1981-02-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Considering the misleading statement by the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Roberts) on January 19, 1981, in which he pretended to confirm the higher, but still inadequate goal of 1.5 per cent of gross national product spending on research in Canada by 1985, while in the same statement announcing that the government's share would be cut by some 7 per cent, to the serious and even critical detriment of the entire scientific and research community and to young Canadian students and would-be scientists on whom the country must depend for technological innovation, creativeness and scientific, economic and social development, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That the minister live up to the promise he made in this House to support fully the previous Conservative government's five-year funding plan for research, or admit his duplicitous statement and position that as minister responsible for science and technology he is unable to fulfil his responsibilities and obligations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Small Business Development Bond program introduced in the budget of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), as everyone knows, has since been watered down considerably by the Grits. In response to my request last week to expand the program in order to include venture capital, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) said in this House, "Any extended provisions to the SBDB would be an expense we cannot bear."
In light of new information revealed in a study by the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses that this program will contribute $77 million to the federal treasury in the first year alone, obviously dispelling the minister's excuse, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance to extend forthwith the provisions of the Small Business Development Bonds to include venture capital so necessary to the very survival of the small business sector.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the inability of local environmental groups in the Niagara area to halt SCA Chemical dumping into the Niagara River, and in light of the International Joint Commission's recommendation that such further dumping be discontinued, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That the Prime Minister be condemned for failing to follow through with his election promise made over a year ago that he would urge the U.S. government to deny SCA permission to dump into the Niagara River.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to move a motion which I

February 19, 1981
believe has the general support and, perhaps, the unanimous support of the House.
In view of the controversy occurring in Winnipeg over the recent suspension of three girls from their respective hockey teams and subsequent threats of suspension toward their coaches for playing them anyway, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House encourages the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association to be more flexible and, in all fairness, to allow girls like Heather Kramble from the Pirates Community Club in Transcona to play out the season with a view to sorting this problem out between seasons, and not now at the expense of the girls and their teams.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


Mr. Paproski:: Regan said no.


Mr. Collenette:: The Tories said no.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: There were noes, and I am the one who hears the noes.


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


Madam Speaker:: I would be grateful to the House if hon. members would let the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) speak.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: There is no point in indicating where the noes came from; I am the only one who knows.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FEDERAL AGREEMENT WITH PROVINCE OF ALBERTA-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the head of the Economic Council of Canada, Mr. David Slater, has predicted that, even with moderate growth in the demand for energy, Canada will need another five energy megaprojects in addition to Syncrude, Alsands and Cold Lake, in order to achieve oil self-sufficiency by 1990, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That this House direct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to demonstrate, as the minister said, "some spirit of flexibility and compromise" so that an energy agreement can be reached in the very near future with the province of Alberta, thus allowing several important oil sands megaprojects to proceed immediately.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. This week Mr. Robert Blair, president of Nova Corporation, declared in a speech given in Toronto that the federal government was entitled to a larger share of oil revenue. I move, seconded by the hon. member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Bloomfield):
That this House urge Mr. Blair to reiterate his wise statements at public forums in Alberta and in direct representation to the Premier of Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
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 problems of postal delivery have deteriorated to epidemic and crisis proportions, and in view of the fact that the Guernsey post office in the Channel Islands has stated:
We have, however, been warned by the British post office that the Canadian postal administration is not one of the most efficient in the world! We were advised that a reply could take at least six months, and this is in fact proving to be the case.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That the Postmaster General make a statement on motions explaining his abdication of responsibility in this very important communications department, and also negotiate with the Minister of National Health and Welfare that post-dated pension cheques be mailed two weeks earlier than at the present time so that pensioners need not suffer because of late delivery.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?
February 19, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ARTS AND HUMANITIES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I move:
That this House note the timely tribute that is being paid tonight and for the next two days in my home province of British Columbia, in Vancouver, to Frank R. Scott, a poet, lawyer and academic, born in the province of Quebec 81 years ago, who has constantly stood for human rights and justice and who has been a unifying influence in French and English Canada and who, in poetry, has dramatized our basic tensions in the Canadian tradition, and who in law, Madam Speaker, has expressed his strong social concerns.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I see that the House does want to pay tribute to this remarkable personality. However, this is not a motion that I can accept under Standing Order 43.


FISHERIES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, given the absence of objection from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) to the new Fisheries regulations for the west coast being considered in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, on the basis of an order of reference, I am encouraged to believe that I shall obtain unanimous consent of the House to a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the adverse economic consequences of the new regulations on fisheries and the tourist industry on the west coast, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon):
That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry be provided immediately with an order of reference to permit it to meet, examine the new west coast Fisheries regulations, and report.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. He will know that recent labour force figures show he now has one more economic accomplishment, namely, that more Canadians are staying out of work longer. The January figures showed that the number of Canadians unemployed for 14 weeks or longer was 18 per cent higher than last year. Most of those Canadians want to work. Will the minister tell us whether he intends any new measures to help them find jobs they can go to, jobs they can work at?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: No, Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to bring in new measures at this stage. Personally I have been impressed by the strength shown in the Canadian employment picture in the last year. The rate of unemployment is moderating and is less than it was last month. In those circumstances I personally do not intend to bring in any further measures in addition to those announced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, which are directed toward skill training and adjustment programs. They seem to be the most appropriate response in present circumstances.


RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT IN QUEBEC
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister has now set another record. He has shown that not only is he prepared to have more Canadians out of work longer, but he is prepared to stand up in the House and boast about it. It is an absolutely unacceptable position for a Minister of Finance of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, perhaps I should address my supplementary to the Minister of State for Finance as it is of particular concern to the province of Quebec where the permanent unemployment problem is much more serious than anywhere else in Canada. The figures published by Statistics Canada show that the rate of permanent unemployment in Quebec is more than double the rate in the rest of Canada. Is there a program that the minister would recommend to the government to assist Quebecers in finding the jobs that they want today?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should know that this government has always taken into account the region-

February 19, 1981
Oral Questions
al implications of its policies. Whether in the fight against unemployment or in the area of industrialization, the government has always considered the particular concerns and problems of the regions, and this same policy was followed in the last budget. The problem mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition is of constant concern to the government.


INCREASED GROWTH IN RATE OF HIDDEN UNEMPLOYED
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, some preoccupation! It means that the rate of permanent unemployment in the province of Quebec and in much of Atlantic Canada is double the rate in the rest of the country. I suppose we can ask that the rest of the country be spared that kind of special preoccupation.
Let me return to the Minister of Finance. He will know that one other impact of his government ignoring the Canadian economic situation has been a dramatic growth in the rate of the hidden unemployed in the country. Statistics Canada indicated that the rate of hidden unemployed-Canadians who are simply giving up hope and stopping their search for jobs- rose 25 per cent last year. We have a situation where one agency of government has identified those people. I ask the Minister of Finance whether his department intends to do anything to help those people who are out of work and have lost hope to such a degree that they are not even looking for work.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think the right hon. member's rhetoric must be put in perspective and in context. The context is that the employment situation in Canada over the year 1980 was such that we registered a drop in the level of unemployment in January, 1981. The number of persons unemployed in January, 1981, was less than it was in mid-1978. The over-all strength of the Canadian economy in producing jobs, despite the serious level of unemployment, was quite considerable in comparison with other countries, especially the United States. We are concerned about unemployment. That is why we have launched this special adjustment program, which I described earlier. We are not in a position like that of the Leader of the Opposition, who advocates new measures of spending one day, and restraint and a battle against inflation the next. We do not have the luxury of inconsistency which the official opposition portrays every day.


GOVERNMENT'S MONETARY AND FISCAL POLICIES
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. I want to assure the minister that we are not engaged here in rhetoric. We are engaged in the potential tragedy and human suffering behind those figures. There are 1,300,000 people, given the real rate and hidden rate of unemployment, in Canada today, some 1,300,000 potential human tragedies.
In light of the lowering of real wages, the increase in the cost of unemployment insurance premiums, the lowering of the rate of unemployment insurance benefits as a result of continuing double-digit inflation, and the increase in the hidden rate of unemployment and the real rate of unemployment, I ask the minister, one year after he has assumed his responsibilities, will he now discharge the commitment he made when he was in opposition that the government should not be waging its monetary and fiscal policies on the backs of the unemployed and the poor?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am again surprised at the inconsistency in the attitude of the official opposition. Earlier in the week the member for St. John's West was advocating a strong stand against inflation and a strong stand against spending, as has been the case throughout the last several months. Today the hon. member takes a different course, like his leader, and suggests new expensive programs. I would ask him how he can balance these two contrary objectives, one day advocating spending more in the way of stimulation of the economy, and the next day advocating a reduction in the deficit by spending less. I do not have the luxury, as Minister of Finance, of speaking out of both sides of my mouth.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I would suggest to the minister that if he wants guidance he should take a look at President Reagan's economic package which he presented last night.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: The President of the United States made a commitment that there would be no decrease in social payments in the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: What we are talking about in Canada is a change in priorities. Will the Minister of Finance rearrange his priorities so that he can discharge the commitment he made a year ago to the poor, the low-income earners and the unemployed of this country? We have seen during that year a total erosion of the $35 income supplement, which is all he has in his bag.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the statement made by the hon. member about the guaranteed income supplement is totally false. The guaranteed income supplement has not been eroded.


An hon. Member:: It sure has.
February 19, 1981


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is fully indexed. It increases and maintains its real value in line with changes in the cost of living . That the value has eroded is one of the biggest falsehoods which has been put forward in the House of Commons. The guaranteed income supplement maintains its real value.
I want to tell the hon. member that I do not intend to take guidance, as he has suggested, from the message given last night by the President of the United States in terms of the reduction of expenditures. Shall I take guidance and reduce spending on the arts and humanities? Shall I take guidance and reduce expenditures on welfare, as the hon. member suggests? Shall I take guidance and reduce expenditures on meal aid subsidies to schools by a billion and a half? Shall I take guidance and cut medicare by a very substantial amount? That is the kind of guidance I am not taking from the Leader of the Opposition, from the hon. member for St. John's West, or from the President of the United States.


Charles Joseph Clark: Tell us about the meals you have cut out, Jean.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: My question, Madam Speaker, is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I would have thought one Regan was bad enough for this government without their having to choose to follow another one.
My question has to do with the announcement yesterday by the Solicitor General that the Prime Minister has appointed ministers to be responsible for constituencies throughout Canada including those not chosen by the people of Canada. When was the Solicitor General appointed as minister responsible for the riding of Broadview-Greenwood, and other ridings which he did not mention? What is the exact nature of his duties, and could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what ridings he is responsible for now?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: First of all, Madam Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that the Government of Canada does not believe that any minister has been given responsibility for representing, in this House of Commons, any riding other than the riding for which he has been elected. That is the view of the Government of Canada.
What I would like to tell the hon. member is that ministers for various regions of the country have special responsibilities within the cabinet for representing the interests of those regions.


An hon. Member:: Handing out cheques is a tough job.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: For example, for almost 17 years now I have had a special responsibility within the cabinet for representing the interests of my region, namely, the province of
Oral Questions
Nova Scotia. That is not to say that I usurp the rights of any other Member of Parliament from that province. The fact of the matter is that other Members of Parliament are not present at the cabinet table to represent the interests of their particular regions, and that is precisely the role that ministers in the Government of Canada perform as regional ministers. I believe it is an essential role, time honoured, and ought to be appreciated by members of this House.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, what unmitigated nonsense from the Minister of Finance. It is totally contrary to the patronizing drivel we heard yesterday from the Solicitor General, and the Minister of Finance knows perfectly well that you do not have to be represented at the cabinet table in order to hand out cheques and to indicate to the constituents of a particular riding that a minister has been named responsible for that riding. Those are precisely the words the Solicitor General used in his letter to my constituents-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I would urge the hon. member to put his question.


Bob Rae: Those are precisely the words that he used yesterday in the House. The Deputy Prime Minister did not answer the first question. What are the duties as described by the Solicitor General yesterday, who is carrying out those duties, and will you table a list of ministers who are responsible for particular constituencies, as indicated yesterday by the Solicitor General?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I did answer the question.


An hon. Member:: You did not answer it.


Mr. Crosbie:: Slippery shoes!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I understand it, it was a follow-up to the question of privilege which was raised yesterday to the effect that in some way ministers of the Crown were supplanting the proper role of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons.


Bob Rae: Exactly.


An hon. Member:: Now you are getting the point.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the question that I am answering, and the hon. member has agreed that it is the question. I am telling him that it is not the policy of the Government of Canada to usurp in any way the proper role of Members of Parliament in representing their constituencies in the House of Commons. Not at all. I would be the first to object to that procedure, but I think it is essential, in our system of government, that ministers be given responsibilities for representing in a special way the interests of their regions in the cabinet and around the cabinet table. That has been the tradition, and it is simply that tradition that is reflected in my answer and the responsibilities which the Solicitor General is carrying.

February 19, 1981
Oral Questions


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance would try to pretend that he is the piano player in the brothel who does not know what is going on upstairs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that it is not a very convincing part.
Let the Minister of Finance answer this simple question: what is the nature of the duties assigned to the Solicitor General of Canada with respect to my riding and with respect to other constituencies? Will he table the list of those ministers who are carrying out these functions, and will he please tell us what in God's name they are?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows about a lot of things but one thing he does not know anything about is cabinet government, and maybe he never will.


Some hon. Members:: Oink, oink, oink!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order! Will the House come back to order? This only shortens the question period. The hon. Minister of Finance.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member has asked for the third time what the responsibilities of regional ministers are. I would be glad to go over the ground for the hon. member. The first point I want to make is that it is the special responsibility of regional ministers-


An hon. Member:: Table the list.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -to represent the interests of regions within the cabinet.


An hon. Member:: Table the list.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In my region-


An hon. Member:: Table the list.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Hon. members are saying "table the list." I will come to that, but I want to answer the question first.


Miss MacDonald:: You had three tries.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In my particular region, and I have discharged this particular responsibility long enough to know what it represents-


An hon. Member:: Too long.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In my region it means around the cabinet table representing the interests of all the region, the 11 constituencies in that region. When it was a question of providing in the constituency of Annapolis Valley-Hants a very substantial program of assistance to Michelin, it was not possible for the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants to come to the cabinet table and argue that case-


An hon. Member:: What about Firestone.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -but it was possible for me, as the regional minister, to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the main function of regional ministers. The hon. member has made a great to do about tabling the list. When the Prime Minister comes back I will be happy to recommend to him that he make the list available. I am sure that that list will be on the Table and will confound the hon. member and begin the process of educating him in the process of cabinet government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETRO-CANADA ACQUISITION OF PETROFINA-ALLEGED ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, I know you will agree with me when I say it is very, very distressing for this House to watch a marriage break up before our very eyes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and it relates to a letter which came from the president of Maison Placements, an investment firm in Montreal. This letter refers to what the writer calls clear signs of a major leak in connection with the Petrofina acquisition, resulting in illegal profits to many people. It goes on to observe that the price of Petrofina shares was around $60 when the first rumour came into the market place, compared to the price bid of $120. 1 should point out that a chart which I have shows that Petrofina skyrocketed during this period whereas BP Canada, which is the other candidate for acquisition, was flat, and probably is a little bit lower in price now than the shares were at the time of the first rumours regarding Petrofina.
I have raised this point in the House on a number of occasions. The clear reason fo' this is that these leaks have driven up the price and have caused the Canadian taxpayers and consumers to pay more money for Petrofina. My question is this. Upon receipt of this letter what action has the minister taken? Specifically, has he referred the letter to the Toronto Stock Exchange which is investigating this situation, and has he discussed the matter with the president of Petro-Canada? This question is similar to the one I asked the minister about a week ago, to which I got no answer.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member referred to a possible marriage break-up. I hope he will not be attending a divorce next Friday night.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Your wit is as good as your energy policy.
February 19, 1981


Marc Lalonde: 1 could give a very short answer to the question, Madam Speaker. We have never received the letter in question. I suspect the citizen in question called the press before he managed to get the letter over to me.


An hon. Member:: He sent it through the Post Office.


Marc Lalonde: I can tell the House what I have told it before. This gentleman appears to be an investment broker, but if he knew his business he would already have gone to the Ontario Securities Commission or the Quebec Securities Commission if he has any information, and asked for an investigation or inquiry.


An hon. Member:: You don't care.


Marc Lalonde: If he has any evidence at all, that is the way things are done. My hon. friend was in the investment business so surely he knows that this is the way things are done. The securities commissions of the provincial governments are there to investigate exactly that kind of charge.


Charles Joseph Clark: What are you hiding, Marc?


Marc Lalonde: As to the general price, the settlement, the hon. member knows, and I would refer to the fact that partners in his former firm have already indicated this publicly, that the price paid by Petro-Canada was a fair price in the circumstances for both parties. I invite my friend to phone his former partners and get advice from them rather than from some individual who appears to be more eager to get letters to the press than to my department.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I might point out that there are other responsible people in the investment business who have been quoted as saying this Canadianization policy, carried out in this way, is going to cost Canadian taxpayers an arm and a leg. I was in the investment business, Madam Speaker, and I was involved in a number of transactions similar to this. When there were any leaks I, or other people involved in the transaction, took fast action to find out where those leaks occurred and took fast action to make sure that they did not occur again. The minister has shown no concern, no sense of urgency-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member used to be much shorter with his questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: I think he is following the bad example of some other members on both sides in this House. The hon. member on a short question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, this is an important issue. I am trying to make an impact on the minister who is clearly showing no sense of urgency at all.
In view of the fact that the amount of the premium in dollars is $700 million over the price in September, could the
Oral Questions
minister tell the House why he has taken no action to find out where those leaks occurred?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, first I would remind the hon. member that the premium paid at the time of the transaction was lower proportionately than premiums paid at the time of transactions in takeovers all over North America the last year. The difference was about 37 per cent versus 56 per cent or 57 per cent as an average in the private sector. My friend should be aware of that.
As far as the other point raised by my hon. friend is concerned, I did invite him or anyone else who has particular evidence, or any evidence at all, about anything improper having taken place, to bring it to my attention, and I will transfer it with great pleasure to the Ontario or Quebec Securities Commission-


Charles Joseph Clark: You will transfer it?


Marc Lalonde: -or to go directly to those commissions. Under the law, as my hon. friend knows, having been in the investment business, the securities commissions are the agencies which investigate these matters.


Charles Joseph Clark: You are responsible for Petro-Canada.


Marc Lalonde: That is what the law provides for in this country.


Mr. Beatty:: What is your responsibility?


Marc Lalonde: These are the institutions to provide the investigations. In the meantime, I do not think it is responsible to level innuendo as my hon. friend has done, without any evidence.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Mr. Robert Blair, who just had a favourable resolution introduced in the House by one of his Liberal colleagues here, was in bad company yesterday; he spoke to the Toronto Liberal Association. Speaking about his company, Nova Corp., he said that it will have to cut back oil production in Saskatchewan, that the company is now losing about $1 on each barrel of Saskatchewan oil because of the minister's new energy program, that it does not have enough money to cover production costs-also as a result of the program-for 50,000 barrels of crude a day. He said that unless the provinces and the federal government have an agreement by April or May, he will have to follow his accountant's advice and shut down his operation. This will cost Canada about $400 million a year in additional subsidies for crude oil.
I say to the minister that this is not the Alberta government, so 1 do not want to hear silly excuses that they will not

February 19, 1981
Oral Questions
negotiate. Has the minister entered into negotiations with the government of Saskatchewan-his friends in the NDP government of Saskatchewan-to resolve this pricing situation in Saskatchewan, particularly the question which may affect heavy oil production in Saskatchewan? If the minister has, at what stage are these discussions, and when does the minister expect a solution so as to save Canada this tremendous additional cost?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that Husky Oil, a subsidiary of Nova Corp., has indicated that it is increasing its exploration budget this year rather than decreasing it, contrary to other announcements by some companies.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: How about its production?


