the federal government, against the will of the provinces and without prior consultation.
The atmosphere has been poisoned by the actions of the Prime Minister. Surely, if the charter is something he so very strongly believes in, it deserves the very best chance to be embraced by both levels of government. That chance could only be offered by both levels, had they the opportunity to fully discuss the charter, to make suggestions as to its improvement, to do a little horse trading or to do a bit of compromising.
I have said that the concept of the charter is a noble one. Indeed, it is a dream that has long sought reality. But, will that reality sully the dream? Will the hard feelings which have been engendered work to make the reality less than the dream? Will it be seen, like so many other things about this government, that the rhetoric far exceeds what eventually comes into being?
Although I have not been a member for long, sometimes it seems to me that discouragement could be the key note of the Hill. That discouragement, if it is real, is based on the disillusionment which comes with this place. So many wonderful causes have been espoused here in this place. So many people work so very hard, and in too many cases disappointment is the only crop harvested. The Prime Minister seems to have had a dream, but by his very own actions he has endangered that dream.
It is true, with his numerical strength, he can force the charter on the provinces. But I am sure if he does he will find it to be a hollow victory. If he truly wants to triumph, if he does not want to add to the long litany of failures and shattered hopes, it is up to him to change his course. It is up to him to choose the middle ground of conciliation, consultation and compromise. Surely, for something as important as the charter of rights, the Prime Minister can bend. Surely, he can try to work together with the premiers to achieve his own dream.
I would like to indulge in an hypothesis. Suppose that the Prime Minister goes ahead with the charter and imposes it on the provinces. Suppose that the people and the premiers soon forget the method of the charter's imposition, although I do not believe that could be true. What will happen then? Even if this turns out to be like the flag debate-all smoke and no fire-Canada will still be left with a charter of rights that can only be interpreted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Canada is an appointed body-appointed by the Prime Minister. I fear that if we let the Supreme Court be the final arbiter, we will be erasing some of the traditional separation between the legislature and the courts. The separation was devised for a purpose, and it will be blurred if the charter goes through as proposed.
The question we must ask ourselves is this: Do we, as Canadians, really want the court to play a significant role in
The Constitution
policy-making? This is what the court will be doing if we leave the final interpretation of the charter to it. This is how matters have evolved in the American system. But, in the United States, appointments to the supreme court must be ratified by the members of the Senate. This is a safeguard which was built into the American constitution so that power would not be concentrated too much in the hands of one person-the person making the appointments. We have no such safeguard in our constitutional proposal. I think that we must consider very carefully just what we may be doing to the future of Canada, if we do not change the way that appointments are made to our Supreme Court, should this constitutional proposal go through.
Some of us in this House have come to Canada to escape despotism in other lands; and others of us have travelled enough throughout the world to see the ravages that unbridled power can bring to bear on a nation. What guarantees are there in this resolution which can allow us to relax and say, It cannot happen here? It has happened in other nations which were complacent, where democracy was wrenched from the people. Other people have said, We trust those we put in power to use that power wisely. They have our best interests at heart. To their grief, other people have learned that sometimes their interests and the interest of their rulers do not always overlap. But the rulers have had so much power invested in them, unchecked power, that the rulers were able to have their way over the wishes of the nation.
I cannot read the future, Mr. Speaker; none of us can, but I firmly believe that we, as the parliamentarians of Canada, have a great responsibility to the people of Canada, and we should consider the future realistically. Human nature is human nature, and where human nature is concerned we know that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Let us not look down the years with our vision obscured by wishful thinking. We would be abdicating our responsibility to the people who voted for us if we did not take a cold, hard look at the possible consequences of our actions on the lives of future generations. It is always better to be safe than sorry. That is why I would feel a lot better about this whole process if we could only go at it more slowly, before we commit ourselves to a regrettable and irreversible course.
I have used some words in my speech today that I would like to repeat. They are compromise, conciliation, and consultation. These words, for me, sum up what Canada is all about. We are a large, diverse nation, with conflicting goals and needs. Yet for over 113 years, these conflicts have been allayed by compromise, conciliation and consultation. Why, after all this time, when this approach has been successful, has the Prime Minister decided to go the unilateral route, with all the bitterness and hostility it will cause? The Prime Minister is well aware of the benefits which can accrue when parties with differing viewpoints get together to discuss their differences.
If this were not the case, why has he just agreed to have regular trilateral talks with the United States and Mexico? If he can see the wisdom of talking with our neighbours, why can he not see the wisdom of talking with his own people-

The Constitution
Canadians? Engaging in such a dialogue would surely be worth while, for the stakes are so high, and the cost of failure too abysmal to contemplate.
When 64 per cent of the population feels that the process is wrong, then that is the time to reconsider. The majority of the people are in favour of repatriating the Constitution, but the manner in which the Prime Minister is doing it sticks in their craw. It is unfortunate that an artificial, arbitrary deadline means more to the Prime Minister than the cries of outrage from the people of Canada. There is serious danger here, not only to Canada, but to the office of the Prime Minister. He has so upset the people that anything which emanates from the federal government, or which appears to have his approval, is viewed with a jaundiced eye. I am afraid the Prime Minister will find his actions ultimately counterproductive. Canadians will balk at anything he says. This reflects badly not only on the Prime Minister himself, but on the whole institution of government.