Marc Lalonde: Second, I have had discussions with my colleague in the government of Saskatchewan, something I have been unable to do with my colleague in Alberta, and there have been discussions at the officials level. We both recognize that the combination of the taxation provided under the National Energy Program and the very high royalties provided for under the Saskatchewan legislation make it difficult with regard to certain wells for some companies. Those negotiations are taking place. I have had a very fruitful meeting with my colleague from Saskatchewan, and I am looking forward to further discussions in the next while.


QUERY WITH RESPECT TO CHANGES IN PROGRAM
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants was the one who put "Hants in the minister's pants" to get action at the Michelin rubber factory.


An hon. Member:: Try again.


John Carnell Crosbie: I would not attempt to put ants in the pants of the minister of energy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: When the little red rump quietens down, I will go on with my question.
On October 28 the minister announced his new energy policy. Mr. Blair, a well-known Canadian nationalist, said yesterday:
-he is disappointed that the federal government has not yet substantially modified various provisions in the program that cut industry revenues and thus discourage exploration and development.
In view of that statement by a Canadian nationalist owning a Canadian-owned major oil company, is the minister now going to insist that this program be changed to meet these objections so that Canada can have some kind of an economic recovery in the 1980s? Will he overrule his colleague and bring in changes to the program?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, if I may be permitted to comment on the hon. member's preamble about Annapolis Valley-Hants and the member for that district, I congratulate him for understanding the process, but I wish he would take the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood behind the curtain and explain it to him so that understanding would develop on all sides of the House.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is your job.


John Carnell Crosbie: He is in bed with you. You are not in bed with me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, on the question which the hon. member raised, we have already undertaken significant changes in the program in response to representations from the industry. I mention the change in the treatment of exploration expenses and a change in the treatment of incentive payments with respect to the income or cash flow of corporations. As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has said, we are prepared to consider changes as representations and changes are made. That is the situation we face at the moment.


PENSIONS
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Could the Minister tell the House whether the provincial governments have all responded to the invitation to take part in the national conference on private pension funds? If not, can she tell us which provinces have not responded or have refused to take part?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to report that no province has refused to take part in this conference. However, following the letter sent by the Right Hon. Prime Minister to the provincial premiers just before Christmas, the four Atlantic provinces, the province of Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon have already appointed a minister responsible for pension reform, and I of course regret that the other provinces, especially Quebec and Ontario, have not yet found the time to do so. We hope that all those invited will be able to take part in this conference at the end of March in view of its importance for the pension funds of all Canadians.
February 19, 1981


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Would the minister be prepared to confirm that the B.C. Telephone Company has absolutely refused to sign an agreement worked out by his mediator, accepted by both sides, until such time as it receives a second increase from the CRTC? If this is correct, can the minister tell this House precisely what action he intends to take in order to ensure that the people of Canada are not blackmailed by these multinational corporations?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, the factual situation is not exactly as outlined by the hon. member, but it is nearly as bizarre.
Our very able mediator, Bill Kelly, sent a telegram to me yesterday in which he indicated that after his mediation he had brought about an offer by the company, the substance of which was accepted in totality by the union. In effect, all differences between the parties have been resolved on clauses within the agreement.
However, the company's proposal contains the following preamble:
This proposal is made on the basis that it will not be implemented until a sufficient rate increase is approved by the CRTC to cover the additional costs.
1 only want to say that, as Mr. Kelly reported in his document, such increases are totally outside the field of labour relations or of my department, or of the government, or of the parties. I am not aware, in my experience in industrial relations, of any occasion in history in which any of the many utilities that are subject to regulation in this country ever before sought to put such a provision in a collective agreement. I think it is unfortunate. I can only say, in relation to what action can be taken at this moment, that Mr. Kelly has mediated to the point and that there is agreement on the clauses of the agreement and the terms, except for this preamble. One can hope that upon reflection the company will recognize the impossibility of any union accepting the particular clause they propose, though I have had a lengthy discussion on the telephone with Mr. MacFarlane-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -and I was unable to notice much progress in that regard.


Madam Speaker:: I know the minister has a lot of important things to say, but perhaps he will say them more concisely.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, it is precisely what I said, that we are being blackmailed. What I would like to ask the minister, since his words do not seem to be strong enough is this: will the minister recommend to his cabinet colleagues that
Oral Questions
they use their statutory power to roll back the CRTC's increase recommendation until such time as this company is prepared to sign a contract with its workers?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member probably is aware that there can only be a review of the CRTC increase recently given to the B.C. Telephone Company if an appeal is registered within whatever is the appropriate time period. As I understand the situation, that appeal process is open to various citizens and organizations. However, I think that the productive course of action is for the company to accept the fact that, since they have been able to agree on terms, they should sign the agreement and then make whatever application they consider is appropriate, which is perfectly their right.
I had started to say that I spoke to the president on the telephone, and I was unable to make much progress with Mr. MacFarlane in that regard.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The minister will know that yesterday press reports out of Washington confirmed the U.S. congressional support for increased military aid to the government of El Salvador, and also said that U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Senator Percy, "will not rule out the use of U.S. troops in El Salvador."
Bearing in mind Canada's support for the United Nations declaration regarding non-intervention in El Salvador, and the representations the minister has had from the people of El Salvador, will the minister tell the House about his conversation with General Haig in Washington that gave him "reason to pause" in pursuing Canada's foreign policy toward El Salvador? Is the government now supporting a military solution to that tragic conflict?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, there has been no change with respect to Canada's policy concerning El Salvador. We have continued to protest, and protested again recently to the government there about what we understand are violations of human rights. With respect to the supply of offensive arms, our position has been that that should not be done, either by our country or by any other country, in a situation where there is internal discord. What I said was that I did not believe, however, that we should be leading a public crusade against the attitudes of the American administration which believes that it is acting in its own interest, and on the basis of information which it possesses and which it is beginning to share with its allies.


Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, I notice on this issue a change from the usual expression of opinion on human rights

February 19, 1981
Oral Questions
issues. My question, in supplementary form, to the minister is: in the light of our commitment in the declaration signed on May 27, 1980, between Canada and Mexico regarding nonintervention, has the minister been in touch with the Mexican government regarding joint pressure on the American government?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, no, I have not at this point discussed that with the Mexican government. I hope to have a chance of talking with the Mexican foreign minister soon, but I must say that I am not contemplating, at this point, any joint approach to the U.S. on that subject.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the minister responsible for regional economic expansion. In his absence, and in light of what the Deputy Prime Minister said today, I do not know whether to direct it to him in his responsibility for paying out all the money to Nova Scotia, or whether I should direct it to the acting minister for DREE, the Minister of Public Works. Since it concerns him, I suppose I should direct it to the Minister of Public Works.
In view of the recent news release by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion that buyers for institutions of the government in the Atlantic region are purchasing an average of 9 per cent of their goods from sources outside the region, although comparable products made in the Atlantic region are available at the same or lower prices, I wish to ask the minister what steps will be taken to encourage the various sectors of the federal government, which have substantial buying quotas, to make their purchases for their needs in Atlantic Canada from manufacturers in the region?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I would be quite happy to take the representation of the hon. member under advisement and to bring it to the attention not only of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion but, as well, other ministries that similarly may have some interaction in that particular region.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, I have one brief supplementary question because the minister himself may well be in a position to do something about this. Since the DREE survey discovered that 10 per cent of government purchases were from regional manufacturers while another 10 per cent could have been bought from Atlantic producers at a lower price than that paid, I would like to ask him why are locally produced products, priced below competition from outside the region, not being purchased, and as a suggestion for him and the rest of the government, will the government consider in future making these purchases from the lowest of public tenders, or have public tenders gone out of style under this government?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, again, without having notice of the question that is asked, I have indicated that I will bring the question to the attention of the minister. I assume that he is referring to the Ministry of Regional Economic Expansion in terms of purchasing. Without knowing the prices involved and the like, I feel I would have to bring it to the attention of the minister.


FISHERIES
Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. As chair person of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, I am aware that some members of the committee are anxious to commence hearings on east and west coast fisheries matters. Can the President of the Treasury Board tell the House when the main estimates will be tabled in the House so the committee may get a reference to commence hearings?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House I will table the main estimates on February 25. That is next Wednesday.


Madam Speaker:: I see no other course but to extend the question period today for about ten minutes in order to make up the time lost on laughing and jeering. Much of it was in good fun, and I do not object to that from time to time, but there must be a reasonable number of questioners every day in the question period.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport, who plays a piano in his office and may not know what is going on in his department. I would like to know if the minister can confirm that one Robert Titley, an executive with Voyageur Bus Company, has either been offered the position or appointed to the position of director of railway passenger service development in the Ministry of Transport.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, indeed I am aware of it. The gentleman in question passed a Public Service Commission examination. There were seven or eight other candidates, and he won. That is the way the cookie crumbled.
I am surprised that the hon. member resents the fact that a person who has been occupied in trucking can then also be
February 19, 1981

interested in railways. I am particularly surprised because my hon. friend is known as a multi-modalist. He has been a defender of a multi-modal station in Regina, which seems to incorporate the best of multi-modal attitudes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, it would be great if Voya-geur Bus Lines were in favour of co-operating with VIA Rail, but what the minister is doing now is like putting a coyote in charge of the chicken coop. This is a company which has roadblocked every move with respect to railway fares and with respect to co-operation with VIA Rail regarding schedules.


An hon. Member:: Guess who owns it?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is owned by Power Corporation of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: One Paul Martin lobbied Members of Parliament because he thought VIA Rail fares were too low.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member ask his question?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I want to ask the minister if he can find somebody, somewhere in Canada or anywhere else in the world, who knows something about high speed intercity rail passenger traffic to appoint to this important position and do something about strengthening and enlarging that branch of his department, since air transport has three pages of listings in the government directory and rail transport has one inch?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, a moment ago the Minister of Finance was trying to teach cabinet government to one of the hon. member's colleagues. I will now have to teach the hon. member something about public administration in Canada. I heard about this appointment this afternoon when I was coming here. This is done under law by the Public Service Commission of Canada. I am in no way influencing the choice which has been made.


ENVIRONMENT
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Right Hon. Prime Minister I would like to direct my question to the minister responsible for the environment of Canada.
Since the hon. member for Niagara Falls has thrown up his hands in his fight against the further pollution of the Niagara River and has indicated that it is now up to an exchange between high level authorities in the United States and Canadian governments to protect the quality of that river, will the minister indicate to this House what action the Prime Minister has taken or his government has taken to follow
Oral Questions
through on the Prime Minister's promise made a year ago that he would urge U.S. authorities to stop SCA from further dumping in the Niagara River?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I take issue with the first part of the hon. member's statement. There has been no member of this House and, indeed, no person I know who has been more active and vigorous in promoting the cause of the clean-up of the Niagara River than the hon. member for Niagara Falls.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: His record in that regard deserves the approbation of hon. members of this House.
We have consistently urged on American authorities that permits not be given for the SCA discharge until there has been a significant decrease in the present polluting activities with respect to the Niagara River. We are particularly concerned about the Niagara Falls, New York, sewage treatment plant. Our position on that has not been altered, and we have on a variety of occasions as vigorously as possible expressed our views to the American authorities.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, that response is such that I have to wonder why there was a negative response to my motion under Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that the International Joint Commission has recommended a halt to the further discharge of chemical wastes into the Niagara River, do the minister and his government not now take the position that the International Joint Commission should be supported in its position and its recommendations followed?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, we have done so in the past, we do so now, and I am sure we will continue to do so in the future.


PIPELINES
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Now that the new administration in the United States is settling in, and in view of the fact that 80 per cent of the pipe which will be manufactured for the pipeline in Canada will be manufactured in the Welland constituency, I wonder if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources could tell us if he has had any contact with the American secretary in charge of energy or the pipeline with regard to the Alaska Highway gas pipeline project, and would he share whatever information he has with this House?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I believe I have already

February 19, 1981
Oral Questions
informed the House of my conversation with Secretary Edwards on this issue and about the reaction of the Reagan administration, which is extremely supportive of the Alaska gas pipeline. I am advised that today my colleague in the other place, Senator Olson, as the minister responsible for the Northern Pipeline Agency, has released an exchange of correspondence between himself and Secretary Edwards in which Secretary Edwards reaffirms the very, very firm commitment of the Reagan administration to the completion of the Alaska gas pipeline and assures us that the American government is fully behind this great project.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. During a visit last fall to the Bigstone Band in Wabasca the minister promised financial assistance to Chief William Beaver of the Bigstone Band so that that band could continue with its sawmill operation and so it could continue with its band programs. This has not been forthcoming. Could the minister inform the House whether this will be forthcoming and whether he will be providing this assistance?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member indicated, I did convey to my department my concern about assistance to this particular band because of the very real need. I thought progress was being made in terms of offering assistance to this particular band. If that is not the case, I will check and let the hon. member know.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, these promises were made five months ago, and at the present time the Bigstone Band is facing cancellation of its timber quota. Logs will be left in the bush to rot over the summer. All the employees of the sawmill have been laid off. The band office has been shut down and all employees laid off. Is this just an empty promise? Can the minister do something about it, or is this just a continuing public relations campaign being waged through statements like this by all ministers of the Crown in northeastern Alberta?


John Carr Munro: No, Madam Speaker. As the hon. member knows, there is real concern with respect to the dire financial circumstances of Chief William Beaver and his band. I believe the House is aware of the unfortunate situation with respect to personnel involved in the bookkeeping and auditing arrangements. This has been brought to the attention of the department. There is a strain on funds for this fiscal year. It may very well be that we will try to provide funds budgeted for the fiscal year commencing April 1. I realize the urgency of the situation. I will check to see what progress is being made.


FUNDS FOR FITNESS AND SPORT PROGRAM
Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, I was pleased when amendments respecting aboriginal rights were passed by the constitutional committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: I was very impressed with "the Shawinigan Kid," the Minister of Justice, and also with the constitutional committee when they passed Sections 33(1) and 33(2) with respect to aboriginal rights. Because of this I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Why is the minister not giving the $1.2 million to the National Indian Brotherhood which was promised in the estimates with respect to fitness and amateur sport, which is now under the minister's department?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, the money for this program was allocated under the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare as a preventive health measure, and that is where the money has always been. Our budget is voted by Parliament, as stated. Parliament has not authorized any category of expenditure in this area. If we were to spend money in this direction within my department, it would simply mean that we would take it from somewhere else voted for the Indian people by Parliament. The fact of the matter is that our total funds are committed. Perhaps the hon. member would be interested to know that a good portion of the funds we have is subject to direction to recreational activities, and it always has been. The money to which the hon. member referred is directed more to the area of excellence, but we are concerned with this area, and money is being spent in this area in my department.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is not true, John.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['I will take this question under advisement and rule on it later.']
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
February 19, 1981
Madam:
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. W. R. McIntyre, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 19th day of February, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
February 19, 1981

I have the honour to be,
Madam,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General


Madam Speaker:: Does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans wish to answer the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) or does he wish to put it off to another day?


Hon. Romeo LeBIanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) and myself discussed the matter but he had decided to look at the file before deciding on whether or not to give an answer. I do not know whether he is ready to do so now. I do know he did not get to see the file until he got back from Whitehorse early in the week.


Madam Speaker:: The question could remain in abeyance but I am against doing so for any length of time. That is why I wanted to know whether or not you intended to answer it today.



Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding the usual announcement on Thursday. I assume that next week's business will include some economic measures to solve the desperate economic condition of the country and that these will be placed before us for consideration. Could the government House leader also inform us as to the business which he expects to be bringing in tomorrow and next week?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs is now dealing with two or three important budget bills. As soon as the debate on the Constitution is completed, I can guarantee to my hon. colleague that we will bring some measures to the House dealing with energy and with the economy.
[ Translation]
With regard to the legislative program for the next few days, may 1 say to the House that we shall devote the whole of next week to the constitutional debate, with the exception of Tuesday which will be an allotted day. Should there be any changes in that program, Madam Speaker, I shall so advise the parties of the opposition in due course.


Erik Nielsen: Am I to understand that when the House leader referred to the whole week he did not include next
Business of the House
Friday, the 27th, respecting which the House now has an order?


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Madam Speaker, it has been agreed that the House will not sit next Friday, and obviously when I said that next week will be devoted entirely to dealing with the Constitution except for next Tuesday, next Friday was not included.


Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, with respect to the House business, may I remind the House leader of two or three items.
First, I hope he is keeping in touch with the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs and will permit any legislation he produces to be dealt with without delay.
Second, may I ask him to pursue the matter I raised yesterday, namely, the possibility of our concluding the debate on the bill which would turn the Post Office Department into a Crown corporation. As hon. members are aware, there is some urgency about this. We certainly are prepared to deal with the matter in one day or, if we can avoid amendments which are contentious, it could be dealt with in an even shorter time than that.
May I also ask the minister, since he is the member of the cabinet responsible for the administration of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, whether he will take a serious look at the recommendation which the special joint committee made in 1967 when it reported that legislation. I refer to the recommendation that there be parallel legislation providing for collective bargaining on Parliament Hill. Will he give serious consideration at long last to the possibility of implementing that recommendation?
My last point has to do with the promised short debate on the report of the Standing Committee on Transport, on the understanding that there will simply be one short speech per party. What is the status of that report?


Yvon Pinard: The hon. member put four questions. In answer to the first one, I am still in touch with the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs. In fact, I spoke to him today and I hope to have a clear reply in a short time.
On the second question about the Post Office legislation, as I said yesterday, I am certainly willing to consider dealing with the report and third reading stages of that bill as soon as possible if we can come to an agreement among the parties and the House leaders on a short time for the debate. I took note of the offer made by the NDP to spend a day or even less time to conclude the debate on that bill. I look forward to a House leaders' meeting in the near future to discuss this bill as well as to discuss the debate on the report of the Standing Committee on Transport, which was the fourth question put by the hon. member.
Finally, I will look at the recommendations of the joint committee referred to by my colleague in relation to amendments to the PSSRA.


John Carnell Crosbie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

February 19, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Stevens


Madam Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member on a point of order if it is on government business. I have notice of a question of privilege in the name of the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). Is he prepared to discuss his question of privilege?


Mr. Stevens:: Yes, I am, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member now.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I believe my colleague wants to make only a short comment. I would have no objection if you heard him first, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I received one notice before the other and I usually take them in the order in which I receive them. But if the hon. member for York-Peel wishes to defer to his colleague, I will hear the hon. member for St. John's West first.


PRIVILEGE
John Carnell Crosbie: All I want to do, Madam Speaker, is to give you notice of a question of privilege today in connection with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). He is certainly not a member of the clerisy or of the intelligentsia and-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have received notice from the hon. member. I have it in writing. It is not necessary for him to give me notice in the House. I will hear him when he is ready to proceed.


John Carnell Crosbie: What I want to tell Your Honour is that the minister is not here and I do not want to proceed today in his absence.