When the institution is scorned, where does that lead us?- to anarchy? People can be moved to take power into their own hands, or can become so apathetic they no longer take the responsibility to ensure that government is honest and truly representational. The pitfalls are numerous, yet the Prime Minister does not seem to care, or even to notice.
One of the items which outrages Canadians the most about this proposal is the insistence of the government on a referendum option, available only to the federal government. It would allow that government to unilaterally change the Constitution without the consent of the provincial governments. This is supposed to be applied only if there is a deadlock. Guess who decides if there is a deadlock? You guessed it-the federal government. This way it not only owns the ball, but it will make the rules, as well. It seems unfair to me, and that is exactly how the provincial governments view it as well. But the Prime Minister has an answer to that one, too.


An hon. Member:: How about Bill Davis?


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Provincial intransigence is his excuse. Do hon. members not know that we have not been able to bring back our Constitution in 52 years of trying? Do they not remember how we could not sleep at night fretting over our Constitution being in Britain and not safe here in Ottawa? Do they not remember how many elections have been fought over the Constitution? Why, we could hardly hold our head up in the world community, so great was our shame!
I would like to point out to the Prime Minister that the matter of the Constitution has come up exactly 48 times in federal-provincial conferences. Forty-eight times in 53 years is less than once a year. That hardly seems to me like one long, unfulfilling and fruitless search for accommodation. However, if, in the Prime Minister's words, this is a record of failure, we all should know that the Prime Minister was the one who presided over the last 13 meetings.
One of the biggest bones of contention in this whole discussion centres around the amending formula suggested by the government. This is the so-called Victoria formula which, like so much else suggested by this government, is wildly inappropriate to the Canada of today. My party believes that the Vancouver consensus is more in tune with what Canadians want and need. However, before I go into that, I would like to point out the failings in the Victoria formula.
For one thing, and this is the most important, it is inequitable, unjust and unfair. Different provinces under this formula are treated differently. Different classes of provinces are created, because some will have a permanent veto over constitutional change, regardless of population, and the Atlantic provinces will be treated in a different manner than the western provinces.
The House and Senate are already set up as bodies that discriminate on the basis of the majority. Are we going to allow the amending formula to be set up this way too? My understanding was that a democracy was set up to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. This amending formula provides no protection for the minority. The formula will not work because it does not take into account the inevitable changes in population growth and distribution. It is a rigid formula which has not taken into account the inevitable provincehood of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
Let us examine the details of the Victoria formula. It will require the consent of the province of Quebec, the consent of the province of Ontario, the consent of any two provinces in Atlantic Canada and the consent of two provinces in western Canada enjoying at least 50 per cent of the population in that region. Let us suppose, for a moment, that the proposed Constitution of the Government of Canada had been in place when Canadians were discussing medicare, or the Canada Pension Plan. Under the Victoria formula, both of those initiatives would have been defeated, for they were both rejected by Quebec. Canadians would have been denied the social benefits that have helped many live through the difficult economic times we have undergone for the last ten years.
The proposal my party puts forward is known as the Vancouver formula. This formula is one which found favour with the provinces, it was agreed to in principle, and a consensus could have been reached had the Prime Minister so desired. But he did not want it. The premiers all agreed, but the Prime Minister did not, so the proposal was thrown out. The Prime Minister is always talking about the curse of unanimity, yet here is an example of his actions under the unanimity rule, killing an idea that ten other people had reached agreement on.
The Vancouver formula has the prerequisites I outlined just a moment ago, for it recognizes the equality of the provinces, and does not promote divisiveness and envy. No province will retain a veto over constitutional changes under the Vancouver proposal. It is not inflexible or rigid, but it will provide significant safeguards for the rights and powers essential to the nature of the country, and especially the provinces. It is a simple formula, and its very simplicity makes it adaptable to
March 19, 1981

the demographic changes that are inevitable in Canada. It is not a formula frozen at a moment in time, but an always evolving and responsive attempt to react to the reality of Canada today, and Canada in the future.
Canada, as has been said before, is a nation of diversity. We should recognize and appreciate the qualities that this diversity brings to this great nation of ours. We are not all the same; we do not want to be all the same. Our regions should be acknowledged for what they contribute to the greater good. The sum is greater than the whole of the parts. It is my belief that the Vancouver consensus protects us with a foundation that we can build and grow on as we move into the twenty-first century.
In my final words, I would like to leave a thought with the Prime Minister. We on this side of the House know, as do the people of Canada, that by sheer weight of numbers he can force his proposal through the House. But I would like to remind the Prime Minister what Edmund Burke said so long ago. His words were wise then, and they still have application now:
The use of force is temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again; and a nation is not governed which is perpetually to be conquered.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight with a great deal of apprehension because I realize the very serious nature of the topic to be discussed. I would first like to take the opportunity to thank our leader, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) for his very clear analysis of the present resolution before this House. I would also like to thank the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and all the other members of the Constitution committee who worked so hard, long and diligently on behalf of their colleagues, but, more importantly, on behalf of all Canadians.
I want to discuss the fact that in the history of mankind, the occasion of reasonable people sitting down to draft their Constitution has been an occasion of adventure and joy, cause for pride and excitement, particularly for those involved directly in the drafting. I therefore find it difficult to understand why the recreating or the redrafting of the Canadian Constitution has not been done in a fashion to create, from coast to coast and from the border to the North Pole, a sense of celebration and a spirit of renewal at the rebirth of our nation under a new Constitution.
If the approach had been different, I wonder whether, on the day a repatriated Constitution physically arrived in Canada, we would put it on a train with flags flying and send it across Canada in a symbolic act of our unity and the shared excitement that we are one Canada with one Constitution. Instead, there is a sense of impending doom. People have the feeling that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the present government have broken faith with the Canadian people. This feeling has developed to such a point it has created division, hard feelings and animosity. Even as I stand in my place in this House of Commons I feel it has created animosity be-
The Constitution
tween hon. members on all sides. I find it incomprehensible that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party have adopted an approach which creates distress and apprehension about building something so fundamental to the Canadian way of life as the Constitution. This animosity has reached the point that the patriotism and love of Canada of some members of the House has been questioned by other members. I hear that from all sides of the House, and I find it incomprehensible that reasonable men and women could allow it to happen.
Ortega once said, "True patriotism is criticizing the land of our fathers and constructing the land of our children". I will buy that, Mr. Speaker. The greatest expression of true love is the desire to help. We want to help. We want to create a better country for our children. Indeed, we want to create a better world for our children. I do not think anyone in this House would deny that. But are we creating a better world for our children or will we leave them a legacy of divisiveness? Is there such a lack of foresight in this country that it will eventually foster internal turmoil to such a degree that it will turn government against government-we see that happening already-turn neighbour against neighbour-and we see that happening now-will turn region against region, and we see that happening now as well? Are we creating a climate where hatreds, biases and prejudices will be nurtured instead of discouraged?
It is my feeling that before a Canadian Constitution can be built we must assess the foundation upon which it will be placed. If the foundation crumbles, so will the Constitution. If, for example, we agree that Canada will be a socialist state, then certain objectives must be stated in the Constitution; if we believe we want to build a totalitarian state, then clearly certain objectives should be stated in the Constitution as well. But it is my firm belief Canadians from coast to coast want a Constitution that recognizes the freedom of the individual, rewards the initiative of the individual, looks after those who cannot look after themselves, and a Constitution that prizes freedom of the individual above all else. We must begin the process by evaluating the foundation upon which such a Constitution will rest. It is my firm belief that the people of Canada believe, above all else, in the freedom of the individual, the supremacy of God, the sanctity of the family and the dignity of the individual.
Some may ask, what is a Canadian? We often hear that there is no particular concrete thing that identifies a Canadian. I take serious exception to that; I just do not agree. If we ask people who come to our shores from other countries what a Canadian is, they will tell us that a Canadian is tolerant, is friendly, is polite, respects individual freedoms, believes in justice, is unhurried, is thoughtful but, above all, is fair and co-operative.
The historian, Edgar Mclnnis, in defining the Canadian spirit which seeks moderation and co-operation to enable Canada to surmount each successive crisis said that it is "this sound sense of the possible".

March 19, 1981
The Constitution
All these things I have enumerated manifest themselves daily. If we line up for a movie we will notice that Canadians stand patiently and are friendly in the line. We do not see Canadians barging in and trying to get to the front of the line. In other countries when there is a lineup for an event, people will try to break in and get to the front. There is a certain fairness that runs through the Canadian character. If hon. members will remember the last time they went into a grocery store or a drugstore and waited in a line-up to be served, and perhaps the clerk came forward and offered to take someone out of turn, the person addressed likely said that someone else was there before him. That is what makes the Canadian character; that is something fundamental that runs through it, the sense of fairness. Every night I give thanks to God for that sense of fairness in the Canadian mentality.
How has this developed? It is my contention it developed because of the many and varied ethnic groups who came to our shores and became Canadians while, at the same time, they retained their culture. We see evidence of it every day in various activities and languages. They became Canadian but maintained their heritage and their culture.
Had we moved into this constitutional debate in the true and typical Canadian manner, we would be celebrating the participation of all our people from coast to coast in the repatriation of our Constitution. We would be negotiating, compromising, working out solutions as reasonable men and women, because the ingrained fairness of the Canadian mentality would have prevailed.
Another example of the fairness and moderation of the Canadian mentality is seen daily in this House of Commons during question period when the cut and thrust of debate and the heckling goes on. But no member may rise in his place and use unparliamentary language. Even though one member may have written proof that another has lied, he may not call the other a liar or he will be named, because that is not parliamentary. I have great pride in being a Canadian because I see this fairness and tolerance demonstrated every day.
In the book "A Guide to the Peaceable Kingdom" Douglas Le Pan, poet and essayist, in an essay entitled "In Frock Coat and Moccasins" wrote:
Nor is it very difficult to understand why a Canadian passport should be so popular. Part of the explanation is that with it one can travel easily almost anywhere. Another reason for the popularity of the little blue booklet stamped in gold is that one can speak English or French or Ukrainian or Polish or Chinese and still be a Canadian. One can, in fact, be almost anyone and still be a Canadian; and to be a Canadian is to have a passport to the whole world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Wendele Shields: When I read that, I get a lump in my throat. I have great pride in that statement. We should be focusing on that. This diversity is an advantage Canada has that no other country in the world enjoys.