MR. STEVENS-MASSEY-FERGUSON REFINANCING-ALLEGED MISLEADING STATEMENT OF MR. GRAY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege arises from an exchange between myself and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) in the House on February 6. On that day I asked the minister the following question:
Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has he any statement to make with respect to the present negotiations involving the Massey-Ferguson situation and, if so, could he tell us what form the statement will take? Will he be making a statement on motions, or how will this House first be informed as to what his conclusions are?
The minister replied:
Madam Speaker, I have no statement to make at this time, but the matter is under active review.
I stress the phrase "under active review." I then asked a supplementary question which reads as follows:
To the minister's knowledge, during these negotiations has the Government of the United States or the Government of the United Kingdom been asked for any assistance with respect to Massey-Ferguson similar to what the Canadian government was asked for in the case of Chrysler?
The minister replied:
Madam Speaker, I think that question would be easier to deal with when we are in a position to announce the results of the considerations we are undertaking at this time.
In my opinion, the answer I received on that date was a clear indication that the question as to what assistance might be given to Massey-Ferguson was still a matter under consideration. As the minister stated, it was actively being reviewed.
In short, as a result of matters which transpired subsequent to that exchange in the House and other information which has been drawn to my attention, I think we can show, if a proper reference is made to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, that indeed the minister misled the House on February 6.
At a later point, if I may, I will get into the question whether or not he deliberately misled the House. I am aware of the precedents on that subject. If I am given the privilege of sufficient time, I hope to touch on certain precedents and on certain comments I wish to make concerning whether the minister intentionally or deliberately misled the House as a result of the exchange and the answers he gave on February 6.
Dealing with the specific facts, I would emphasize that the exchange I have just read into the record, according to Hansard, finished at exactly twelve noon on Friday, February 6.
We have found that subsequent to that a notice was posted in the Press Gallery calling for a press conference at three o'clock that afternoon, at which time the minister attended and made an announcement concerning what the federal government had agreed to do with respect to Massey-Ferguson. The press statement furnished to those persons attending the press conference at that time indicated there would be a "$200 million Guarantee for Massey-Ferguson Refinancing Package" and read as follows:
OTTAWA, February 6, 1981-The Honourable Herb Gray, federal Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the Ontario minister of industry and tourism, Larry Grossman, announced today that the Governments of Canada and Ontario have agreed to guarantee the capital risk of a new equity investment in Massey-Ferguson to limits of $125 million and $75 million respectively.
Massey-Ferguson has indicated that these government guarantees will enable them to complete their refinancing package totalling in excess of $700 million.
In return for making it possible for Massey-Ferguson to complete its refinancing plan, the governments have a number of commitments from the company. These include a commitment that an engineering and R&D base for new North American manufacturing activities will be located in Canada. Company plans call for increased spending for engineering and R&D and include creation within three years of a new base in Canada for advanced future products.
The final drafting of the agreement will be completed over the next two months. The agreement will be conditional upon completion of the legal agreements between the company and its lenders.
In reaching their decision the governments took into account the elements of the refinancing plan the company had already achieved, its willingness to upgrade the Canadian operations and employment, and the over-all benefits to
February 19, 1981

the Canadian economy of maintaining a full-line manufacturer of farm equipment.
Appended to that press release was a "Backgrounder" running for two pages and setting out the situation with respect to Massey-Ferguson. I will not read it into the record, but I emphasize once again we were told at twelve noon on Friday that this matter was under active review, only to find a notice was posted in the Press Gallery at 2.15 that afternoon that a press conference had been called, at which time the press release to which I have referred was distributed.
Subsequently I found out that Massey-Ferguson officials came to Ottawa on Tuesday, February 3. They met on repeated occasions with officials of various departments in Ottawa, including officials of the minister's department. I say these things in the urgent desire of satisfying Your Honour there is a prima facie case that this House has been misled, perhaps deliberately misled. Most importantly, I would point out that on Thursday, February 5, cabinet met and agreed in principle to the Massey-Ferguson support program. At that meeting it was decided to mandate four ministers to continue to overview the matter. Those ministers were the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of State for Economic Development, Senator Olson. I am informed that those four ministers-and this will be shown if a committee reference is approved by the House-met later that day. They met in the evening, and again they met in the early morning of Friday, February 6, at a meeting called for 7 a.m.
In the meantime, departmental officials met three times during Thursday with representatives of Massey-Ferguson, including a late night meeting which ran from 10 p.m., Thursday to 1.30 a.m., Friday. During this latter meeting a press release in the form I have read into the record was discussed, reviewed, finalized and agreed to. I emphasize again that the press release I have read into the record was finalized approximately 12 hours before we were told in the House that matter was still under active review and was under consideration.
Massey-Ferguson officials returned to Toronto early Friday morning, confident that they had an agreement. Again I emphasize, at the time Massey-Ferguson officials returned to Toronto, confident that they had an agreement, we were told in the House that the matter was still "under active review."
On Friday, between 1 p.m. and 1.15 p.m., the senior assistant deputy minister in the department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. W. R. Teschke, notified Massey-Ferguson representatives by telephone in Toronto that the department intended to go ahead with an announcement, including the press conference to which I have referred, at 3 p.m. that day. As I have indicated, they subsequently posted a notice in the parliamentary Press Gallery at 2.15 p.m. advising that the press conference was scheduled.
In the context of what I have referred to, I believe the minister has misled the House by stating, first, that the Massey-Ferguson situation "is under active review", and then by stating that he could deal with my supplementary question
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
"when we are in a position to announce the results of the considerations we are undertaking at this time."
The minister made those statements, notwithstanding the fact the cabinet meeting held on Thursday, February 5, decided to go ahead with the Massey-Ferguson deal, that a committee of four ministers were asked to expedite the matter, that a press release was prepared covering the matter at least 12 hours earlier. In short, the minister has clearly misled the House in that, the decision having been made, he chose not to inform the House of the government's decision, stating that it was still "under active review." The minister may have taken this course for one of three reasons. The first is that he actually did not know what was going on in his department, which presumably is not so, as we have been given to understand he attended the cabinet meeting and the meetings of the "gang of four", if you like. In the first instance, I am indicating that the minister may tell us that he did not know this press release had been prepared, and if it had been prepared no final decision was made, notwithstanding the fact that the Massey-Ferguson people thought they had a deal. In fact, a press release had been approved, as had the deal been approved, by the cabinet.
Second, it may be that the minister knew what was happening but he thought he would take a chance on not being frank in the House. I hope that is not the case. If we get into a scenario where questions are asked in the House and ministers feel free to be less than frank, or feel free to mislead the House, we are clearly being impeded in our duties as members of this House and there is a contempt of the House. I suggest that, at least, a prima facie case on this has already been outlined, as I have indicated.
The third possibility is that the minister wanted to keep the matter kind of loose, if you like. He wanted to fudge the question so that he could skate by question period. If that is the case, if he was almost deliberately looking for an excuse to be able to say that the matter was not finally settled, I think he was less than frank. He misled the House on Friday because, clearly, the matter was settled.
The question whether the minister misled the House deliberately or not is, of course, one which I suggest should be dealt with finally by the committee, as I understand the existing precedents. If I may, I intend to refer to some of those precedents. As I understand them, I need only show that there is a prima facie case. If I show that, then the usual course is to have a motion put before the House and dealt with by the House. I will be proposing my motion later.
First, I would like to touch on the question of misleading the House and the contempt which is generally found as a result of misleading the House. I refer Your Honour to page 1856 of Hansard for December 6, 1978, when the then Speaker, after referring to circumstances put on the record by my colleague from Northumberland-Durham stated:
Does that lead us to the conclusion that, by virtue of an act or omission, the House, or a member, has directly or indirectly been impeded in the performance

February 19, i 981
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
of its function or his duty, or that there has been a tendency to produce such result? If I so find, then I really have no choice but to find, prima facie, that a contempt has been committed.
Granted, this is a rather nebulous, murky kind of an area, if you like. For example, there has been considerable debate in this House with respect to believing that someone has deliberately misled the House. There has been debate with respect to whether one can say it and not, in turn, be accused of unparliamentary language, in the context of wanting to use that wording in one's motion. As I understand the existing precedents, previous speakers have held that you do not use the words "deliberately misleading" in your motion or in your reference. That, of course, is something which the committee would naturally look into, if it is finally apprized of the situation.
I would like to refer to the precedent on page 1857 of Hansard for December 6, 1978. The Speaker said this:
Even beyond the precedents and the complex law of privilege, I cannot conceive that there is any one of us who would accept the argument that this House of Commons has no recourse in the face of such an attempt to obstruct by offering admittedly misleading information.
The Speaker then went on to say:
Having done so, I concluded that the motion put forward by the hon. member must therefore be given immediate priority and taken into consideration by the House at once. The House itself makes the decision on whether the motion shall carry, whether it shall be amended, or in any way altered and, in fact, whether there is a contempt. I do not make that decision; the House does.
I emphasize that in the information which I have put before you, Madam Speaker, with further information which I will be offering and witnesses who I suggest the committee should call, that a clear prima facie case exists in the context of the question of privilege dealt with in the precedents I have just cited. A prima facie case has clearly been made with respect to the exchange between the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and myself on February 6.
I would like to touch on one other matter, Madam Speaker. This is a reference from February 28, 1978, and it deals with a question of privilege, again involving the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland. It is a question which dealt with the words "misleading" and "deliberately misleading". When those words may or may not be used was dealt with in this reference, quite conclusively, I think. Without actually reading those sections into the record, I refer Your Honour to pages 3294 and 3295 of Hansard for February 28, 1978. I think it is a confirmation that the motion which I will be proposing is the correct form of motion. If you should find that a prima facie case exists, as I suggest, then that motion would be quite in order to put to the House.
Should this matter be referred to the appropriate committee, I suggest that various witnesses be called before that committee. It is quite obvious that the four ministers to whom I have referred should be called to give their version of when a final decision was made respecting this matter. Officials from each of their departments could also be called. I could even submit a list of the officials I have in mind.
As far as Massey-Ferguson is concerned, I think it would be helpful if Victor A. Rice, chairman, president and chief operating officer of Massey-Ferguson, be called. Vincent D. Lau-renzo, vice-president and controller of Massey-Ferguson should also be called. D. Brian Long, vice-president of strategic and production planning of Massey-Ferguson should be called. I believe that two financial advisers to that concern, who certainly have information touching on this matter, could and should be called. I refer to John Cairns and Susan Murray. Representatives of Wood Gundy and Company of Toronto and Pitfield, MacKay, Ross of Toronto should and could be called since they have pertinent information as to when this decision was made.
In short, Madam Speaker, if you find that there is a prima facie case that this House has, indeed, been misled, perhaps even deliberately misled, I would propose to move:
That the contempt for the House of Commons shown by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on Friday, February 6, 1981, in refusing to inform the House that negotiations had been finalized with Massey-Ferguson, while preparing to make a statement to a press conference later the same day with full details of the refinancing package confirming that the minister misled the House on that day, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, the only contribution I have to make to this question of privilege raised by the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) is that I was present at a number of committee hearings, as was the hon. member for York-Peel. I refer to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, at which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) to my recollection testified. Unfortunately, since I was not sure this item would be raised today I did not bring the minutes of the committee meeting with me. If my recollection is correct, it was the meeting of October 21, 1980, at which the minister indicated, in a response to a question from me, when I asked him quite specifically whether or not he would be making a statement on motions in the House with respect to any deal consummated between the federal government and Massey-Ferguson, that he would. His answer to that question was, yes. I indicated this to the minister on another occasion and I just wanted it to be on the record that he did state in committee that he would be making a statement as and when an arrangement was arrived at between Massey-Ferguson and the government.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, this matter is before the House instead of the constitutional debate which hon. members opposite in the official opposition say should be more important than anything else-


An hon. Member:: Honesty always is.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -and should not in any way be precluded.
On the date in question I answered a question by saying that I had no statement to make at that time on the Massey matter and that it was still under active review. I said that because at that time the cabinet had not yet reached a final decision on the Massey matter. It is quite true, Madam Speaker, that
February 19, 1981

throughout the preceding week there had been discussions with officials of Massey, but contrary to my hon. friend's suggestion, no final decision had been taken by cabinet on the Thursday he mentioned; the final decision was not taken until after question period, after I left the House, and shortly prior to the posting of the notice in the Press Gallery at 2.15 p.m.


An hon. Member:: Question period was still under way.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Whatever impression Massey officials may have had when they returned to Toronto, they had no way of knowing, they were not in a position to know, what the discussions were at the level of cabinet, discussions in which they could not participate, and could not participate any more than could my hon. friend. They may have certainly wanted to have an optimistic feeling, but whatever their impressions were they were not based on the facts of the situation as they then existed.
It is quite correct that material was prepared on a contingency basis, but that material was not finalized until after I left the House. In fact, I directed certain changes be made in it shortly before the decision was taken to post the notice in the Press Gallery, a decision taken by myself only a few minutes before the notice was actually posted at 2.15 p.m. The decision to post the notice was made by myself. I gave that direction immediately after the cabinet decision was confirmed.
So whatever conclusions my hon. friend has attempted to draw from circumstances, some of which are public, such as what I said in the House, other impressions which, while well intentioned, I think are mistaken, these conclusions are not accurate when he says that one way or another I misled the House when I gave the answer recorded in Hansard. Because my answer was correct. At that time the Final decision had not been taken; therefore I did not mislead the House intentionally or unintentionally. I therefore suggest to the House that the hon. member's motion must fall simply on the basis of the facts of the situation.
If I might add one or two other comments, I would certainly be quite pleased if the House leaders work out a suitable time to make a statement in the House. I would also point out to my hon. friend that the other matter, which was the subject of the second question I received on the date in question, was put to me in the question period of the following week; that is, the question with respect to the participation of other governments, and I answered the question without any complaint by the House as a whole.
So 1 would repeat, Madam Speaker, that whatever impressions some may have received, the final decision had not been taken until after I left the House; and it was only after that decision was taken that I personally directed the notice be posted, a notice which was not posted until 2.15 p.m., and the press conference then ensued, leading to the issuing of the press release, making public the press release which my hon. friend read into the record.


Erik Nielsen: My intervention will be very brief, Madam Speaker.
Privilege-Mr. Stevens


An hon. Member:: I hope so.


Erik Nielsen: I hear shouts over there of "I hope so". They would like to muzzle and do away with this nuisance opposition, as was done in Ghana.
I merely want to emphasize that the Chair has heard a statement of fact by the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens); it has heard a statement of fact by the minister. I strongly submit that your task is not to determine the truth or untruth of those statements; your only task, I submit with great respect, Madam Speaker, is to determine whether or not, on the basis of the facts submitted by the two hon. members, a prima facie case of privilege has been made. Surely there must be sufficient doubt in your mind, Madam Speaker, based simply on the affirmation of the minister, with respect to the posting of the press release at 2.15 when it must have been prepared well in advance of the cabinet meeting that he asserts subsequently took place.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The notice was posted at 2.15.


Erik Nielsen: The notice was posted, correct, but the release itself was on the Press Gallery bulletin board at 2.15. Am I incorrect in that?


An hon. Member:: You are. Forty-five minutes after.


Erik Nielsen: At three o'clock. There must be sufficient doubt in your mind, Madam Speaker, about the relationship between the timing of the posting of the press release, even accepting the minister's statement of fact, as to lead you inevitably to the conclusion that a prima facie case does indeed exist and that you should accept the motion of the hon. member for York-Peel.
May I suggest, because of the importance of the matter, that the Chair, perhaps out of sheer prudence, would want to read both those submissions very carefully before coming to a decision. I suggest, Madam Speaker, that you might take the luxury of having a look at it for whatever time is deemed essential, and then render your decision at a subsequent date.


David Michael Collenette: February 19, 1981
Committee Report
It is clear that the decision made by Mr. Speaker Jerome on February 20, 1978, as reported at page 3294 of Hansard regarding the use of the word "deliberate" in terms of misleading the House, has no relevance whatsoever to the debate this afternoon.
The other example quoted by the hon. member for York-Peel reported at page 1856 of Hansard for December 6, 1978, again had no relationship whatsoever to the alleged question of privilege that is before you. That instance, which I remember well as I was in the House at the time, concerned testimony given by former RCMP Commissioner Higgitt and a subsequent letter by the then solicitor general which was made available to the House. It was deemed by Mr. Speaker Jerome that that information misled the House. In no way has that any bearing on the debate today, which I submit is just that- an attempt to debate a subject. What we have here is a statement of the facts by the hon. minister. We have a dispute of those facts by hon. members opposite and clearly the honourable intention in this House is that one takes a minister and an hon. member at his word. The minister has outlined his position very clearly, I think.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I am sure that I do not have to bring to your attention the fact that Standing Order 15(3) gives a minister of the Crown the option of making a statement. Specifically it states that a minister of the Crown may make a short statement. The option is clearly with the minister.
I would also draw Your Honour's attention to Citation 264 of Beauchesne which states as follows:
The option of a minister to make a statement either in the House or outside it may be the subject of comment, but is not the subject of a question of privilege.
Finally, I should like to point out that for the second day in a row we have wasted one hour on spurious or alleged questions of privilege. I wonder what the intent of the opposition is in pursuing this course of action day after day.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister was not here before.


Madam Speaker:: I will take this question under advisement and rule on it later.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Dubois.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Joseph Lloyd Reid: for leave to introduce Bill C-629, to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, in very brief form this is a bill to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to increase the amount of the guarantee from $20,000 to $50,000 and would apply to the financial institutions which receive deposits.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 668, 1,900 and 2,028.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was any business carried on by the government or any of its agencies prior to May 22, 1979, with a firm called SODEVCO and, if so (a) what is a complete list of all such business (b) what is the address of the firm (c) what was the amount and date on which all funds or contracts were paid and the reason for such funds in each case (d) what was the total amount of contracts or funds paid to the firm?
2.	What are the names of all persons who have acted as officials with SODEVCO and in particular, what are the details and names of individuals who have negotiated or in any way furthered such government business?


David Michael Collenette: In so far as the Canada Employment and Immigration Department is concerned:
1.	(a) No. However, prior to May 22, 1979, two Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program contracts were negotiated. These two contracts were subsequently authorized on June 18, 1979.
(b)	120 Promenade du Portage Hull, Quebec


[Stage Direction]
(c)	The Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program contract No. 2430-9-021 was authorized in the amount of $1,583.87. To date, $854.34 has been paid for the training of one employee in a trained-skill shortage field.
February 19, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Payments: August 13, 1979	$241.02
September 4, 1979	$322.80
October 25, 1979	$290.52
The Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program contract No. 2430-9-022 was authorized in the amount of $1,133.60. This contract is terminated and the full amount was paid for the training of two employees.
Order Paper Questions
Payments: August 13, 1979	$371.87
October 3, 1979	$761.73
(d)	$1,987.94.
2.	Departmental officials: Mrs. Nicole Darveau Mr. Gaston Plourde
Sodevco officials: Mr. Laurier Trahan-President
Mr. Hughes Albert-Vice President
In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned:
Contract signed with SODEVCO International Ltee	Address: 120 Promenade du Portage
Hull, Quebec
Date of Contract	Project Number	Contract Limit	Contract Purpose	Payments	Signing Officials12-3-76	784-00703	53,904.16	Services contract for an economist in transportation to CILSS (Comites inter-etats de lutte contre la secheresse au Sahel)	(76/77) (77/78) Sub-Total	46,709.14 7,195.16 53,904.30	J. M. Guilmette (PM 7)15-10-76	448-00507	15,000.00	Contract for the administration of four Hondurian trainees in Canada	(76/77)	11,617.71	J. S. Quesnel (PM 6)20-11-75	326-00502	9,618.75	Project identification mission in Benin	(75/76) (76/77)	3,000.00 6,618.75	G. Dubuc (PM 6)Sub-Total	9,618.75	20-8-76	918-00122	150,000.00	Services contract between Benin and SODEVCO signed by Benin authority against CiDA loan	(76/77) (77/78) (78/79)	48,480.88 30,712.96 21,126.61	Republic of BeninSub-Total	100,320.45	2-8-78	295-00703	50,000.00	Recruiting of cooperants for the Republic of Zaire	-	Nil to date	J. M. Metivier (PM 7)Recap of Payments Made	CIDA/SODEVCO	75/76 76/77 77/78 78/79	3,000.00 113,426.48 37,908.12 21,126.61	$175,461.21	Not yet determined	380-00707	Not yet determined	Supplies of basic products Upper Volta, Senegal, Zaire (Under negotiation)	A. Barrieau (PM 5) (Chief Negotiator)
SODEVCO officials: Mr. Laurier Trahan-President
Mr. Robert Garneau-Vice President
In so far as the other departments and agencies: none.
Mr. Stewart: 1- On what date was the Mackenzie King Trust account established and what are its aims and purposes?
2.	What was the initial funding in the account and what is the present amount?
3.	(a) How are funds disbursed from the account (b) to whom have funds been disbursed and for what reason?
4.	Who are the trustees of the account and what remuneration, if any, is paid to each?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: I am informed by
the Public Archives that the reply to the above question is as follows: 1. Mackenzie King Trust account was established in 1952 and the interest is used to assist in the maintenance and care of Laurier House as a place of historic interest. The property is situated at 335 Laurier Avenue East in the city of Ottawa.
2.	The initial funding was $225,000 and the present amount is $270,274.74.
3.	(a) In accordance with section 3(4) of the act and by
P.C. 1969-22/531, March 18, 1969, the Dominion Archivist is authorized to expend an annual sum not to exceed 70 per cent of the interest earned on the

February 19, 1981
Order Paper Questions
Mackenzie King Trust account in the previous fiscal year for the maintenance and upkeep of the buildings on the Laurier House property as well as an annual sum not to exceed 30 per cent of the interest earned on the above account for the maintenance of Laurier House as a museum and study centre and for the provision of sundry purchases therefrom, and that the unspent balance of the interest earned be returned at the end of the fiscal year to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
(b)	An annual payment to Public Works Canada not to exceed 70 per cent of the interest earned on the Mackenzie King trust fund and the balance of interest earned for the maintenance of Laurier House as a museum and study centre.
4.	The Public Archives is the Trustee of the account and there is no remuneration.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the announcement on January 21, 1981 of an Environment Canada study which has verified a connection between weather and migraine headaches (a) over what period of time was the study conducted (b) what was the purpose of the study (c) what was the total cost to the Canadian taxpayer of the study (d) what percentage of the total cost of the study was funded by the Migraine Foundation (e) under the auspices of which branch of the Department of the Environment was the study funded (0 what follow-up study is being made in this area?
2.	Does the department engage in studies of the co-relation between the environment and health on an ongoing basis and, if so, under what auspices is this undertaken?
3.	Does the government donate financially to the Migraine Foundation for independent research?


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: 1.	(a) Migraine data were collected for the period April 29, 1979, to December, 1979, inclusive. Analysis followed on a part-time basis during 1980.
(b)	The purpose of the study was to determine which atmospheric conditions might be involved in the triggering or aggravating of migraine headaches.
(c)	Total cost to the Canadian taxpayer was $4,600.
(d)	35 per cent or $2,600.
(e)	Atmospheric Environment Service.
(f)	None.
2.	The Atmospheric Environment Service is not currently involved in such studies on an ongoing basis.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if questions Nos. 538 and 1,612 could be made orders for returns, those returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the fiscal year 1978-79, what contracts for professional services were let for studies, surveys and analyses into (a) present or future policies, programmes or information analysis and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Department of the Solicitor General?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
Return tabled.


Mr. Skelly: 1.	Since 1960, how many prison guards/staff were taken hostage and what were their names, the dates and the locations of the incidents?
2.	Since 1960, how many died in a hostage taking incident and how many were killed by (a) inmates (b) penitentiary staff and, in each case, what was his/her name, the date and the location of the incident?
Return tabled.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 538 and 1,612 be deemed to have been made orders for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?
3. No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
February 19, 1981



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[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. Serge Joyal (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to take part in this debate somewhat like those enthusiastic and fervent pilgrims in the Middle Ages who were returning from Mount Saint-Michel, from the Ganges or from Mecca. During the sittings of the Joint Committee on the Constitution which lasted three months and a half, I had the opportunity to listen, to consider and to ponder on each and every point and objection; 1 did reconsider freely whether or not I should belong to this country. The witnesses who appeared before the committee did us an invaluable service by allowing its members to get out of their cities and of their villages to learn during all those sitting hours about our historical difficulties and advances, about the many facets of the people of different cultures who inhabit this huge land of ours. How could we thank the 314 individuals who, on behalf of their group, came to openly state their grievances, their expectations, their vision of this country which they would like to see fairer, more generous and more tolerant? The members of the committee had a common characteristic: they were hard working people with a keen sense of responsibility. During the 300 sitting hours the public could appreciate to what extent the members of the committee discharged to the best of their ability and in all honesty, their responsibility to assist the House in making an historic decision. I am grateful to each of them for having shown us the frustrations of Western Canadians as well as the expectation of our founding people that this country will again become a land of brotherhood and sharing. I am deeply grateful to my colleagues in Parliament and to the honourable senators for having entrusted me with those privileged duties which was essentially to help them to the best of my ability discharge their responsibilities.

I should like to thank especially the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who is in the House today and, of course, the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), both of whom, on behalf of their parties, have maintained that confidence and that trust in the chairmen. I think if we are in a position today to debate such a proposed resolution, it is due in most part to their respect, their trust and their ability to
The Constitution
express their opinions in a way which helps the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Serge Joyal: I should now like to share with the House what lessons I have learned. This country, Canada, Mr. Speaker, was not built in ease and euphoria. The French settlers who came in the seventeenth century had to fight against a hostile environment at the cost of hardships difficult to imagine today before taking root in this land. In the eighteenth century, confrontation with a new occupant was a constant source of political tensions.
The rebellion of 1837 and the struggles for a responsible government took up the nineteenth century until confederation. Since 1867, Canada has witnessed a slow and lengthy process of political evolution. Step by step, it has won its autonomy, its independence, its sovereignty. Today, we have come to the last stage of the old era and the start of the new. We now face a choice, a fundamental one. We must decide what kind of country we want to build. That choice cannot be easy or devoid of growing pains. No country in the world has ever won its official independence without difficulty, without debate, without emotion, without passion. Those who would imagine that the Fathers of Confederation conceived the federal union of this country in easy discussions, in social gatherings at Charlottetown or at Quebec should read again those pages of our history. Those who would believe that the people took an active part in the efforts that led to the birth of Canada are totally mistaken. In fact, the public was almost completely excluded.
On November 7, 1864, Antoine Aime Dorion, the hon. member for Hochelaga, my predecessor in this House, denounced before his electors the secret nature of the confederation debates saying, and I quote:
You already know that a conference was held in Quebec City ... The highest interests of the country were discussed at meetings held in camera ... The lack of any official statement on the proceedings of the conference, the complete silence of the ministers of Lower Canada about the details of the coming conference seem to indicate that this measure is to be rushed through without consulting the people, without even giving them time to study its provisions and evaluating its bearing, its effects.
Today, as we debate this resolution, after 300 hours of proceedings under the light of television cameras, after inviting Canadians from every part of Canada to share their views and opinions with us, we certainly cannot make serious comparisons with the procedures followed by our predecessors.

I might add that during the 106 committee sessions the opposition spoke for two thirds of the time as follows: the official opposition used 43 per cent of the time; the New Democratic Party 22 per cent; the Liberal Party 34 per cent.

February 19, 1981
The Constitution
The mandate of the committee was twice extended at the request of the opposition; first until February 6 and then until February 13. Second, the opposition agreed that this was sufficient time for the committee to complete its work. Lastly, at least three million citizens were able to watch the debates, live or taped, on television.
[ Translation]
The decision we are about to make for the future of our country after more than five months of sustained political debates will appear very clear to all Canadians. What does it involve? Its first objective is to correct historical anomaly, the last remnant of an obsolete colonial status. Canada is one of the seven most important countries in the western world. Next June, it will host the annual conference of the big seven and will sit with the United States, Japan, France, Great Britain, Western Germany and Italy. However, it has less control over its constitution than Vanuatu, the Seychelles or Santo Domingo.

Those who do not believe what I have just said or who think it is far-fetched only have to read the conclusions in the report of the foreign affairs committee of the British parliament to realize that all imperial pretensions are not dead.
I am referring, of course, to the view of a few hon. members and not to the view of the British government. Yet the fact remains there are a few who believe that Canada remains at the mercy of the Parliament which is not responsible, directly or indirectly, to the citizens of this country.

Several people, when the present move was initiated, concluded that it was meaningless and would not significantly alter the status of Canada. If the purpose were only to rid once and for all the minds of some parliamentarians of our colonial past, it would still be worthwhile. But we cannot reject all the responsibility for our present state on our mother country. It is because of our failure to agree on the means to control the fundamental changes in our Constitution that Westminster retained its colonial trusteeship. As a matter of fact, in 1931, when the Parliament of London, through the Statute of Westminster, wanted to grant its former colonies their constitutional independence, Canada, and Canada only, asked for that power to remain in London, since it could not agree on an amending procedure for the Act of 1867. This is what Mr. Ernest Lapointe, the then minister of justice, confirmed in the House on May 11, 1931, and I quote:
In that matter the imperial parliament is not really a dominating power; it acts as a trustee and as a guarantor, and merely gives effect to the will of the Canadian people.
And let us not think that the 1867 Constitution has never been amended. Quite the contrary. Since 1867, Westminster has brought in 21 amendments. How were these amendments made? In three cases, 1893, 1927 and 1931, Westminster amended the Constitution on its own to allow for a technical
reform. In all other instances dealing with major changes, a request was presented either by the Canadian government, as in 1871 and 1875, or, since then, by the Canadian Parliament. Never has the British parliament refused an amendment on the basis that provincial consent had not been obtained. On the other hand, never has the British parliament accepted an amendment requested by a province. Thus in 1868, when Nova Scotia wanted out of confederation in accordance with a unanimous resolution by its assembly and a petition by 36 of the 38 assembly members, Britain replied that the Government of Canada was the only representative of the interests of the confederation before the imperial parliament. Only in one instance, in 1907, did the British parliament modify the terms of a resolution passed by the Canadian Parliament. The Canadian amendment was to increase federal subsidies to the provinces as a final and unchangeable rule, but London removed that condition because in the opinion of Sir Winston Churchill, then parliamentary under-secretary for the colonies, it seemed totally inappropriate in the legislation since Parliament could not relinquish its sovereignty and its power to amend acts.
Since 1931, spokesmen for the British government have always considered that Westminster was duty bound to agree to the requests of the Canadian Parliament. Thus, in 1940, when the unemployment insurance amendment was debated in London, the British Solicitor General stated, and I quote:

We square the legal with the constitutional position by passing these acts only in the form that the Canadian Parliament require and at the request of the Canadian Parliament.
My justification to the House for this bill-and it is important to observe this-is not on the merits of the proposal, which is a matter for the Canadian Parliament; if we were to embark upon that, we might trespass on what I conceive to be their constitutional position. The sole justification for this enactment is that we are doing in this way what the Parliament of Canada desires to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Serge Joyal: He continues:
I do not know what the view of the provincial parliaments is-It is sufficient justification for the bill that we are morally bound to act on the ground that we have here the request of the Dominion Parliament and that we must operate the old machinery which has been left over at their request in accordance with their wishes.

In 1943 when Quebec objected to the adoption of the amendment aimed at redistributing the seats in the House of Commons, the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, Mr. Atlee, declared, and I quote:

I have no information as to any province objecting, but, in any case, the matter is brought before us by an address voted by both Houses of Parliament, and it is difficult for us to look behind that fact.
February 19, 1981



Again in 1946, when Quebec objected to an amendment to change the principles of representation in the House of Commons, former Canadian prime minister Viscount Bennett stated before the House of Lords, and I quote:

Canada is the only one of the Dominions in which a party majority can amend the Constitution. They cannot amend it directly but they do it indirectly, because we have agreed that we will consent to pass any legislation that they may petition to have passed by this Parliament.

Similarly, in 1949, when an amendment enabling our federal Parliament to amend its own constitution was moved, no mention was made to the British Parliament that certain provinces were fiercely opposed to that amendment. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations said, and I quote:

The bill is cast in the terms of the address adopted by the federal Parliament of Canada and, of course, we are all ready to do what they desire.

When in 1960 we had before us the amendment providing for compulsory retirement of Superior Court judges at age 75, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations declared, again I quote:

-legislation by the United Kingdom Parliament is still necessary where the subject of the amendment is one which affects the interests both of the federal Parliament and the provinces.
We are therefore to all intents and purposes acting in what is a formal capacity for the Canadian Parliament in a matter which is solely its concern. In accordance with long-established precedent, we refrain from discussing the merits of a Bill submitted to us amending the British North America Acts when this Bill has been introduced in consequence of Addresses to Her Majesty adopted by both Houses of the Canadian Parliament.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the position expressed on many occasions by spokesmen of the British government cannot be misunderstood. Indeed, it is crystal clear. On 21 occasions, or each time it was asked to do so, the British Parliament agreed to a request of the Canadian Parliament without concerning itself with knowing whether the provinces had been consulted, whether they had expressed their agreement or whether they had disagreed.
Indeed, the Canadian Parliament is not required to consult the provinces and get their agreement before submitting a request to the British Parliament. The Chief Justice of the Manitoba Court of Appeal explained this quite well and substantiated it in an elaborate judgment given on February 3 last. In any case, long before this judgment was given, Canadian experts had already recognized this fact. For instance, in 1935, Professor Kennedy appeared before the Special House Committee on the Constitution of Canada and said the following on this subject:
The Constitution
I do not believe that the Parliament of Canada has the least legal obligation to consult the provinces in the process. This might be very good policy, but policy is not law. I believe that the Canadian Parliament can submit any request to the British Parliament.
This view was shared at this time by Professor Norman Rogers. It was also repeated before committee members by Professor Gil Remillard, who had been invited at the suggestion of the official opposition, and by Professor Gerard Lafor-est, invited at the suggestion of the government party. This same view was expressed in the House by the Hon. Ernest Lapointe in 1940, by the New Brunswick premier, the Hon. Mr. McNair, in 1950 at a federal-provincial conference, and more recently, in 1978, by the Hon. Ron Basford and the Hon. Marc Lalonde. There is therefore no obligation for the government or the Canadian Parliament to consult the provinces or to obtain their consent before making a request to the British Parliament. The Manitoba Court of Appeal confirmed this once again on February 3 last. In the present context, to amend the Canadian Constitution, the Canadian Parliament can therefore submit a request to the British Parliament which, on 21 occasions since 1867, has always agreed to such requests without taking a position on their contents. Mr. Speaker, some people have thought, quite wrongly, that until now, the rule of unanimity applied. Again this week, hon. Senator Tremblay, whose integrity and commitment I respect, stated on the state-owned network that unanimity is the rule for amendments to the Constitution. According to the general impression, the provinces are better protected by the status quo which would be guaranteed by the so-called unanimity rule. According to this rule, all provinces must agree to any constitutional change. Unfortunately, as we have seen, this belief is not substantiated by our political history or the constitutional precedents.
In fact, we now have a constitutional amendment procedure which does not require the unanimous consent of the provinces, but a simple majority vote of the members of both Houses of the Canadian Parliament. Such are the teachings of history and jurisprudence. But, in my opinion, this cannot last if we want to truly really and thoroughly reorganize our federal institutions and adapt our Constitution to our present needs and future aspirations.
The Canadian Parliament must not retain this unlimited power to amend the Constitution of Canada by itself.
The rule of unanimity is an illusion behind which the provinces have taken refuge, Quebec in particular. It was not realized that this protection was a myth. Through its rejection of the amending formula in Victoria in 1971, Quebec has laid itself bare and is now shouting "rape!" That is what we must correct. The present resolution is doing just that by writing into the new Constitution the provinces' formal right to express their views on all future amendments. What this resolution sets out to do is take away from the federal government the power to amend the Constitution on its own by going to Westminster and giving the provinces the right to propose and

February 19, 1981
The Constitution
approve any change that might affect their power. Far from taking anything from the provinces our action will confirm the partnership status of the provincial governments. The level of government that is actually losing the most power in this process is the federal Parliament.
The resolution under consideration also contains a provision that is quite fair and reasonable. In the present circumstances, as we have seen, when the federal government and the provinces disagree, the federal government alone may decide to act. From now on it will no longer have that power; it will have to come before the Canadian people which will settle the question following a national referendum.
Many people have raved about the newness and originality of that proposal. Here again, our history shows that this idea was put forward, at least since 1864, by none other than one of my predecessors in Hochelaga, the Member of Parliament, Antoine Aime Dorion. He wrote the following in 1864, and I quote:
When it is a matter of doing nothing less than rebuilding the Constitution, laying down a new foundation for the political structure, the people, whose interests and prosperity are affected by such changes, must be consulted.
Dorion was already calling for a referendum. Later, in 1927, the Canadian League suggested the same solution before the Special Committee on the Canadian Constitution, and I quote: [English]
That no repeal or alteration of any of the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 or of the basis of representation in the House of Commons or of the Senate shall be valid unless approved by the legislatures of a majority of the provinces or by a referendum supported by a majority of the total vote and by a majority of the voters in a majority of the provinces.

Two years later, in 1929, Brooke Claxton, who was to become a minister in the cabinets of Mackenzie King and St. Laurent, took up the same idea anew, and I quote:

Keeping in mind these considerations, it is suggested that power be given to the federal government to amend the BNA Act by Federal Act with the consent of the legislatures of five provinces or alternatively at the option of the federal government, a favourable vote on a referendum of the majority of votes in the country and in at least five provinces.

That was in 1929, Mr. Speaker. That same year, the Manitoba Free Press took a stand and published the following: [English]
The Dominion parliament, we suggest, should, subject to limitations covering the rights of minorities, have the power to pass legislation amending the BNA Act; and this should come into effect unless a certain number of provinces, by their governments, ask for a vote of the people. In that event a national referendum should be held, ratification being contingent upon a majority vote over the whole Dominion and in five of the nine provinces.