A Toronto writer, Arnold Edinborough, said some time ago, "Canada has never been a melting pot; more like a tossed salad."
With respect to the resolution before this House of Commons, can any thinking man truly say that the Victoria charter amending formula proposed is fair to all Canadians when it makes central Canada senior or first-class provinces? The residents of central Canada become senior or first-class citizens, but in the hinterland provinces in the west and in the east, they become second-class citizens. They are second-class provinces, so it follows they are second-class citizens. That is not the Canadian way. That is not the Canadian mentality. That is not the fairness, the moderation, the co-operation or the tolerance of Canadians. That is not the Canadian way of doing things. It is as simple as that. It is absolutely unfair.
In section 46 we find the referendum proposal. The federal government can trigger and control a referendum which will pit region against region and Canadian against Canadian. This is not for a moment in keeping with the tradition of fairness and moderation. Minorities always suffer as a result of a referendum. It is absolutely unfair.
In Sections 36 to 44 we find the interim amending formula. It gives us the illusion that the government is prepared to be flexible when it is actually building toward the referendum option. That is not in the Canadian tradition. That is not moderation nor co-operation. Where is the fairness in that?
The government refuses to include a preamble to the Constitution, covering the principles which form the bases on which Canadians have lived, have been born, under which immigrants have entered the country, have built their homes and have become Canadians. These principles acknowledge the supremacy of God in every religion. These principles acknowledge there is a supreme architect of the universe. These principles acknowledge the dignity and rights of the human being, the equality of the sexes, the very importance of the family unit and the fundamental right to own property.
I have a letter which I think is most apt. In part, this letter, written to me, reads:
The individual who does not have the right to own property becomes, himself, the property of the state.
That is fundamental. It is not the Canadian way to exclude the right to own property. It is not the just way, nor can that be described as co-operation. I submit that if every Canadian were asked if they wanted those things I have mentioned included in the Constitution there would be a resounding yes from coast to coast. People want those principles recognized in any Constitution, not excluded.
I would now like to direct hon. members' attention to the resolution, including the charter of rights. I believe this resolution has been drafted in haste. I am positive there are members besides myself who have not made up their minds about the propriety of a charter of rights as a safeguard to human freedoms which are already upheld and protected in our existing common law, in our statutes, in our legal decisions, the current BN A Act, the Magna Carta and the Statutes of Westminster. It is not the Canadian way to force the entrenchment of a bill of rights until Canadians have had a chance for cautious deliberation. Canadians are just and reasonable people. Canadians must have a chance to reflect on the
March 19, 1981

significance to our whole way of life of an entrenched charter of rights. There are arguments equally valid on either side. I cannot go on the record in this House of Commons at this time stating which would be the best. There are equally valid arguments on both sides. Forcing this Constitution through so it will be approved by Great Britain is not fair to the Canadian tradition. It negates all of the qualities I have been talking about which make up that Canadian character.
Is this fetish to entrench the charter of rights by the present Prime Minister truly a recognition of a need in Canada? I cannot remember a great hue and cry from across this country that people feared for their rights and were being treated unjustly or that their rights were in danger. Is there an underlying motive which the Prime Minister has in insisting on entrenchment? 1 submit to this chamber that there is an underlying motive. The Prime Minister of Canada is attempting to entrench language equality in the Canadian Constitution in such a way that future generations of Canadians will never be able to alter.
On page 37 of Hansard for October 12, 1978, the Prime Minister, referring to the Constitution, is reported as saying:
It is vital to me that it does give protection to the kind of linguistic equality that this government has put into the statutes.
In other words, over two and a half years ago, the Prime Minister stated his very clear objective that he was going to entrench forever the concept of a Canada with two official languages. At least the Official Languages Act can be amended. This ability to amend gave the Canadian people the flexibility to change as the demography of our country changes, as it grows and progresses. But more important, it allows our children and our children's children if the need arises to change it 100 or 200 years from now when members of this House are nothing but a bad memory. The Prime Minister's objective is to protect his official language concept for all time. It is not fair. It is not fair to the people of Quebec either. It is not the Canadian way.
At the constitutional conference in September, 1980, Quebec firmly opposed the entrenchment of language rights. In its paper we read that the "very act of entrenching rights in the Constitution would freeze them for future generations." I submit to members of this House of Commons that the flexibility which has been so necessary for Canada to develop to the strong proud nation it is today will be gone forever.
Quebec's Bill 101 was very controversial but I did not hear a great hue and cry in my province that Bill 101 would destroy Canada because it declared that the business language in Quebec would be French. Why was Quebec allowed to pass that bill? I suggest it is because of the Canadian character to recognize, moderate and co-operate with French-speaking Canadians in Quebec who are a very strong majority in that province. Therefore, they have the right to insist that within their borders the language for business and institutions will be French. There was some flare-up, a little here and there. Some people discussed it and it was reported in the papers. However,
The Constitution
in the end the Canadian character, fairness and justice prevailed. Canadians from coast to coast recognized that those in Quebec must protect the French language or it will die, because they are surrounded throughout the North American continent by English-speaking people.