The suggestion that the Canadian people should be called upon to take decisions in difficult situations is not new. In 1916, the Manitoba legislature intended to enforce its legislations by way of referenda. Newfoundland joined confederation
in 1949 following a referendum. In May of last year, Quebec held a referendum when it tried to change the nature of its ties with the rest of Canada. Last fall, the Alberta government introduced a bill to authorize, if needed, the holding of a referendum. Whoever claims that the concept of a referendum is entirely foreign to the Canadian constitutional reality is ignorant of our tradition, both past and present. Who can object to the Canadian Parliament holding a referendum to decide upon a basic issue when the provinces intend to use such a mechanism either to join or leave the Canadian federation? Who can object to the Canadian people deciding, when the 11 first ministers fail to agree on the basic changes which our institutions and legislations require? Britain itself, when it considered joining the Common Market in 1971, held its own referendum.
The suggestion that such a mechanism is inconsistent with our tradition is absurd. In today's world, a referendum is the only way to associate the will of the people with changes which have become necessary. That is obvious. In holding a referendum, the Canadian Parliament is asking the Canadian people to exercise the power to decide upon whatever changes are wanted. Theirs will be the last word. Those changes, Mr. Speaker, have become imperative. As a matter of fact, Canadians have for a long time deplored the colonial status of their Constitution. In 1931, Henri Bourassa made the following statement in the House, and I quote:
It is not without a certain amount of shame that I realize that in this year 1931, Canada is still lagging behind all the other dominions in the exercise of unreserved autonomy.
In 1949, the then Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, made the following statement at a dinner given in his honour at the Royal York Hotel by the mayor and council of the city of Toronto, and I quote:
We Liberals also feel that we should find a way to amend our Constitution right here in Canada. This will not be easy. We do not want a Constitution that is too rigid, however we want to be sure that our Constitution includes the most complete safeguards for provincial rights, the rights of both official languages, and all other historical rights that are the sacred heritage of our national union.
Such, Mr. Speaker, is the purpose of our efforts. We want to fulfil now the hope expressed for so long by ensuring that our Constitution protects the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. Canadians generally have a feeling that the basic rights and freedoms are very well protected in Canada. However, even though Canada maintains a good record as compared to other nations, our history is not beyond reproach. The period before confederation shows many instances of discrimination, often violent. Some of the more obvious cases were the genocide of Beothuk Indians in Newfoundland, riots between Orangemen and Roman Catholics in Bytown in 1848 and, in the Toronto of 1858, anti-French and anti-Catholic prejudice, the acceptance of slavery, as well as obvious prejudice against negroes later on.
In 1857, the attitude prevailing then was reflected in the Ontario legislature when Colonel J. Prince described the
February 19, 1981

Negroes as follows, and I quote from his remarks in a Canadian legislature:
-the greatest calamity ever known in the two evil counties I have the honour of representing.
The immigration policy of the new Canadian nation in 1867 was also discriminatory in nature favouring as it did the British and Europeans as opposed to Orientals and others. The thousands of Chinese who came to British Columbia in the 1880s were slaves to all practical purposes, to the extent that Chinese companies literally sold them under contract to Canadian mining and railway companies. Their living conditions and the general manner in which they were treated were simply not human. Let us not forget that the Dominion Elections Act of 1885 provided, and I quote:
The expression "person" means any male person, including an Indian, and excluding a person of Mongolian or Chinese race;
No later than in 1975, there were 20 Canadian immigration officers scattered across the United Kingdom whereas there were only four in the New Delhi office to deal with all the applications filed by Indian applicants. In 1955, the Minister of Immigration stated the following, and I quote:
1 do not believe that any immigrant, wherever he comes from or whatever his skills, is worth a Canadian baby because the former must learn to be a Canadian whereas the latter is a Canadian from the very beginning.
During the depression years, the Ku Klux Klan was strongly rooted in some parts of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario. The Regina riot in 1935 and the general strike in Winnipeg provided many cases of violation of civil liberties. Later on, during World War II, 23,000 Canadians of Japanese origin were interned in various parts of Canada under the War Measures Act, even though 75 per cent of them had been born in Canada and many of them had been genuine Canadians for several generations. At about the same time, Jehovah Witnesses were outlawed; in 1940, 29 members of this sect were sentenced to one year in jail.
In 1953, 1955 and 1957, the Quebec Padlock Act, the regulations restricting the distribution of religious literature, were challenged before the courts. Not so long ago, in 1974, in the Laval vs Bedard case, the Supreme Court ruling clearly emphasized the weakness and flimsiness of the Canadian Bill of Rights which everybody thought was adequate protection. That is what must be prevented today. Our own history is not beyond reproach. Our statutes are not stringent enough. We know about the Indian Act and its discriminatory provisions regarding Indian women; that must be kept from happening in our Canada of the future and that is what the proposal before us is all about.
The Constitution
In Manila, in the Philippines, Pope John Paul II said on Tuesday and I quote:
Nothing can justify a breach of human rights even in exceptional circumstances.
Governments are there, he said, to serve the people and protect their dignity. They cannot pretend to serve the people's interests when they do not respect basic individual rights.
Human rights are paramount.
-strongly claimed the Pope.
What does the official opposition suggest? That the charter of rights and freedoms be referred to the provinces? But this would simply kill our proposal. Let us recall again the statements made last fall by the premiers: seven of them strongly opposed the entrenchment of a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution of Canada, and now this is what the Premier of Manitoba had to say:
-while Manitoba actively supports the protection of human rights it opposes the entrenchment of a charter of rights on principle.

The Premier of Saskatchewan, the Hon. Allan Blakeney, a man whom every member in this House would have thought to be all out in favour of human rights has said and I quote:

Saskatchewan is not in favour of entrenching in the Canadian Constitution the human rights which are ordinarily referred to as fundamental rights or legal rights or as the case may be. I share with Premier Lyon this view-

The Premier of British Columbia has said:

B.C. believes that individual rights and fundamental freedoms must be protected but we remain satisfied that the most appropriate method is through the exercise of the authority of the legislatures of the provinces and the Parliament of this nation.

The Premier of Alberta has stated and I quote:

So we come down to a conclusion that the better way to protect the rights of the citizens of our province... is... to leave that responsibility to the elected representatives.

The premiers of Quebec, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia have expressed exactly the same views, that within their provincial borders rights are not threatened. There lies the Achilles' heel, the weakness of the provincial position. Everything is seen, gauged, weighed, thought out, in a strictly limited perspective confined to the territory of one province.
7476

February 19, 1981
The Constitution

Canada is more than the sum of its ten provinces. Ten provincial flags will never make a Canadian flag. Ten provincial charters of rights are not a Canadian charter of rights and liberties. Two provincial charters which protect the rights of the handicapped will never protect the rights of all the handicapped in Canada.
Canada is more than the sum of its parts. Canada is a society whose citizens have equal rights and liberties wherever they live, wherever they move or wherever they want to live.
Canada is a dream; a dream of equality, a dream of liberty, a dream in which the right to be different is guaranteed in the basic law, in which the rights of Canadians as Canadians, because they belong to this country, are the same everywhere, whether they are men or women, native or from mother countries, or whether they are immigrants full of hope who have just arrived dreaming of liberty and justice.
Quebecers had a unique opportunity to proclaim their unswerving loyalty to this country and their faith is this resolution on May 20. My generation of Quebecers believes in Canada because they are convinced this country can be a society where the freedom to be, the right to be different, the opportunity to develop one's potential can be guaranteed in the fundamental law of the country. There are not ten Canadas, there is only one whose new foundations it behooves us to define. We do not want to retreat behind our differences, or use our French cultural identity as an excuse or a plea to refuse to join in and partake of this great Canadian endeavour which may require some adjustments in our liberties but which, in the long run, will be beneficial to more people. Sir Wilfrid Laurier understood that very well. In 1897, in Paris, he recalled the decision that Quebec politicians had had to take after the 1837 rebellion. He said and I quote:
Those of my fellow citizens who when confronted with this double provision believed in isolating themselves and not taking any part in the national development were not few. Mr. Lafontaine who, at the time, in the absence of Mr. Papineau then in exile, was the most competent man among us, was more highly inspired. I agree entirely with his way of thinking. He thought that to isolate oneself was always an error and that, for us, particularly, to isolate ourselves would be to bury ourselves in mediocrity.
That, Mr. Speaker, is our option, my option: As we enter the first stage in the reform of our institutions and legislation, 1 strongly believe that this resolution deserves the support of all Canadians because it provides essential safeguards for the preservation of their identity and the best way to achieve their ideal of a freer and more just country.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured that I was able to be in the House today to hear the speech of the hon. member who just took his seat, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal). Those of us who sat in the committee for any length of time were very much aware of the difficult task of the chairman in having to preside over the committee, especially for somebody of the character and personality of the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve who has the reputation in this place for being somewhat of a maverick, and I say that as a compliment. He had to sit there and not say anything; but indeed, in sitting there he presided over that committee with a degree of fairness, impartiality and dignity that I have not seen around here for a long time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I am, 1 will say, a little sad that the hon. member, in finally getting a chance to have his say, has said a number of things with which I would find myself fundamentally and basically in disagreement. I thought he and I were philosophical soul mates. Indeed, I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that if he searched deeply within his soul, he would probably find- and I am not accusing him of intellectual dishonesty-if he came from a province which did not enjoy the veto which the province of Quebec does under the amending formula proposed in the bill before us, that the procedures are as abhorrent to him as we on this side of the House find them to be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I want to pay tribute to my leader, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), the former prime minister of Canada, who stood alone without an opportunity to consult his colleagues on October 2 and went against what seemed to be at that time the popular wisdom in the country when he said, "Hold on, it is our duty to oppose this." He was the one at that time to identify what the referendum procedure would do to this federation and this country, today and in the future. So we wish to express a debt of gratitude to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition because it was that opposition which touched off the debate which took place, first in the House, then in committee, and which today is back in the House. That opposition is very important, and the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve would be the first to agree that it is a very essential part of the process which is taking place here today.
I should also like to join with others in paying tribute to my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), who has carried out the responsibility of being the chairman of our committee on the Constitution with a great deal of dedication, devotion and patience, and I thank him. I am grateful to have the opportunity to thank him publicly for the leadership he has provided us in that committee.
February 19, 1981

I should like as well to pay tribute to the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), who unfortunately is not in the House at present, for the outstanding work he has done in the committee as his party's chief spokesman. Believe me, I do not do so because the hon. member has announced he is going to split with his party. I would have taken the opportunity to do so anyway because we were all impressed by the very constructive and difficult role performed by him. We knew, those of us who worked with him, that he did not subscribe to the position of his party, and yet he put that position forward, as was his responsibility and duty. I congratulate him and his three colleagues-and especially I congratulate the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville because he is his party's spokesman on the Constitution, so the decision was perhaps more difficult for him-for announcing that they cannot support this package. That, of course, is consistent with the position which the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville took when this measure first came before this House.
Perhaps I might as well put on the record that just a few hours ago the Premier of Saskatchewan held a press conference at which he announced that he could not support this package. He was provincial premier number eight to do so. That means there are eight provinces today in this country which are opposing the process and the substantive parts of what is in this measure before us. The Premier of Saskatchewan said:
I was disturbed because I felt his action would widen the divisions in Canada.
Then he went on to say:
1 was disturbed because while the September first ministers' conference failed, agreement on a compromise package of reforms had been so very close.
That was the message all premiers brought to us as they appeared before the committee.
The government can talk all it wants about the second phase of these negotiations. There are very important matters to be dealt with in the second phase. For example, we have been told that a preamble to the charter of rights is something which must come in the second phase of negotiations. We have been told that offshore rights, fisheries jurisdiction and a number of other questions must come in the second phase. But let us think for a moment about the climate which has been created for that second phase of negotiations. Realistically it is not a climate which is conducive to productive agreement on the second or third phase of the Constitution. The government will be sitting down with ten premiers, eight of whom feel that the process is illegitimate, to say the least, and that the government has violated the pact of confederation with its charter of rights and amending formula which transgress areas of provincial jurisdiction. They will do an end run around provincial legislatures, relegating them to nothing but mere municipal councils. This kind of atmosphere would not be conducive to agreement on anything. So, there will be no second phase for some time to come, and that is a tragedy.
The Constitution
I could talk about the charter of rights. A number of my colleagues spoke with a great deal of compassion about the most important and basic right of all-the right to life-and the impact the charter of rights could have on the question of abortion. What will probably happen is that the abortion question will be decided in the cold, harsh, cruel light of the interpretation of the exact wording of the law, not in an atmosphere where human dimensions and social pressures of the time will be brought to bear on that very important question.
Somebody said before the committee that there are two parts to the law. There is the bare bones of the law, but then there is convention and practice which clothe the law in flesh and blood. The flesh and blood element is not a part and, indeed, should not be a part of the judicial process; but it should be and has been up to now an important part of this legislative process.
The right to hold property is basic in a free and democratic society. It was denied us in committee. It had been promised us, then it was denied us. I could talk about property rights and what they will mean. I know how a grandson of an immigrant in Saskatchewan would feel if his grandfather had come to this country looking for land and the freedom which land provides, if he had cleared that land with his bare hands, if that quarter section or whatever was his. How do we explain to that gentleman that his Constitution denies or does not recognize his right to hold and enjoy property?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You are full of it.


James Aloysius McGrath: I heard the interjection of the hon. gentleman. It is worthy to note that the opposition to the right to hold property came from the province of Saskatchewan, which has that very right written into its own charter of rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Now, how is that for a double standard? I suspect my hon. socialist friends find that the truth hurts.
I could talk about the rerouting of the charter. The hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve said, "How are you going to get agreement from the provinces if you reroute the charter?" If we agreed to reroute the charter, we would be creating a better climate of co-operation in the country. Because in so doing, we would be recognizing what the provinces have been saying, that is, that under the balance of power of our federation there are two jurisdictions in Canada, and we must respect both jurisdictions. This process of unilateral action and this entrenchment of a charter denies the rights of the provinces to have their jurisdiction protected, protection which I submit is accorded to them under the provisions of the Constitution.
Also the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve talked about the importance of the charter of rights in protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms. I happen to hold very strongly the opposite view. I would say, with respect to my hon. friend, that the entrenchment of a charter of rights in

February 19, 1981
The Constitution
the Constitution will not by and of itself protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. 1 give him proof of that statement. What about the Japanese Americans who were the first to be interned? What protection did they have under the United States constitution with its entrenched charter of rights? They were the first to violate and take away the civil and human rights of the Japanese citizens of that country. Indeed, it was pressure from them which forced Canada to do the same thing.
My colleagues have talked about the constitution of the Soviet Union and the rights enshrined in it. I should like to give a better example. India is one of the few countries in the Commonwealth which has maintained the parliamentary system and entrenched a charter of rights. We can take a look at the record of civil rights and fundamental freedoms in India. At the present time it has suspended its constitutional rights for a year. We know what happened during the previous regime of Madam Gandhi when people had no fundamental rights or freedoms, notwithstanding the glowing terms of the entrenched rights contained in the constitution of India.
Then I look at the few countries in the Commonwealth which have not entrenched charters of rights and I find they have one significant thing in common. These are the countries which have the best record of protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of all the countries in the world. I will name them: the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I believe we will live to regret what we are doing here today. When the fathers of our country 113 years ago put together the present Constitution-in its written form, the British North America Act-they opted for the British tradition. As we know, there are two traditions for constitutions. There is the written tradition. For example, after a bloody civil war or a revolution, the Americans decided to sit down and write a constitution, as did the French. Then there is the British tradition where there is an evolution of a constitution based on the historic rights and privileges of a people as they develop and are transgressed. The ultimate protection of fundamental rights and freedoms is contained in the Parliament of the United Kingdom or up to the present day in the Parliament of Canada.
We are setting up in this country a parallel legislature because the Supreme Court of Canada, as it is faced with questions based on the charter of rights, will eventually have to legislate; we all know what happened and what is happening in the United States of America. I personally think that will be a regrettable day for Canada. But that is not the majority view and, in a democracy I prescribe to the majority view, and will reluctantly go along with the charter. I believe it is a better charter because of the deliberations of the committee. I do not want to suggest that because I participated in that committee, because we participated in that committee, or because we were successful in getting six or seven amendments. I do not want to suggest for a moment that in any way legitimizes the process. We were merely carrying out our responsibilities as legislators.
How often do we deal with bills in the House upon which there is fundamental disagreement? As parliamentarians what do we do? Do we wash our hands and merely walk away? That is not the tradition of Parliament. We must sit and try to make a bad bill into a better one. That was the attitude we took in the committee. We had to sit and try to make a bad charter into a better one. As a result, I believe we have a better charter of rights today.
The famous Kirby document has a number of things to say. What is interesting about the Kirby document is that it has consistently recommended the government's game plans. It said this:
The probability of an agreement is not high. Unilateral action is therefore a distinct possibility. In the event unilateral action becomes necessary, ministers should understand that the fight in Parliament and the country will be very, very rough. For, as Machiavelli said:
It is very interesting that the document should quote Machiavelli.
It should be borne in mind that there is nothing more difficult to arrange, more doubtful of success, and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes in a state's constitution.
What we propose to do here today is deny the federal concept, the federal character of Canada. I hear hon. members asking what the ultimate resolution of this argument will be. One would say that that argument would lead you to separatism. I was one who fought against my province joining Canada. I would fight today against my province separating from Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I would fight equally hard for my province to maintain its political entity and its sovereignty within the federation we call Canada.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) in a good speech to the House yesterday said something which has been said before by other ministers. I quote:
I urge the House, as the only body that truly represents all Canadian citizens, to accept this resolution-imperfect as it may be in this or that detail, but in whole an imaginative and fair response to the challenges of our country.
The minister says, "as the only body that truly represents all Canadian citizens." What about the legislature of the province of Newfoundland, does it not represent Canadian citizens? What about the national assembly of the province of Quebec, does it not represent Canadian citizens? What about the assembly of the province of Alberta, does it not speak for Canadian citizens? What about British Columbia? The government has a role to play, but for it to suggest that this is the only legislative body in the country which can speak for Canadians as a whole is to adopt a unitary concept of Canada and deny ipso facto its federal nature. I regret that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 19, 1981


James Aloysius McGrath: I reject that, Mr. Speaker. I believe the federal nature of Canada will ultimately be destroyed if we persist.
I have a few minutes left, Mr. Speaker. I have had to search my soul, as have we all, because whether we think the process is legitimate or not, we are involved in it. We must ask ourselves what is the bottom line? We must ask ourselves what is the least we will accept? All right; the government refuses to reroute the charter back to the provinces where the atmosphere, because of the climate in the country, I suggest is such that you would get agreement. The government refuses to do that and 1 must live with that. 1 hope my children's rights will be protected.
It bases the amending process on the Victoria formula, so it will not budge from that. It must go into the package. There is one part of the package that, as a Canadian having a dedication to my country as a whole and a responsibility to my province as a unit, I reject outright, and that is the concept that the Government of Canada can at any time declare a deadlock and do an end-run around the provincial legislatures of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I reject that because it denies my province the rights we thought we were enshrining in our Constitution in 1949; that is, while we could be part of the greater nation of Canada we could still continue to maintain our political and cultural institutions within the federal system of Canada. That is the point which must be made. That is what is being denied us today.
There are none of us in the House who have an edge on patriotism or love of country. Indeed, somebody can say patriotism is the last refuge of this country. I make no excuse for the fact that I love this country. But equally, I love my province. I believe I have a responsibility to my province and if I fulfil and carry out that responsibility I am being a good Canadian and a good member of this federal nation of Canada. We must all carry out that responsibility to our provinces.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that my bottom line-and I say this to the people of Newfoundland and I will probably find myself in disagreement with the Premier of Newfoundland-is that if this package goes out of this Parliament with all its objectionable features I will suggest to the British Parliament, as a Canadian, "Hands off!"