The people of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland are being forced in exactly the same way. We are undermining the province of Quebec by forcing equality of the English language in that province just as we are causing an injustice to the people of British Columbia and in other non-French-speaking areas by forcing the French language on them.
We are attempting to force entrenchment of the English language on Quebec. It will destroy that province. The Quebec government recognizes that French is a regional language. Statistics Canada confirms that. There is a small minority of French-speaking people in provinces other than Quebec and New Brunswick; l'/2 per cent of the population in British Columbia and one-half of one per cent in Newfoundland.
It would be far better to allow the French language to flourish within Quebec and allow Bill 101 to stand. At the same time, those who desire can speak English. We must recognize that English is the unifying language of this country from Newfoundland to British Columbia. That does not show disrespect for the French language or for the rights of Frenchspeaking people in Canada.
It is not in the Canadian personality to force two official languages on Canadians. Every reference to the two equal languages causes disunity in this country. There are two versions of the Constitution in two official languages. The Prime Minister says they have equal authority. Imagine all the problems of trying to decipher and compare the two.
Canada will be the only country in the world with two separate Constitutions. I find that unbelievable. We will build two countries with two differing peoples. We are dividing this country as sure as I am standing here. We will have two separate identities for all time, and that is not the Canadian way. We will be entrenching hyphenated Canadianism, the French-speaking Canadian with his Constitution and the English-speaking Canadian with his. We will be building into the Constitution a sense of division that hearkens back to the original struggle. Language was not the thing that made us Canadian. We must heed the clarion call of John Diefenbaker and eradicate hyphenated Canadianism. I quote from volume one of John Diefenbaker's memoires:
I have always considered the official policy of separating our country into various racial groups to be a curse on the realization of a united Canada. One Canada, one nation, my Canada, your Canada, cannot be a hyphenated Canada.
If we want confirmation of this fact from another world statesman, let us look at the words of President Harry Truman, as they appeared in People magazine on February 16 of this year. These words came from his private papers. He said:
I've no more use for Polish-Americans, Irish-Americans, Swedish-Americans or any other sort of hyphenate than I have for Communist-Americans. They all have some other loyalty than the one they should have.

March 19, 1981
Adjournment Debate
One of the lasting curses on the unity of this nation has been the terminology of the B and B Commission that gave us "anglophone" and "francophone". The two terms attempt to define what is a Canadian, and that is wrong. Those words should be stricken from the Canadian vocabulary.
Prior to patriation, I urge that we sit down with the provinces in a Canadian, moderate, co-operative, tolerant way, work out an amending formula and then bring the Constitution home. Then in a reasonable way we can amend our Constitution as the need arises and the people of Canada could express their opinions. I plead with hon. members not to accept the dictatorial proposal of the Prime Minister and the Liberal government.
In conclusion, I want to quote from an open letter to the Prime Minister on the constitutional debate from J. Borowski. I quote:
It is one thing to disregard the wishes, opinions or suggestions of your political opposition, but it is quite another matter when you arrogantly ignore the honestly and sincerely held views of a majority of your fellow Canadians.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in my place to take part in the debate on this resolution and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). May I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, may I take the opportunity to congratulate Premier Bill Davis on his delightful victory in today's Ontario provincial election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: This may be a lesson for the Liberal government which does not take its role towards native people programs very seriously, and that is exactly what I am going to talk about today. I refer to a question on February 13, page 7215 of Hansard.
The whole issue of programs for our native peoples, in my opinion, is one which requires immediate and serious consideration. It is time to stop shunting them from one department to
another with programs that attempt to solve problems only after they occur.
In this particular instance, the cancellation of the Indian sport and recreation program by the Department of Fitness and Amateur Sport, and the transfer of funds which were allocated for this program in the estimates to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, is a classic example of insensitivity and the lack of foresight on the part of this government in dealing with the people of this country. As I understand it, the money will now be used for health care programs. Whatever happened to the premise that "an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure"?
How long will it take the government to realize that sport and recreation programs are essential to the well-being of all Canadians, and this includes our native people? This government, which is willing at great expense to find out statistically how badly we as Canadians measure up in fitness tests, is not willing to fund the kind of programs which will improve this level of fitness. We might as well have had a royal commission, for all the good the results of the fitness tests will do us.
With the soaring costs of medical care, why can the government not see how much more logical it would be to fund programs which would improve the physical fitness of individuals, and thus reduce the need for medical care? This is not a new theory. The government has no need to check out the equation that fitness equals health. This has been done repeatedly by many qualified individuals and groups, and has been accepted by all.
The private sector is beginning to move in the direction of offering fitness programs for employees. The benefits of course are obvious; less absence from work, higher production levels and better working relations between individuals. These benefits, though not directly financial, are obvious enough to companies whose main purpose is to show profits at the end of their fiscal year. Although the Government of Canada is not geared toward this goal of financial gains, it is supposed to work for gains in the well-being of its citizens.