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: The British Parliament has had its study. It knows what its constitutional position is, and it knows what are its constitutional responsibilities. But it has no business in examining a measure placed before it under a constitutional amending formula by a sovereign, independent and proud country. I will say this, Mr. Speaker; they did not ask for it. We have no right to send this package to Britain until the
Adjournment Motion
Supreme Court of Canada has had an opportunity to rule whether it is constitutional.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: To do so would run the risk of the national shame and embarrassment of having the Parliament of Great Britain reject a measure placed before it by the majority of the votes of the Parliament of Canada.
Finally, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the government's majority has its way and obtains its amending referendum formulas, which will make the provinces and legislatures mere municipalities in terms of their relationship to the federal government, no province in Canada which holds to the position that the process is illegitimate and, hence, unconstitutional, and that the amending formula is ultra vires of the provincial constitutions, should have to accept this package. In my opinion any province could legally hold that the Government of Canada which tries to do an end-run around any provincial legislature could say, "No dice, it does not apply to us."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: That is the kind of Canada, the kind of division and the kind of future this government, by its unilateral action, has mapped out for itself. I hope this debate will be allowed to continue, Mr. Speaker.
I had a woman come to see me today because she discovered that the section protecting the denominational schools does not protect private schools in British Columbia.
As long as we can keep this debate going we can find and correct anomalies in the bill. My God, what is six months or a year compared to a constitution that is supposed to last us a lifetime? Remember, what we are doing here today is for the future of Canada. We must be very careful that what we do is done as well as we can to protect Canada, to protect the federal nature of Canada, because if we do not, Mr. Speaker, then the country is in for a long period of trauma, discord and chaos. For a country like Canada with such promise, with such a future, with so many important economic questions facing it today, that in my view would be a tragedy in the extreme.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 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;

February 19, 1981
Private Members' Business
the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis)-The Environment-Niagara River source of Great Lakes pollution; the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn)- Fitness and Amateur Sport-Ottawa Citizen indoor games- Alleged payments to participating athletes; the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright)-National Energy Program-Financial effect of proposed oil industry nationalization.
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, private bills and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is at this point that I would ask the House to agree to stand all items under the heading notices of motions. We have, however, a point of order which has been raised on several occasions by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) and I think it would be consistent and a courtesy to him that prior to requesting hon. members to stand all items preceding order No. 43, we deal with the point of order raised by that hon. member. I want to do that with as little interference with the private members' hour as possible. [English]
I hope I am consistent with the hon. member's views when I say that the point of order he raises relates to the matter of private members' public bills which have been accepted under our system called the draw and drawn on the basis of title. There are, I think, some 300 private members' public bills in the draw and something over 200 have no text or bill, if I may use that expression for the moment, and I will come back to that.
The question raised is whether or not the House can continually proceed by unanimous consent or by request of the government to stand private members' public bills when in fact no bill exists. That is the essence.
It is appropriate to remind hon. members that under this system the practice has been to permit hon. members to submit only the title and not the entire bill, therefore the Chair is in the peculiar position of attempting to proceed in a way, according to the bill of the House, that private members' bills can be given second reading, and at the same time try to deal with this fiction which exists, the very point raised by the hon. member for Vaudreuil, who points out that it is rather difficult to stand a bill if no bill exists.
I would indicate briefly that all other arguments and considerations having been reviewed, there still remains the simple and basic problem the hon. member raises: how can we stand a bill if no bill exists?
It is the conclusion of this occupant of the chair that we cannot do it. Accordingly, the objection raised by the hon. member is accepted.
It follows from this point on, with an exception I will mention in a moment, the House will not be asked to stand non-existent bills. Because of the practice of submitting titles for the draw, that kind of decision would place hon. members in a very difficult situation, particularly those whose titles have been brought to the attention of the House and therefore the Chair.
Out of courtesy and consideration for hon. members, there ought to be a period of time during which some adjustment can be made. Consequently, for the next 30 days, those hon. members who wish to submit the text of their bills through the Clerk of the House, will have their bills printed and those bills will follow the normal course and be attributed the normal rights to be printed, and dealt with in private members' hour. Those hon. member who do not see fit to pursue the drafting of their bills and to provide the House with a text will lose their position on the Order Paper.
That raises a question as to whether or not this in fact is the best expression of the will of the House. The responsibility of the Chair is simply to examine the facts and come to a conclusion. Hon. members may very well wish to find some better method of dealing with private members' bills and the fact of there being hundreds with no text. That is not a matter for the Chair to decide but one for the hon. members to review and decide for themselves.
The decision I am now making is not made alone, and 1 would want to express the view of other occupants of the chair and the Table to the effect that we understand quite well that this raises some difficulty for hon. members fortunate enough to have the titles of their intended bills brought before the House; however, the conclusion I have reached is that this is the business of hon. members to deal with as they see fit, and the Chair will co-operate in every way possible to assist the members in finding a satisfactory solution.
I will now deal with Standing Order 19. Standing Order 19(2) reads as follows:
Orders not proceeded with when called, upon the like request, may be allowed to stand retaining their precedence;
Therefore, one wonders whether or not this ruling goes against the will of the House as expressed in the Standing Orders. The only argument I can present to hon. members is that it is difficult enough for the Chair to apply the Standing Orders from time to time and to try to understand the will of members, but if we go past that and proceed on the assumption that the Chair is going to further the fiction referred to earlier, I think the Chair is in an impossible position. It is the opinion of the Chair that the hon. member for Vaudreuil is quite correct in his view that unless the text of a bill has been submitted to the Clerk it cannot continue to stand on the Order Paper. I said, as a convenience to hon. members the ruling will be put in abeyance for a period of 30 days to give hon. members an opportunity to reorganize their titles in such a fashion as to provide a text with them.
February 19, 1981


Mr. Herbert:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) rises on a point of order as well. Perhaps it is appropriate that I ask the hon. member for Vaudreuil to give the hon. member for Yukon an opportunity to comment on the ruling, which I think is what he wants to do.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I rise not so much to comment on the ruling as to try to remove a difficulty from the Chair because I firmly believe the problem is one that should be resolved by hon. members themselves. As a result, if hon. members saw fit, I would move:
That the question of only the title of many private members' public bills being included in the draw and so introduced and the problem of determining the procedural acceptability of all bills contained in the draw and introduced be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedures and Organization.
If the House is in accord I would be prepared to so move.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: We are dealing with matters procedural and I have to observe to the hon. member for Vaudreuil that he has put forward a motion on a point of order. Our Standing Orders do not permit him to do so but we will find a way around that in a moment, if, in fact, it is the will of the House to proceed in the manner which the hon. member for Vaudreuil chooses.
1 actually wanted to recognize the hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: 1 knew you did, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to comment on your ruling. That is a habit I never indulge in, commenting on rulings from the Chair. I assume the officers of the House have had some discussion with the Printing Bureau and have some reasonable assurance that the number of bills without texts, perhaps 200 or 300, I do not know, can be printed within the 30-day time limit suggested by the Chair. I assume the Chair has that assurance.
While the Chair did not directly state in its ruling that the bills would remain standing on the Order Paper in the order in which they now appear for that 30-day period, I drew the inference that that was so by the inclusion in the ruling of the statement that unless the text of the bill was provided within the 30 days it would not stand.
If the Chair could assure me on both points I think the procedure suggested in the ruling would be acceptable. It would be protective of private members' rights with regard to the measures they have on the Order Paper.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Perhaps I ought not to enter into an assurance on a one by one basis. But I think the two points raised by the hon. member are very well raised and I shall deal with them right away so that other hon. members who may have a problem in this regard may feel relieved.
On the question of whether it is feasible to print, in the first instance I am assured it is, and in the second instance I tend to be rather old-fashioned and think that nothing shall impede
Private Members' Business
the will of hon. Members of Parliament when they act and state in concert their wishes. Whether it is a problem or not is irrelevant; it has to be fixed if that is the wish of the hon. members, that is not a problem; neither in practice nor in theory.
The second question the hon. member raised is whether in the 30-day period private members' public bills would continue to be stood or not. I have not dealt with this for the simple reason that it is a matter of the will of the House. I will be putting that question to hon. members. In so far as it may be of assistance to the hon. member for Yukon, I would certainly recommend, as I did, that during the 30-day period no members' rights would be adversely affected. That is the question I will shortly be putting, whether orders prior to No. 43 shall in fact be permitted to stand. I would assume it is the wish of the House that during the 30-day period, no member would lose any rights he has at the present time.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the rights and privileges of all members, certainly that would be acceptable to us but we would need some prior indication before the question you are about to put is put, that it meets the general wishes of the House. If it does not, then I believe, since we are rather sparse in numbers this afternoon, perhaps more adequate and reasonable notice might be given so that members would be present in greater numbers to express their wishes on a matter as important as this. I think this would be required under the rules.
Your Honour referred to some discussions which took place. I am unaware of those. It may well be that there have been discussions with House leaders. If there is some indication that the question Your Honour is about to put is going to be accepted, then I have no problem, but, if there is any indication that it is not going to be accepted, then I think more reasonable notice should be given with respect thereto.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I must be expressing myself badly. I am going to put the normal question to hon. members as to whether they agree that by unanimous consent certain orders in this case all orders numbered prior to No. 43 should stand. That is done in every private members' hour. I have no idea whether it is the will of members that they stand or do not stand, but it is the will of members and not the will of the Chair that will affect the decision. We can proceed without difficulty in that regard.
As is normally the case, in the event there is not unanimous consent then they can stand in any case at the request of the government. I do not see that as a problem.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I see no difficulty with the latter point, namely, the order in which bills stay on the Order Paper. That is for the House to decide, but I think all of us would agree that any rights members had when the draw was made under the practice that then obtained should not be altered, in the present process, at least during the 30-day period.
The second thing I would like to say is, I assume what is meant by 30 days' grace is that within that 30-day period the

February 19, 1981
Private Members' Business
member files his text with the table; whether it is printed or not is a mechanical problem that should not bother us.
The other point I want to make is to the effect that if there are 100 or so such bills on the order paper, I am sure that many of them are in the names of members who are not here-they may read Hansard or not-I think it would be a matter of courtesy, if this is put into effect, that a letter be sent from the Chair or the table to each member who has a bill on the Order Paper that has not been printed because he has not supplied the text. I may have eight or nine bills there but they are all printed, so Your Honour does not have to write me a letter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member has expressed himself, from the point of view of the Chair, perfectly. I think the suggestion that hon. members be advised by some form of letter or notice is an excellent one and that will be done.
I want to underline again, so that there can be no question, that no rights of any hon. member will be in any way reduced or affected over the 30-day period. That is why this has been put in, so that hon. members can come to the conclusion whether or not they want to proceed and to provide the text.


David Michael Collenette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are a couple of things that I want to raise. I am very glad you made this decision. I think all members realize we are not commenting on your decision, we are merely seeking clarification. That is what has gone on in the last few minutes so that we cannot at some future stage say this decision of the Speaker was being questioned. It is merely clarification of how this is going to work and we on this side are perfectly happy with it.
A few minutes ago the hon. member for Vaudreuil indicated that if he got consent he might proceed with a motion to refer this entire subject matter to committee. The reason I am speaking now is to point out that if he seeks leave to put that motion, it is not debatable. He must have the leave of the House and if someone says no, then I cannot say what I was about to suggest. I would ask the indulgence of the House on this point.
It is well known that the government in the speech from the Throne talked about electoral and parliamentary reform in general. I would say that consent would not be forthcoming from one, as a member, on the grounds that this matter should be dealt with in the general context of parliamentary reform. We hope to be dealing with that later on in the session. I hope the hon. member for Vaudreuil will take this into account. It is not a question of stalling, it is a question of propriety; of perhaps not putting references to standing committees in isolation, of the general approach all parties will be anxious to see taken later on.


Erik Nielsen: It is a question of members being given notice.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, hon. members have admonished me for trying to put a motion on a point of order. I was only
suggesting what the motion could be, and I hope you realize that.
The important point is that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, as far as I understand it, has not met within the last three years. It might be just as well to give it a little bit of work to do. That is why I suggested, instead of this subject being debated here, where we could go on at considerably length that it be removed from this debating period and sent to a committee for study. At some future date the report of the committee will be brought to this House. I think the problem should be taken out of the hands of the Chair because I do not think it has anything to do with the Chair. The members themselves are the ones who will have to decide in the final analysis how they want to operate their own private members' hour.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there are far too many members who are not here, members who have bills on the Order Paper and who would like to have notice of any such suggested procedure. On that ground alone, in the absence of so many members who have bills on the Order Paper, I do not think that procedure would be appropriate today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The remarks of the hon. member for Yukon and the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council make it clear, as between proceeding by way of unanimous consent to send the matter off to the committee on procedure and organization or by another method or consultation among House leaders or something of that nature, that there is not unanimous consent to put a motion before the House to refer this entire subject to the committee. I will take that as the situation in view of the comments made. I do not think it is necessary to put the question. One presumes those members who have pursued an interest in the subject today will want to communicate with one another in some fashion in order to discuss more fully the entire question of hon. members' rights in private members' hour and the question as well of private members' public bills.
I think we have now covered the matter and we should go on with private members' hour, of which 23 minutes have now passed. I am advised there will be royal assent at 5.45 p.m. I do not know whether the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will want to proceed with his bill. However, before he does I will revert to the normal practice.

Is there unanimous consent that all orders preceding No. 43 shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
February 19, 1981


BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Private Members' Public Bills.
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-243, an act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (abolition of the Senate).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In that case we will proceed, until I receive notice that the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod is here; we will proceed on the basis that so much time has gone by and that perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) might not want to proceed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, you raise an interesting question. I have always found it difficult to get the Senate abolished in an hour. When that hour is cut down to about 20 minutes, I think that it puts quite a handicap before me. I do know that usually the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod is late-he never gets here on time, but that I suppose is a point of order. I would not mind settling for the House having a half an hour to debate my bill today, but if the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod does arrive at 5.45 p.m. and we have not had much time on this bill, maybe the House would consent to it being at the top of the list of bills the next time for another half hour? My suggestion is put with the condition that it depends on when the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod arrives.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, from our point I think this would be agreeable. Quite often on Thursdays on notice of motions for the production of papers private members' hour does end prematurely. Perhaps we could stipulate that when and if we arrive at this situation in the future on a Thursday, namely, instead of calling it six o'clock we may proceed with the balance of the minutes outstanding on the bill in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, that arrangement is satisfactory to me. I am glad the hon. member assumes that I will be here.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we will agree to that procedure today. As for the future, perhaps it should be a matter to be discussed as suggested by the Chair.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I am agreeable to that procedure. However, we should go on notice now as having a point of order in connection with this bill which we are leaving aside because of the limited time at our disposal. I assume the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will be prepared to argue the particular point in question the next time the bill is called.


Mr. Harquail:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I am seeking information as to whether or not we can delay recognizing the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod at the door of the House until such time as the half hour in today's debate has expired. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre
Private Members' Business
(Mr. Knowles) would have had his opportunity and there would be a portion of time to get some response to his proposal before we recognize the call at the door for us to go to the other place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House can do as it
wishes. It is somewhat similar to God; there are no limitations on the will of the House. There are a lot of limitations on the Chair though so I am not in a position to unilaterally declare what the House ought to do. I can only attempt to further the will of the House. If some hon. member, including the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) wishes to raise a motion of that nature, I suppose I will have to deal with it. In the meantime, my sense of the House is that that may not be the case, and I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rising. I suspect what will be proposed is what has already been proposed namely, that we get on with Bill C-243 otherwise we will be all night just debating procedure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was not proposing that we keep the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod waiting at the door. I merely suggested that what we do another day be determined by how many minutes we have today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: That is understood.
I now have to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) who made a point but did not explain it. I think what he was alluding to was a question as to the admissibility of this bill. I am waiting to see whether that is the case.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, in the remaining time of about 15 minutes it might be just as well to come to the point right away, and at least some of the arguments will have been presented. Essentially the bill to be discussed in private members' hour is a bill which, as a result of past rulings, and I refer to a ruling which came from the Supreme Court of Canada, is no longer subject to passage through this House of Commons.
If a bill cannot come to a vote, then I suggest it is equally not admissible for discussion. I could elaborate at length, but I suggest to you-and I was not wanting to get a ruling today for the obvious reason-that I was prepared to listen to the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as I felt that was appropriate in the circumstances. I still hope he will have the opportunity, if not today, at least the next time the bill is called, which may be as early as next week, to present his point of view, repetitious though it may be, because I have listened to him give the speech on this subject on several previous occasions and, undoubtedly, it is not likely to contain much new material. Nevertheless, since all of us are most interested-


An hon. Member:: You never know.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Since all of us are interested in the composition of the Senate in varying degrees-in fact, I discussed this subject on the floor of the House just a few weeks ago-I

February !9, 1981
Private Members' Business
would be prepared to hear if there are any new arguments in view of the Supreme Court ruling.
The point is that under these circumstances I would certainly oppose such a bill ever coming to a vote in this House, and the object of presenting any bill-even in the private members' hour, where so little ever comes to a vote-is to attempt to get people to make up their minds and decide an issue by a vote on the floor of the House. If the Chair will eventually rule that that is not possible then, theoretically, there should be no discussion.
As I say, I did not want to argue this procedural point today, because I wanted to hear from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. However, possibly what we will do now is discuss the procedure until Black Rod appears; hopefully, not putting you in a position of having to make any ruling. Next week we can listen to the hon. member present his arguments on Senate reform, or "abolition" as he puts it. At the end of that period of time, we will probably hear from the Chair that because this matter cannot come to a vote, it should be dropped and the bill itself will be dropped from the Order Paper.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I had some knowledge that this subject might arise, and for a number of reasons I am in complete disagreement with my colleague, the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) on the admissibility of Bill C-243. First of all, the Supreme Court decision on Bill C-60 in the Thirtieth Parliament concerned a bill of this House which was advocating a change in the Senate. I believe it did not receive second reading, and I stand to be corrected, but there was agreement on all sides that the bill be referred to the Special Joint Committee for pre-study. There was a division in that committee, calling on the federal government to make a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada on the ability of this House to introduce and pass a bill dealing with the change in the Senate.
As you may recall, it was not in Bill C-60, to abolish the Senate, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would have, it was merely to change the method of appointment, election or nomination of senators, based on the proportional representation formula; Appointments were based half on the strength of the various parties in the House of Commons, and half on the strength of the various parties in the legislatures.
The Supreme Court ruled as a matter of law, that passage of that legislation was outside the ambit of this House. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has no right to pronounce judgment on what we may or may not discuss. It has only the right to interpret the statutes, the laws that are passed in this House, or it may give an opinion on what would be the result of a law passed by this House if the Government of Canada made a reference to the Supreme Court for that purpose. Alternatively, as we are seeing now with the Constitution, I believe the various provinces could challenge this in their courts, and then it could come up to the Supreme Court by way of appeal. It is my contention, and I may be wrong, that what the hon. member for Vaudreuil is asking you, Mr. Speaker, is really outside the purview of the Chair. I do not want you to take this as though I am lecturing the Chair. I am trying to be helpful.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Go ahead.


David Michael Collenette: I am trying to point out my understanding that the Chair has to administer the House in accordance with the Standing Orders. The consequences of legislation passed by the House, or any discussion thereof, is not a matter of the Chair to decide.
I will draw your attention to a ruling that Madam Speaker made last summer. Unfortunately, I do not have the reference at hand, but I am sure members opposite will remember it. I am sure the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) will remember it. It concerned the tabling of a ways and means motion by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) last summer, when it was argued by some members in the House, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), that that ways and means motion was illegal.
I argued in the very lengthy procedural case that we had, and this argument was substantiated by Madam Speaker, that the Chair did not have the right to rule as to whether a particular piece of legislation or document tabled in this House was legal. That was for the courts to decide. The sole role of the Chair is to decide on the admissibility of motions or bills in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House.
I would say in this particular case there is no question that we are talking about a bill which has not been passed and, therefore, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction. It is a proposed bill. It is up for second reading-


An hon. Member:: Unless they have a reference.


David Michael Collenette: The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to pronounce upon the bill by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-


Erik Nielsen: Unless they have a reference.


David Michael Collenette: Unless it has a reference from the Government of Canada. I feel this bill should proceed in the normal way. By the same token, I feel it is not within the ambit of the Chair to decide whether or not this bill is in order, because my hon. friend from Vaudreuil was asking you, Mr. Speaker, to pronounce on the legality of this legislation, if passed. First of all, it has not been passed. Secondly, I say that the Chair has no right to express itself on the legality of the legislation.
From time to time, the Chair does make certain pronouncements in private members' hour concerning the Royal prerogative. I think we all accept that because the Standing Orders of the House clearly state that only the government can introduce bills dealing with the expenditure of money or the raising of taxes. In that case, the Chair can obviously enter a caveat as the Speaker often does at the beginning of private members' hour, that the bill might exceed the Royal prerogative, but he or she might allow discussion to continue.
February 19, 1981

It is my contention that what we are talking about here does not fall into that category. We are not talking about the procedural aspects of Bill C-243, which was accepted, I might say, by the officers of the Table and was printed. This has not been the first Parliament in which this bill has been introduced; I remember making my maiden speech on this very bill.
An hon. Member; You are not the only one.