One of the major problems facing the native people today is the high incidence of arrests for various reasons. The majority of these stem from a lack of purpose or frustration in achieving goals. This leads to family problems, school drop-outs, alcoholism, drug addiction and a high rate of suicides. One of the major methods of combating these problems is the sport and recreation programs which have been set up in many of the native communities across the country. The Band leaders have realized that these programs are of the utmost importance in helping to occupy the time of native citizens, and in providing them with a sense of purpose, a forum for expression and a means of self-improvement.
The staging of athletic events by the various native communities is beneficial not only in the training of athletes, but also for all those in related fields. Managers, coaches and game officials are trained and developed. Sporting sites are constructed with facilities which remain at the host site for future use by the host community. The other aspects involve security preparations and maintenance, the feeding and hous-
March 19, 1981

ing of outside participants and the preparation and operation of first aid and sanitation facilities. All these aspects, along with the very important fund-raising activities, may take up to two years prior to the actual events.
From all the details given above, it is clearly evident that such a program of sport and recreation within the native communities has far-reaching and long-lasting benefits, the most important being the improved mental and physical health of the native population. How is it possible then that the government can cancel such a program without any prior consultation with the native organizations about the results of such a cancellation?
It is time for the Government of Canada to accept its responsibilities with respect to the native population on a mature and proper level. Their treatment as responsible citizens of this country is long overdue. They can no longer be considered as some distant and unwanted relatives to be pushed around from one department to another in the hope that the resulting confusion will erase the mismanagement and lack of commitment to Canada's first citizens.
1 strongly urge the government to consider its decisions and to reinstate the very worth-while Indian sports and recreation program immediately. That program was devised and studied and would have been implemented had the Clark government still been in power.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the native sport and recreation program was initiated in 1972 for a Five-year experimental period. The program was subsequently extended on a year to year basis, and in the current year a total of $1,092,000 has been shared among some thirty-three Inuit, status Indian, and non-status and Metis associations across the country. These contributions enabled the associations to employ recreation co-ordinators and to implement modest programs of sport, fitness, physical recreation and leadership development.
The decision to terminate the program was taken only after consideration of several alternatives in consultation with many of the recipient groups and other government departments. The Fitness and Amateur Sport is a relatively small organization without an extensive network of field offices, and the programs, taking place as they did in many locations, were difficult to monitor and evaluate. The Fitness and Amateur Sport's mandate is limited to support of programs of sport and physical recreation, leading to increased levels of sport excellence and fitness. However, many of the groups served saw as their First priority projects that were more in the area of cultural and community development. Fitness and Amateur Sport lacks expertise in dealing with the special and somewhat unique needs of native people and, as a result, many frustrations and administrative problems were encountered.
Despite these problems however, the program also met with a measure of success at the local level, and I have no doubt that in the absence of any alternative it will be missed.
Adjournment Debate
An amount of money comparable to that provided this year has been placed in the social development envelope, and an exploration is currently taking place as to how it might best be administered so as to provide the most effective support for programs in the general field of health and an enhanced lifestyle for native people. Discussions are ensuing with other government departments in this regard.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Are you going to give them the money?


TRANSPORT-APPOINTMENT OF GRAIN TRANSPORTATION CO-ORDINATOR
Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to amplify some of the concerns I raised in a question on March 9 with respect to the future of the grain transportation authority in Winnipeg.
As some of us know, the Grain Transportation Authority has served a very valuable function in terms of increasing Canada's ability to export grain. We all know that we have unlimited capacity-or at least very large capacity-to produce grain. Our problem in the past number of years has been to get the grain, once it is produced, to the export position. This is why the Grain Transportation Authority was originally envisaged and set up by the previous government.
I point out, as I did in my question, that it took roughly five months from the time the previous government was elected until the terms of reference for the Grain Transportation Authority were established. This involved some elaborate and long negotiations. I see that my colleague, the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), is in the House this evening. He was part of a group of members which took part in a study to bring about the formation of the Grain Transportation Authority. He, along with other hon. members, is well aware of some of the concerns and problems which were encountered in establishing the Grain Transportation Authority. It took roughly five months to get the Grain Transportation Authority guidelines negotiated with the Canadian Wheat Board and other parties concerned with grain transportation in western Canada. Once the guidelines were established a coordinator was appointed. That co-ordinator was Dr. Hugh Horner. I think his record speaks well of the choice made with respect to the grain transportation co-ordinator. It is a well recognized and applauded fact that in the crop year just concluded we increased exports of grain out of Canada by some 20 per cent, largely due to the catalyst that the Grain Transportation Authority provided to all parties involved with grain transportation in western Canada. In fact, not only did this appointment have the support of most of the industry in western Canada, it also had the support of some of the people who now sit on the government benches. I should like to quote the Minister of State for Trade (Mr. Lumley) when he appeared before the committee on transport. He said:
As you know, we heartily endorsed the appointment of Dr. Horner by the Minister of Transport and, as a matter of fact, we on this side would like to

March 19, 1981
Adjournment Debate
assist the minister in any way possible to give him back the kinds of legislative powers he thinks he needs to do the important job of moving grain in Canada.
Clearly the minister supported the concept of the Grain Transportation Authority.
The hon. member for La Prairie (Mr. Deniger), who is now a parliamentary secretary, also supported it. He said in the committee:
Among all the problems our grain exporters have had to face in Canada, there are the labour conflicts that have occurred either in the port of Montreal or in the port of Vancouver ... In your job description-
Here he was speaking to Dr. Horner.
-1 do not see where you are responsible or where you have authority in the case of labour disputes-
Clearly he also supported the concept of the Grain Transportation Authority, and clearly he was advocating that the authority be given some jurisdiction over labour disputes. So obviously we have had support for the concept of the Grain Transportation Authority from government members.
As I said in my question, the concern which I and many members have is that without a co-ordinator, effective performance in grain transportation is in jeopardy. We know we have limited amounts of facilities available to move grain. We hear criticisms continually from the government side that we in the opposition are speaking from both sides of our mouths. The government says that we in the opposition at one time advocate increases in government expenditures and at the same time show concern over rising deficits. Clearly this is not the case, and if the government were serious in some of the criticisms they level at the opposition it would appoint a grain transportation co-ordinator for the authority, because the job the authority did in the past crop year made very good use of the limited amount of transportation facilities we have in western Canada. This has helped to increase Canada's export of grain, thereby adding to our ability to earn foreign exchange, helping to maintain the value of our dollar, and generally assisting the whole economy of the country.
The Grain Transportation Authority is not an expensive operation, and the appointment of a co-ordinator is needed to see that it stays as functional and efficient as it has in the past.
Back in October, Dr. Horner resigned. At that time he recommended that his second in command, Doug Radke be appointed co-ordinator. The minister at that time said he intended to travel to Winnipeg within ten days to discuss with the grain industry whom he would appoint as a permanent replacement, and at that time he named Mr. Radke as interim co-ordinator. That is the situation today. What has happened in the interim five months-roughly the same time it took our government, of which I was proud to be a part, to set up the office of grain co-ordinator-is that this valuable tool in grain transportation in western Canada has been without a permanent co-ordinator.
It is no secret to those of us who are involved in grain transportation in western Canada that the morale of the officials of the authority has been low. Recently they lost one valuable member, namely, Bob Martinelli, and Jim Mantz has announced he will resign in June. The minister said in his
answer he was looking for that pearl to replace Dr. Horner so he could get the job done. I hope the parliamentary secretary will tonight announce some kind of time-frame in which a co-ordinator will be appointed, because if they delay much longer-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) informed the House on numerous occasions of his support for the continuation of the grain transportation coordinator's office.
With respect to the appointment of a new co-ordinator, I do not have to inform my hon. friend about the minister's interest in finding a respected and capable individual to fulfil this important role. The record speaks for itself. On the very day of the previous co-ordinator's resignation, the minister met personally with ten prominent members of the grain trade and spoke with several more by telephone for the sole purpose of determining their views respecting the role of the co-ordinator's office, desirable attributes of a successor, and any names which they could suggest.
In the interim, while a successor is being sought, Mr. Doug Radke has been named as acting co-ordinator and, I might add, has done a very respectable job. This year's experience in exporting grain has not been without its problems; with a labour dispute at Revelstoke last fall and flooding in the Vancouver area around the beginning of this year. Notwithstanding these difficulties, the various parties have shown admirable co-operation in the movement of grain. Exports to date this year are some 4 per cent to 5 per cent above the level a year earlier, a year in which a record was set.
This situation has allowed the Canadian Wheat Board to assure producers that they will be able to deliver all the wheat and barley they wish by the end of the crop year. The acting co-ordinator, the trade and, in particular, the railways deserve a great deal of credit for this situation.
That is not to say problems do not occur. Certain areas of the prairies have experienced congested elevators resulting from the slowdown at Revelstoke last fall and the fact that deliveries to Thunder Bay have not yet geared up for the new shipping season.
More recently, ship arrivals have been slow resulting in a backlog of cars to be unloaded. Empty cars are at a premium back in the country. This situation highlights the importance of having all available railway cars allocated by a central body so these cars can be allocated to those grains most urgently needed to meet export commitments.
In summary, the system is working well at the moment. The acting co-ordinator is doing an effective job. This provides the luxury of a little extra time for the Minister of Transport to find the best individual available for this important job.
March 19, 1981


ENERGY-FORECAST OF REDUCTION IN CASH FLOWS OF OIL COMPANIES
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am taking part in the adjournment debate this evening because of a question I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Laionde) on February 5, 1981.1 asked the minister if he agreed with the statement of Petro-Canada's vice-president of finance and planning, Mr. Joel Bell, as it was presented to the National Energy Board. Mr. Bell stated that cash flows of the oil companies this year would be reduced by 25 per cent from that of last year as a result of the government's National Energy Program. The minister answered my question by saying he had not read the statement, but that he would and get back to me.
That was six weeks ago, and I still have not heard from the minister of energy. I am quite confident that if I had not asked my question during the adjournment debate this evening, I would not have received a reply from the Minister of Energy. I hope I receive an adequate response from his parliamentary secretary.
The question deserves a reply because the vice-president of finance and planning for PetroCan said something very different than what the government indicated with respect to the effects of its National Energy Program. Specifically I refer to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the supplementary question I directed to him with respect to Mr. Bell's statement.
Petro-Canada indicated that cash flows will be reduced by 25 per cent in 1981. I should like to quote from the brief presented to the National Energy Board as follows:
Cash flow available for reinvestment has been reduced by about 25 per cent in 1981 as a result of the fiscal measures contained in the National Energy Program.