David Michael Collenette: Many have done so, because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been trying very valiantly, through the years, to get this piece of legislation passed by the House of Commons.
I would argue that on precedent alone, this bill has been admitted in other Parliaments, and it should not now be cited as inadmissible because the Supreme Court of Canada made an interpretation of a bill that was not, to my knowledge, and I stand to be corrected, given second reading. Bill C-60 was simply introduced and it went to committee for preliminary study. I stand to be corrected. I should know because I was on that committee, but all the things we have to remember sometimes become clouded. In that case there was no onus on the government to make a reference of Bill C-60, but the government accepted the wishes of the majority of members on that committee to make such a reference, and the Supreme Court of Canada ruled. But that was only on the eventuality that Bill C-60 would pass, and it dealt only with those sections relating to a change in the composition of the Senate.
I understand the concerns of my friend, the hon. member for Vaudreuil. I hope we do not make what I would say would be an improper decision, and rule this bill out of order after it has been introduced. It has been on the Order Paper. It has been debated in other years. I hope we do not take that decision for reasons which are really outside the control of this House and outside the Standing Orders of this House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I presume the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is rising on the same point of order rather than to debate the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right, Mr. Speaker. If Black Rod comes on time, I shall not have to talk very long. If he is late, as he usually is, we shall fill in the time.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) said he made his maiden speech on this bill. Others have done so as well. It is quite true that I have been trying to get rid of the Senate for a long time. Some members have said to me, "Shouldn't you give up? You have been trying all these years, and it is still there." At least I can say that of those who were in the Senate when I first came here, only two are still there, so I have almost got rid of the Senate as I knew it. The trouble is that there are too many willing volunteers who are ready to go over and take the places of those who pass on.
Private Members' Business


Erik Nielsen: I know one who is not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. You are looking at him.
This question falls into at least two parts. One relates to the responsibilities or prerogatives of the Chair in a case like this. The other is the question which my friend, the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), raised, and he rather surprised me. I thought he was a democrat. Obviously he is not a New Democrat, but I thought he believed in free discussion and so forth. However, I shall come to that in a moment.
So far as the Chair is concerned there are a couple of very clear citations in Beauchesne's fifth edition, as they have been in all editions. This one appears on page 38. It is citation 117(6) and reads as follows:
The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a question of law, though the same may be raised on a point of order or privilege.
So my friend, the hon. member for Vaudreuil, had the right to raise the point, but I am afraid the citations are very clear, that you, Mr. Speaker, do not have the authority to rule on a constitutional question.
There is another one in the book on another page, but actually it is the same citation. It is in the same words exactly, except it is based on a different occasion when the Speaker so pronounced.
I put it to you, would the Chair not be in an impossible position if every time a bill were introduced, whether it was by a private member or by the government, the Chair had to decide whether it was legal, whether it was constitutional or whether, if both Houses of Parliament passed it and the Governor General agreed to it, the courts would strike it down?
As I say, that is such an impossible position I am not surprised the citations in Beauchesne's fifth edition are as short as they are.
I know I went over all this at the beginning of this session. Last April or May when I filed the bill, there were those in certain positions who thought I should not even be able to put the bill into the draw because of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling on Bill C-60. I discussed it with officials concerned with this sort of matter. I discussed it at length with Madam Speaker and, in the end, she seemed to agree with me. She is not here to confirm what I am saying, but I think it is fair to say that she seemed to agree with me that she did not have the right to stop me from putting in the bill. I know that when bills were given first reading there was the caveat with respect to all of them that points of order could be raised at second reading. At any rate, we went over all this argument, as I say, last April or May, as to the right of a member to put in a bill. I submit that that is a clear right and it is not in the hands of the Speaker to say, no, this bill must not be proceeded with because it touches a constitutional question.
On the question of the rights of the courts, it has been pretty well indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council and by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that the courts can interpret our legislation. The

February 19, 1981
Private Members' Business
courts can give an opinion if one is asked for by the government. The courts can also strike down a bill which has been passed by Parliament on the ground that it is unconstitutional. I cannot recall that happening very recently. I remember one a while ago which might have been, but the government changed it to avoid that trouble. Of course, way back before the memory of quite a few members now here, the Bennett government passed a package of reform legislation, in 1934 or 1935, just before the election of that year. The Liberals, who were in opposition, questioned its constitutionality. Nevertheless, the Bennett government had that Parliament pass those bills.


Erik Nielsen: Unemployment insurance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Unemployment insurance, and there were one or two others at the same time, all in the social field. Mr. Bennett had picked up some ideas from Roosevelt. He had a conversion in his fifth year and became a Tory, moving to the left. He brought in all that social legislation. The courts struck it down, afterwards, not before.
If I seem to be dragging this out, I hope the House will give me credit for doing so because we are waiting for Black Rod. Where is he when we need him?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has convinced me with his argument.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: For the benefit of the hon. member, I might indicate-if he is dragging this out, as he himself indicated, in order to fill the time until we hear the rap on the door-that I do not propose to take the matter under consideration. I propose to give a ruling immediately, because in my mind it is crystal clear that it touches upon the rights and privileges of Parliament. I do not have any difficulty in doing so. What is the wish of the hon. member, that he fill the gap or I fill the gap? It is irrelevant to me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps we could share the gap, Mr. Speaker.
It is awfully nice to know before the Chair rules that the ruling will be in your favour, but I do want to say a few words to my hon. friend, the hon. member for Vaudreuil, almost to chide him. We are good friends. We discuss these things. I was shocked he took the position today that because the Supreme Court of Canada made that ruling on Bill C-60, Parliament is denied forever the right to bring in a bill to change the set-up of the Senate or to abolish it.
It is bad enough, and I will deal with that when I get to debating the bill next time, that the government took Clause 44 out of the constitutional package and left the Senate with the veto it has always had over bills and over joint parliamentary resolutions, but for the hon. member for Vaudreuil to suggest that because of that Supreme Court of Canada ruling, which was only an opinion of what it would do with that bill if it got passed, because Parliament can never vote on and, therefore,
must never discuss a bill dealing with the composition or the existence of the Senate-


Harold Thomas Herbert: I am convinced.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, that is good. My friend is convinced, the Speaker is ready to give a ruling our way, but where is Black Rod? At least today I am being a prophet who knows what I am saying. The other day I predicted what would happen on the first day of the debate on the constitutional package, and I turned out to be dead wrong. Today I predicted that Black Rod would be late, and he is.
I think this is serious. I think it has been useful that the hon. member for Vaudreuil has raised the point and that we have had this discussion. I think it is useful that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council spoke as he did. Hon. members may not like my proposal to abolish the Senate, hon. members may not like various proposals that are put before the House, but we have the right to discuss them.
I remember on one occasion when Mr. Auguste Choquette, a former Liberal member of Lotbiniere, proposed in a bill that the monarchy be abolished. It would be no surprise to hon. members, especially to hon. members over here, that the hon. Gordon Churchill was horrified at the suggestion and raised the very point the hon. member for Vaudreuil has raised just now; that is, that such a bill could not be introduced, that it is not in order. The Speaker of the day said that members might not like the idea but they had the right to discuss it.
I remember when I brought in bills to make income tax information public so we could see what was being done. That was a long time ago. Hon. members said it could not be done and they tried to vote me down on first reading. I remember Mackenzie King leading the vote in favour of it and saying that, whether or not they liked the idea, the member has the right to present the idea before Parliament.
I hope I have won on both counts. I hope I persuaded the member for Vaudreuil that these matters should be discussed, whether we like them or not, and I hope that Mr. Speaker will now, if we have time before Black Rod arrives, give a ruling and make it seem as if we were still talking when Black Rod arrives. As I have said before, this place reminds me of a verse in the Book of Revelation which says that there was silence in heaven for the space of half an hour. That is something we cannot do here. We cannot sit here silent and wait; we must either be talking or go. I am told that Black Rod is here. So I hope I have left you time, Mr. Speaker, to make the ruling which you have already indicated, and I trust that on another Thursday I will be able to proceed with the debate on the substance of this important bill.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that, like the add for Clairol, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is not getting older, he is getting better.
February 19, 1981


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I see that the Black Rod has appeared, but my understanding of history is that he and his office have been made to wait as a practice for several centuries. So we will dispose of the matter raised by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) at a rapid pace.
The ruling is very simple. Parliament is supreme and it can discuss what it wishes. It cannot be limited in what it chooses to discuss, whether by court order or otherwise. I think it might be worthwhile to indicate that the sub-thought to that is that the House from time to time expresses its will and limits itself, and the usual format of that is the Standing Orders. The Chair's responsibility is simply to understand and interpret and, through the will of the House, to apply the Standing Orders. The arguments presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre are well taken, and regardless of court rulings it is, in my view, not only the privilege-and I refer to the law of privileges-of hon. members to raise such subjects as they see fit to debate, but it also is a right of the House of Commons and of hon. members to seek to debate such topics as they in their wisdom see fit.
Consequently, we will consider that the hon. member's Bill C-243 has not been debated and that at the next opportunity for private members' hour it will occupy the entire normal period given to debate of this bill. The hon. member looks as if he might have a problem in this regard. May we recognize Black Rod?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, Mr. Speaker, I was simply going to ask for what you just decreed. That is fine.



ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker, with the House, went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to certain bills:
An act to amend laws relating to fiscal transfers to the provinces.
The Constitution
An act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms, errors and other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, and other acts subsequent to 1970.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6.07 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. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important Parliaments that has been convened for many years. It is important because this Thirty-second Parliament is one of the most issue-oriented sessions that the members who presently hold seats in the House of Commons and, indeed, those who have been appointed to the other place, could be called upon to face at this time.
But as we debate these issues, and particularly the one before us today, we must at all times remember we are a very privileged people to be Canadians. In these days of great world upheaval, uncertainty and turmoil we are a very privileged Parliament and nation to be able to debate in strong, but hopefully rational and constructive terms, the constitutional future of this great country of ours with which God has blessed us so richly. I think it also presents us with the opportunity to use the various personal talents which He has given to us.
I am sure most of us, as we take this Canadian Constitution debate seriously, are fully aware of the great importance of this measure.
As we discuss the Constitution we realize what we are as Canadians is really God's gift to us and what we become, or how we use our talents of understanding, breadth of mind, and spirit of brotherhood, is our gift to Him. Like most members of this chamber, I consider it a distinct honour and privilege to have the opportunity to represent a large number of Canadians and, hopefully, to be able to relate in some way to all Canadi-

February 19, 1981
The Constitution
ans from coast to coast, because that is becoming very important to this Parliament. That, indeed, as we all know, is a formidable task.

The constitution of a country covers everybody. It is the source of great emotional reactions on the part of serious citizens because it forces us to take into consideration the future and the full political independence of our nation and give them prominence.
As a fourth generation Canadian from Northern Ireland I have always leaned very strongly toward the true spirit of Canadian nationalism. I had the distinct privilege of growing up on a small farm in the western end of Victoria County in the central part of Ontario. I had an uncle who went west and became one of the campaign managers for the late right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert-


Mr. Epp:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -who, when I came into this House, asked where I happened to go astray. My father and mother in Victoria County, like many of yours, were hardworking, honest and kindhearted with the very limited resources available to them. I need not tell you after whom that particular county was named.
My wonderful mother, whose first name is Victoria, is well into her eighties and still going strong. Other names in that community called Argyle were Ross, McFadden, Currie, McAlpine, McEachern and McArthur, McPherson, Burton, Moore, McLeod, Campbell, McIntyre and I do not know how the Irish got in there.
I moved at an early age to eastern Ontario and found myself in the middle of an almost totally German-speaking community in Renfrew County. I was faced with a small grade one class that spoke only German and I spoke only English, and the grade three's were the interpreters between the teacher and the grade one class, so I knew what a language barrier was long before I came to Parliament. Just a short distance away was a large area settled by Canadians of Polish descent who spoke Polish in everyday conversation, and most still do. The little hamlet of Wilno in the northern part of Renfrew County is the oldest Polish settlement in Canada, about 116 years old.
Therefore, my experience with Canadians from origins other than English and French came very early in my life, and added experiences since then have given me a tremendous impression of our multicultural groups in Canada. They are proud Canadians and are a national force for cementing Canadian unity. The Polish Alliance of Canada was founded in 1907 and, while I stand to be corrected, I think it is the oldest ethno-cultural minority organization in the history of Canada. Clause 27, which is of interest to all multicultural groups, says:
This charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
Along with other members of this chamber, it has been my privilege to meet and get to know on a very personal basis, loyal, sincere and hardworking Canadians from all walks of life who have enriched Canada with their multicultural talents and contributions.

As a long-time resident of the Ottawa Valley I have met people and developed personal friendships with thousands French-speaking Canadians. Since I first came to this House I have enriched my life by joining several francophone members and senators and working with them. They have always been very understanding and very patient with me.

It is obvious to every Canadian that the writing and amending of a constitution does not come easily. The two volumes written by Donald Creighton on Sir John A. Macdonald illustrate many of the difficulties he had in those early days. We have only to look at the Americans who had to revise their constitution 12 years after they wrote it.
We know as time goes on life becomes more complex, and it becomes more difficult to amend constitutions. It is fair to say that only those who take major steps in history get things done. They are embattled and criticized, but conviction and a deep desire for achievement is worthless unless acted upon.
There are many who will say we are breaking new ground. That is not really so in this debate. The history of Canada, since day one, is dotted with constitutional debate of one kind or another. It should not be considered a remarkable achievement that the provinces and the federal government decided in 1931 to leave our Constitution in Britain without an amending formula. It is very easy to agree to do nothing. Our desire to bring the Constitution home today is a real challenge, and anyone who says that simply bringing it home without an amending formula and a charter of rights and freedoms is taking the easy way. They are correct, that is the easy way, but that does not come to grips with the key problem of the amending formula and charter of rights and freedoms. Those who suggest this are simply postponing the provision of an amending formula until a later date and that battle could drag on for many weeks or months.
The proposed resolution provides that for a period of two years from patriation, amendments will require unanimous consent of Parliament and the provinces until an amending formula is agreed upon using one of three methods and, while these are well known to the members of this House, I wish to put them on the record.
If, during the next two years, federal and provincial governments can reach unanimous agreement on a formula, it will be adopted. To facilitate agreement, a first ministers' constitutional conference will be held each year until a formula is implemented.
If the provinces and the federal government fail to agree unanimously on a formula, but seven or more provinces, representing at least 80 per cent of the total population of all the provinces, agree within two years after patriation on an
February 19, 1981

amending procedure that meets the requirements set out in the resolution, this formula and a formula similar in principle to the Victoria formula will be put to the people in a referendum. The federal government will also have the opportunity, at that time, to put forward a formula of its own choice instead of the modified Victoria formula.
If the provinces do not present an alternative formula, the modified Victoria formula will automatically come into effect two years after patriation. In general, that formula would require that amendments to the Constitution be approved by Parliament and by either the legislative assemblies or, in a national referendum, a majority of voters in a majority of the provinces, including: every province that has or has had a population of at least 25 per cent of the population of Canada; at least two Atlantic provinces, at least two western provinces with combined populations of at least 50 per cent of the population of all the western provinces.
The argument being used that we are asking Britain to amend our Constitution instead of doing it ourselves surely does not hold water. The proposed resolution before us is a product of Canada's Parliament. Before it reaches Britain it will have passed through both Houses of our Canadian Parliament. Many dedicated MPs and senators from all political parties have sat for days and weeks in a joint committee of both Houses to hear briefs and representations from many Canadians and particular experts. I join other members of this House in commending them and thanking them for their work.
I say to all Canadians that the proposed resolution which will be going to Britain is indeed a made-in-Canada product. As an English-speaking Canadian brought up, and having lived, in the atmosphere which I earlier described, I have always been a Canadian nationalist. I believe in a strong federal government, one that has the nation's regional interests at heart and one which is ready to sit down and exchange constructive views on a two-way street basis with the other regions of the country.
I am a Canadian federalist who, I think, has some understanding of all Canada and who wants to understand even better this great nation from coast to coast, this nation that is God's gift to us as Canadians. In this same context I say to this House and to all Canadians that a poor man is not he who is without a cent; a poor man is he who is without a dream. Our dream is to patriate our Constitution and have an amending formula.
Our daily thoughts should be elevated above the ceiling of this room. The secret of success is consistency of purpose. Even the woodpecker owes his success to the fact that he uses his head, and keeps pecking away until he finishes the job he starts.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Look at what he does to the tree!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I do not know whether that was the woodpecker or the tree.
The Constitution
It has often been said that the measure of success is not whether you have a tough problem to deal with, but whether it is the same problem you had last year. Surely that is the essence of this whole exercise we are going through. This is the story of the patriation of our Canadian Constitution. We have made great strides in recent times regardless of diversity, which we hope is always a healthy process in our democracy.
The government is off to a good start with this proposed resolution and I appeal to the members of this House to give this plan a fair trial. I repeat, there will be first ministers' conferences after the Constitution has been patriated and is truly Canadian. Without having the Constitution home, time will continue to lapse. Do not forget that we as Canadian federalists, and we were proud that night from coast to coast, made a commitment to the federal supporters in the province of Quebec in last year's referendum, that we would bring in reform. At the same time, we must carry on some very sound and realistic talks with our western Canadian friends. A good two-way street must be built for that purpose and that must be an objective of all parties concerned.
I strongly believe that in this great issue surrounding our nation's Constitution we should take from the past its fires and not its ashes.
If we cannot join hands in a positive way for Canada and Canadians; if we cannot find common ground without weakening the federal government; if we cannot tackle successfully the completion of a 113-year old Constitution for Canadians and our wonderful home and its great potential, then we must learn a lesson from the author, L. P. Jacks, who said: "The pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; the optimist sees the opportuntiy in every difficulty." If we are going to see the opportunity in every difficulty in this debate, then we cannot help but succeed.
In order to answer some of the questions from those Canadians who have requested information about the impact of the proposed resolution on our parliamentary process in Canada and the Queen as head of state-because every time some changes come up, we in English Canada are asked questions about the place of the Queen and our government institutions-I am going to take a direct quote from the introduction of the explanatory notes:
"When these proposals come into effect, they will signify the passing of the last vestige of Canada's former colonial status. The fundamental nature of our political system will not be changed: Canada will remain a parliamentary democracy with a federal system of government and the Queen as Head of State. However, now, after 113 years, we will finally have a constitution that is completely our own and that can be amended entirely within this country. The changes are also momentous in that, for the first time, Canadians will have basic rights and freedoms enshrined in and protected by the Constitution."
Let me also state there is one thing that has bothered me as a Canadian nationalist from English-speaking Canada and as one who believes in a healthy federal state, and that is that Canada is the only sovereign country in the world which still has to turn to the Parliament of another country to amend its own Constitution.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Why are you doing it?

February ! 9, 1981
The Constitution


Leonard Donald Hopkins: We are doing it because the R. B. Bennett government never changed that at Westminster in 1931.