Those were the words of Mr. Joel Bell of Petro-Canada.
The point to be made is that on January 22, the Minister of Finance said:
-despite the National Energy Program the cash flow to the industry as a whole is very substantial. It is growing, and when we add the incentive payments, growth in the cash flow to the industry in 1980 and 1981 will be very substantial indeed.
The Minister of Finance went on further and said:
-the cash flow of this industry in 1981, even without the incentive payments which are provided, will be 28 per cent higher than it was in 1979.
I repeat, "in 1979". Why the finance minister, this master of economics, chose to compare the percentages from two years ago-1979-is a secret that I await the answer to from the parliamentary secretary. On February 5, when I asked the minister a supplementary question, he said he stood by his statement. The government and Petro-Canada are saying two different things. Which statement is a reflection of government policy? How long does it take the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Finance to read the statement of Petro-Canada, made more than six weeks ago, before they can tell the country what is going on? Before they do read
Adjournment Debate
it, I would like to ask that the two ministers get their act together. I believe they are very confused. One thing is sure, the oil industry certainly is not confused. The cash flow is definitely declining. Petro-Canada admitted this when it purchased Petrofina. It asked the government to provide the $ 1.4 billion to purchase Petrofina. This was due to the government not having the money. Its cash flow had been reduced. The people of Canada were asked to purchase the equity in Petrofina, since there was no money under the government's National Energy Program.
There are other companies cutting back. Chevron announced a cutback of some $330 million in its exploration program. Mobil Oil is cutting back by $164 million-a reduction of 46 per cent. At least 60 per cent of United Canso's exploration budget will now be moved to the United States, even if Joel Bell of Petro-Canada does not underestimate the attractions of the U.S., where oil netbacks are three times what they are in Canada.
I invite both ministers to come to western Canada to see the drilling and service rigs heading south due to the lack of cash flow. These are miniature factories leaving Canada and taking jobs with them. Everyone but this government recognizes that the National Energy Program has not worked.
This is what the chairman and chief executive officer of the Royal Bank of Canada said about the National Energy Program:
We'll see more jobs lost, the Canadian dollar fall still further, the price we pay for imports increase. The notion that foreign ownership is bad ownership, and that we can penalize it retroactively, as contained in the federal government's National Energy Program, is living dangerously. It is damaging Canada's reputation abroad, and is fomenting wasteful bickering at home, just when we should be pulling together. It must be changed.
The chairman and chief executive officer of the Royal Bank of Canada made that statement on January 8, 1981.
But, how does this government react? It reacts in the same way whenever its policies are criticized. It bullies and it accuses the people making those statements of being disloyal. Out west the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that if the oil companies and the banks criticized him then he must be doing something right. This government confronts and bullies, but it still refuses to consult and co-operate. It must show some good will if we are to get this country moving again.
I ask the government to clear up this anomaly with respect to government statements on cash flow. I urge ministers, when they meet with the Alberta government next month, to walk in with good will and flexibility for the benefit of the entire country.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, since the National Energy Program was announced, some representatives of the petroleum industry have speculated as to what cash flows under the old regime would have been in 1981 and the years beyond. Then, without any apparent assessment of the benefits and incentives available under the National Energy Program, they simply concluded that the new regime would be less favourable to the petroleum industry.

Adjournment Debate
As set out in "The National Energy Program", the revenues available to the industry in 1981 will clearly be greater than in 1980. The program shows a 7 per cent increase in 1981 in estimated revenues in petroleum production. Since the announcement of the program, companies have indicated considerable interest in the petroleum incentives program, which will result in an increase in incentive funds made available to industry over and above those foreseen last October.
It now appears likely that revenues available to the industry from oil and gas production, having regard to increased incentive payments, will be in the order of 15 per cent above 1980 revenues. It is expected there will be new entrants into the industry, greater Canadianization, and increased exploration and development on Canada Lands. In total, these factors will result in increased benefits flowing to the oil and gas industry.
Mr. Speaker, since reference was made by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) to the statement of Petro-Canada to the National Energy Board in January, I would like to put on record what Mr. Bell then stated:
In 1981 our cash flow before income taxes will be reduced by approximately 12 per cent compared to our pre-NEP forecast-the main contributor to this reduction is the PGRT both on conventional production and on our share of Syncrude production. In terms of cash available for reinvestment after taking account of income taxes payable and before taking account of Petroleum Incentive Payments we anticipate a reduction of $115 million or 25 per cent from $470 million to $355 million.
That is the reference to the 25 per cent reduction in cash flow as referred to in the hon. member's previous statement. However, I shall quote further from Mr. Bell:
After Petroleum Incentive Payments, Petro-Canada's cash available for reinvestment in 1981 will increase by $103 million, from $470 million to $573 million; this is 22 per cent higher than our pre-NEP forecast compared to the 25 per cent reduction in cash available for reinvestment before consideration of PIP. Over the five-year period 1981-85, cash flow available for reinvestment before PIPs would be 13 per cent lower than our pre-NEP forecast but after PIPs would be 53 per cent higher.


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.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Friday, March 20, 1981