Mr. Andre:: You flunked history at night-school.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: If more initiative had been taken at that time we would not be debating this in the House today.
Canada is an influential middle power in the world and there is no way we should allow this situation to continue and, in all reality, I am sure that our friends in Britain will be glad to see this matter cleared up once and for all.
I and other members and senators have received comments to the effect that a reference to God has been left out of the Constitution. I want to make it very clear that this is not the case and that anyone who is spreading this is inaccurate in their statements.
On June 10, 1980, this government, headed by the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, tabled in the House of Commons, a preamble which was entitled "A Statement of Principles for a New Constitution." It was one or more of the provinces who asked that this preamble be set aside and discussed at a later date. It is one of the items which will undoubtedly be taken up at the first ministers' conference following the patriation of the Constitution from Great Britain.
I will cite the preamble which we urged upon the provinces to include in this Constitution, as follows:
We, the people of Canada, proudly proclaim that we are and shall always be, with the help of God, a free and self-governing people.
Born of a meeting of the English and French presence on North American soil which had long been the home of our native peoples, and enriched by the contribution of millions of people from the four corners of the earth, we have chosen to create a life together which transcends the differences of blood relationships, language and religion, and willingly accept the experience of sharing our wealth and cultures, while respecting our diversity.
We have chosen to live together in one sovereign country, a true federation, conceived as a constitutional monarchy and founded on democratic principles.
Faithful to our history, and united by a common desire to give new life and strength to our federation, we are resolved to create together a new Constitution which:
shall be conceived and adopted in Canada,
shall reaffirm the official status of the French and English languages in
Canada, and the diversity of cultures within Canadian society,
shall enshrine our fundamental freedoms, our basic civil, human and language
rights, including the right to be educated in one's language, French or English,
where numbers warrant, and the rights of our native peoples, and shall define
the authority of Parliament and of the Legislative Assemblies of our several
provinces.
We further declare that our Parliament and provincial legislatures, our various governments and their agencies shall have no other purpose than to strive for the happiness and fulfilment of each and all of us.
Unlike the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who spoke this afternoon, I do not believe Canada will break up because we have many solid Canadians out there. Let me say to all my colleagues on both sides of the House that storms make oak trees take deeper roots.


Harvie Andre: Unless the woodpecker gets to them.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: After our constitutional provisions are complete, we in Canada will probably have the best oak trees with the deepest roots in the world, united and intertwined together in one closely woven family, because today we are looking at this debate in the middle of conflict. When we look back, it will look quite different to us as we go ahead to full nationhood.
To all people across Canada and to my friends on both sides of the House, there are three lines to a poem written by John Boyle O'Reilly, which I think sum up what should be the aims of each and every one of us in this House and which should be the aim of all Canadians across Canada. In part, the poem reads:
First across the gulf we cast Kite-borne threads, till lines are passed,
And habit builds the bridge at last!
It is going to be habit in Canada, after we patriate the Constitution and after we have the first ministers' conference, which will hopefully weld this nation together, to build the bridge that will take us on to greater nationhood in years to come.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gary Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I join the debate on the Constitution with a great deal of respect and humility. I have respect for this as one of the greatest national issues of all time, an issue for which the time has come. I enter the debate with respect for the politicians who have taken part so far. I would like to identify with respect the efforts of members made on behalf of all of us, particularly those who took part in the committee debates. I enter the debate also with respect for this institution of which I am a member and the opportunity and the vehicle it gives us to take part, allowing us to participate in the democratic process.
My humility stems from being a part of this issue which is of such fantastic importance to the future of Canada. I think Canadians must have some feeling of ambivalance about this issue because we have been dealing now for weeks and even months with an issue which, in some ways, lacks a sense of priority in terms of national issues; things such as the economy and all the economic factors making life difficult for people throughout Canada today. Surely they must wonder what we are doing spending the amount of time and effort we are on the Constitutional issue. At the same time, I think each one knows in some vague and unclear way that the constitutional issue and the results which come from our deliberations now will come to play a dramatic role on their futures and the way their lives are conducted in Canada in the future. I think particularly about the province of Ontario.
I want to spend a few moments talking about Ontario's position because I come from Ontario. One of the things that needs to be clear about Ontarians, and about people like myself who try to represent people in Ontario, is that we need to look at this issue in a clear and careful way. We need to look at it with a long view, not with a short, a narrow or a political view. We should take a look at the long-range effects
February 19, 1981

of the way our deliberations now will have an impact on our relationship with the rest of the partners in confederation on issues such as energy, and even with the way industry in our own province will develop. The relationships we establish now and the types of arrangements we make with different governments across the country will be important. In my opinion, it is important that politicians in Ontario look at that, and it is something important for all of us to think of as we go on and as we develop this process.
Our current Constitution has many origins. It comes from the Crown, from common law and from British statutes. All of our amendments to the British North America Act are British statutes. Our Constitution comes from orders in council, the judicial committee of the Privy Council and its deliberations. It comes from Canadian statutes, such as the Bill of Rights and the Dominion Act of 1875. It comes from Canadian and British treaties. It comes from parliamentary procedure and rules. It comes from the British North America Act itself. It comes also from conventions, such as having elections every four years or so, sometimes sooner.
Our nation's history has been a success story against many odds. One of the most important of these odds is the diversity we have in geography, in climate and in resources. Another difficulty we have is the diversity of our population and our cultures. We started off with two founding cultures. We now have a variety of cultures all of which contribute to the Canadian mosaic.
I would like now to go back in time and take a look at the legal processes which have brought us to where we are today in our constitutional discussion. There are a number of places where we could start, but the most appropriate place in looking at this is the Royal proclamation of 1763. This resulted in Canada being designated as a colony of the British empire. With this proclamation we were promised the early establishment of English law and also representative institutions. Another significant factor in this proclamation was the guarantee it gave aboriginal and treaty rights to natives. Following this was the Quebec Act of 1774 which recognized the Catholic church and the French law, which was given its proper place in respect of civil matters. The Quebec Act gave an identity to the French culture in Canada.
In 1791, we had the Constitutional Act. With this, the colony was divided in two parts: Upper and Lower Canada. Both were given a structured government. Both had a governor, an executive council, a legislative council and an assembly that was elected every four years, and this was the first time Canada had elected representation.
After the rebellion of 1837, Lord Durham brought forward his report with three major recommendations: the union of Upper and Lower Canada, the establishment of responsible government in Canada, and also his concept of a federal union. This was followed, in 1841, by the act of union which created Canada.
The Constitution
In 1864, the Macdonald-Cartier union government failed, and this led to our series of constitutional discussions and conferences, first in Charlottetown, and then later in Quebec. From those discussions came the British North America Act of 1867, the piece of paper we are looking at today and trying to patriate to Canada. The federal bicameral system, modelled after Westminster, was thus established in Canada. The British traditional system of government was brought to Canada, and was modified to meet Canada's needs.
In 1890, Sir John A. Macdonald said to his assembly, and I quote:
If I had influence over the minds of the people of Canada, any power over their intellect, I would leave them this legacy: Whatever you do adhere to the union. We are a great country, and shall become one of the greatest in the universe if we preserve it; we shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be broken! God and Nature made the two Canadas one-let no factious men be allowed to put then asunder!
We know that in 1867 we had union in four of the provinces: Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. This was followed in 1871, by British Columbia, Manitoba in 1881, Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905, and finally Newfoundland in 1949. From here, until World War I, there was very little activity; but at that time we started to develop what was a sense of Canadian nationalism. With the Borden government, in 1917, this flowed into the Imperial Conferences of 1923, which gave Canada control over its foreign policy, and then the Balfour Declaration of Sovereignty in 1926. From these Imperial Conferences came the 1931 statute of Westminster.
We have heard many references to the statute of Westminster, and the fact that we were not able to reach agreement in Canada. As a result of that lack of agreement the statute of Westminster was altered, from Lord Balfour's original declaration, to mean that Canada did not agree with what he was trying to say in his declaration. I quote from Section 71 of that act:
Nothing in this act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal of the British North America Acts of 1867 to 1931.
By that provision, Canada was excluded from the Balfour declaration.
In spite of the fact that we excluded ourselves from what might be considered to be our sovereignty, and what many are reacting to now, in 1939 Canada did what I consider to be the ultimate act of sovereignty: it declared war on its own behalf in World War II.
During the 1960s, we had a hectic time with constitutional reform. Indeed, up until recently, we had at least six first ministers' conferences and 11 constitutional efforts. In 1964 we had the Fulton-Favreau efforts. In 1968 we had the Toronto conference with Robarts-Johnson. In 1971 we had the Victoria formula, which we are considering now.
The Victoria formula requires some comment. The key things in the Victoria formula are that the provinces seem to be unequal. Some provinces are indeed more equal than others. This formula seems to be quite appropriate, if you happen to come from one of the central provinces, which now, or at some

February 19, 1981
The Constitution
time in its history, had 25 per cent or more of the population; if you do not, then you are a second-class citizen.
I believe the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) mentioned yesterday, in the House, that if that amending formula had been in place now, Canada would never have had medicare.
Following the 1971 Victoria formula came the Vancouver formula. With the Vancouver formula, which many of us support now, we found that the federal government, along with support of seven provinces representing approximately 50 per cent of the population, could provide a constitutional amendment. This was initially agreed to by all provinces, but at the last moment, it failed to be consumated.
In 1976 we saw a Parti Quebecois government elected. It stood for political independence and economic association. It really focused Canada on a referendum debate rather than a constitutional discussion. In 1980, thanks to a good deal of support from members opposite, we saw the results of the referendum in Quebec showing magnificent support for Canada. However, implicit in the result of this was a perceived need for federal renewal. Last year we saw an unfortunate turn of events, for the unrest that was seen in Quebec, has now been transferred to western Canada.
Now, in 1981, I stand here discussing this in the constitutional debate on the proposed constitution act of 1981, and I would like to comment on several parts of the process that have taken us to this point. Some of these matters are obvious, and I am sure they are repetitive to members opposite, but I think they are worthy of mention. The most important of these factors is that nation building, as we have it in Canada today, is a dynamic and evolutionary process that is changing and it has taken us, over a period of time in a number of ways, to the position where we are, and that process can be expected to continue.
Along with the evolution of our legal constitutional position, we have had a concurrent and similar evolution in many of our cultural and social attitudes. The attitudes of people have changed over a long period of time. Their morals have sometimes changed; the way that they conduct their personal and governmental affairs themselves has changed. Many changes have been dramatic, and have been brought on by conflicts both within and without our country.
These conflicts which started with the Plains of Abraham, continued and included the American Revolution, the war of 1812, the rebellion of 1837, the U.S. civil war, Boer War, World War I, World War II and the Korean war and then even to a conflict without arms in the Quebec referendum and the discussions that are going on out west today. All of these confrontations have resulted in changes, many of which have been happening at the time we found we had adapted changes in our legal position.
The third major point is that all of these factors have occurred today with the background of a federal co-operative consensus system, which I think is a key factor. What is important today is that we recognize the evolutionary nature
of the institutions and the cultures of this county, that we establish at once the proper process basis to deal with inevitable conflicts that will come as we continue to experience growth, that we relieve these areas of potential conflict by anticipating the needs and the aspirations of regions and integrate them through just and honest process, and that we recognize the strengths of regions as assets on which to build our future.
The hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal) spoke this afternoon about Canada being a creation which is greater than the sum of its parts. There is no question about that at all. The question need not even be asked, but the fact that he identifies it and the way it is identified concerns me somewhat because it implies there is misunderstanding of the way Canada can be a strong whole. There seems to be an inherent difference in the way hon. members opposite view a strong Canada and the way hon. members on this side view a strong Canada.
If I can use a medical analogy, I think each part of us as human beings is an important and integral part of a whole human being and that the whole human being can be no stronger than each one of its parts. We can borrow strengths from each of our parts to make the whole survive, but that is a limited process. Indeed, as each one of our parts is strong, so too will the entire body be that much stronger. Above all, today I believe our efforts must be to establish a constitutional process which has the confidence of the people of Canada.
As he was making his initial presentation, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) implied that after 50 years we have nothing to show in Canada. There was an effort to make a correction, that what he really meant to say was it was only in constitutional reform. I was listening that day, and that is not the inference I took from hearing him. The implication was that we should do something now in haste because after 50 years we really have nothing to show for our efforts. This attitude has left him in the position where he says that in spite of not liking unilateral action and in spite of doing what he thinks people do not want done, he will go ahead with this process because he thinks it is important and because he thinks we have not done anything in 50 years. The irony is that while he has an understanding of the need for reform, I believe he has a misunderstanding of the type of action and process we need.
The error may be fatal. The people who will suffer are now led, through simplistic advertising, slogans and some brilliant political speeches, to believe that the problems will be resolved by the proposed constitution act of 1981. Perhaps, so far, the only casualties are federal-provincial relations among eight of the provinces and the federal government. So far the only casualties are the relationships between Canada and Great Britain. So far the only casualties are the relationships of trust between the government and two thirds of the people of Canada who do not believe the federal government should act in a unilateral fashion. This is all that has suffered so far.
February 19, 1981

Federal-provincial relationship are being changed. The consensus nature of federalism is being changed now. The cooperative nature of federalism is being changed. We have unilateral action now. When will we have unilateral action again in the future? The permanent referendum system is a permanent amendment to override provincial authority. The hon. member for St. John's East this afternoon called it a run around the end, and that is a good expression. We are seeing moves now which take us from a co-operative federalism toward a unitary state. We ask the British government to accede to the convention of granting our parliamentary package, while we fail ourselves to respect the convention of sending Britain requests which already have provincial consensus. We are forcing Britain to become involved in our affairs. We are trying to force another country to amend that which we argue we are mature enough to deal with ourselves. The incongruities are enormous.
The Minister of Justice has included a permanent referendum formula, while arguing we cannot have a referendum now because it would be too divisive. The amendment the Conservative party brought forward in this House asks that this be removed. The amendment states, and I quote:
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.
Acceptance of this amendment would do much to restore the confidence of the people of Canada, the respect of the federal government for process, and federal-provincial relationships would certainly improve. I join the hon. member for Provench-er (Mr. Epp) in asking the government to drop the permanent referendum clause.
We have heard much talk of entrenchment. The essence of this discussion is the question of what will be supreme, Parliament or the Supreme Court of Canada. There are many good arguments on both sides. In fact, this has resulted in some of the best political debates I have heard in my short political life.
If we look at the different countries around the world, the different commonwealth nations, countries which have entrenched charters of rights and freedoms, and those which have not, and if we try to compare them, we will see that in the end it really does not matter. It does not make any difference whether or not rights are entrenched. There is no consistency in the effect of entrenchment. Some countries which have entrenched charters of rights are clearly abusive to their citizens. One of the best charters of rights is that of the U.S.S.R., and there are other examples.
What really matters is not whether rights are entrenched but the health of the system which supports rights. How healthy is our system? How healthy is our parliamentary system? Is the Supreme Court of Canada effective and responsive? I suggest there is some question about the health of this parliamentary system. This is a parliamentary system which will use closure. This is a parliamentary system in which even this afternoon people talked with utter disregard for the rights and privileges of Members of Parliament. Ministers of the
The Constitution
Crown disregard the individual rights and freedoms of Members of Parliament and their responsibilities to their constituencies.


Mr. Fox:: Baloney. Even Benno doesn't take that seriously or believe that.


Benno Friesen: You better believe I do.


Gary Michael Gurbin: The other thing I would like to mention in this same reference is the question of the tone of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The tone of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms at this time is that the government gives its people rights; it deeds them out to people and allows them to do certain things. The point has been well made by others, as well as by myself, that really a charter of rights and freedoms and the designation of specific rights are limitations on governments. The rights and freedoms of people are there inherently by birth. Charters are in fact necessary in some cases to limit the actions of governments. The whole tone of this charter is repulsive.
Mr. Diefenbaker had a preamble which we tried to include in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I was interested in the last speaker's reference to its being included or not, and the fact that this should be a second stage of the constitutional discussions. I am not sure who is the supreme reference in the current Constitution. If there is a blank spot at the top, I wonder who occupies that position. I wonder who has that ultimate authority.


Jack Wendele Shields: Pierre Elliott Trudeau.


Benno Friesen: Fast Eddy.


Gary Michael Gurbin: If it is not God, or if God is to be put to the second stage, that is an interesting move. But if it is not God, I wonder who it is. If God is at the second stage, I wonder what that means. I wonder what it means if God is second on the list of priorities.
There were some major amendments proposed, but they were refused. Others have spoken about this as well, but the most important single one is the right to property. We brought forward an amendment which was part of the Diefenbaker preamble. The interesting thing about this, of course, is the fact that when this was first presented it was accepted, and then for obvious political reasons it was no longer acceptable. This is an extremely important factor to most of the citizens of Canada. It was already a fact, and I find it unusual and very curious that the government would choose not to include it. I understand some of the difficulties the NDP members have with this, but I think that is consistent with the difficulties they have with anything that makes sense.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gary Michael Gurbin: As an example of what others are doing with property rights, I would say that the United States protects its property rights in the fifth and in the fourteenth amendments;

February 19, 1981
The Constitution
that Australia's constitution allows for just compensation when private property is expropriated federally; that Belgium stresses just compensation according to law; and that there is a UN Declaration of Human Rights which states that the right to own property is a fundamental human right. Canada has already signed this, and yet we will not include it in our constitutional amendments.
One of the great difficulties with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it now exists is its application to native groups. Although the native groups, through their representations to the constitutional committee, have indeed been able to have their amendment included, the difficulty is that this amendment allows for the provision and the guarantee of aboriginal rights, but these are undefined aboriginal rights. Aboriginal rights mean many things to many people, and this will be, as time goes on, one of the major sources of friction and difficulty the native people and the government will have in Canada. This should be clarified.
This is another indication that the constitutional discussions which we are having now, the amendments to and the consideration of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, should be considered carefully over a measured period of time.
The control of natural resources is a key issue, and there have been some efforts to deal with it, but the efforts made have not really dealt with the primary issues and concerns, particularly of the resource rich provinces, the tone, mood and style which has been developed thus far leave us with pessimism about the opportunity, as time goes on, for the government to deal with these issues effectively. There is very little reason for those provinces which feel threatened to feel comfortable with the attitude and the form the federal government has now established.
A major additional point in the Constitution which has not been dealt with in this act, but which has seriously been considered by most who have looked at constitutional reform, is Senate reform. I will spend one moment on that subject, particularly because of the proposal made by Senator Roblin in April of 1980. He looks at a new Senate as having four main functions, and I think these should be recognized because they are important for people who are looking at these constitutional debates and at the opportunities which might arise.
First, he thinks a new Senate could be established to protect regional interests against a too aggressive central government. I think that might help, in particular, people in western Canada. Second, he looks at it as a sober second thought, a legislative revising body. Third, he looks at it as an effort and an ability to initiate committees of review and investigation in matters of important public concern, and fourth, he looks at it as providing a reservoir of cabinet representation when necessary if regions are not well represented in the House of Commons.
Senator Roblin suggests that a Senate could be elected, and this is indeed an attractive idea. It is a golden opportunity to provide relief if many of the strains on the future governing of our country are to be avoided.
There has been much discussion about what members on this side of the House feel and what they really support so far as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is concerned. There is no question that members on this side and myself personally support a charter of rights and freedoms. We have never had any argument as to that. I do not know of a parliamentarian who does not in some way support this concept. There are reservations about the form, about what things are to be included, but there is no question about having a charter of rights and freedoms, even if we went only as far as the Bill of Rights, brought forward by the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. If everyone did not support it, that is good evidence to show that it is not a required basis for securing rights within a democratic system, if that argument need be made. The point is that the efforts of the opposition to what the government is now doing are not based on opposing a charter of rights and freedoms but rather to having it included in another country as an amendment before the BNA Act is returned to Canada.
All members I know support patriation of the BNA Act. I do not know of anyone who does not feel that can be done without difficulty. There are those who might say it need not be done, but I know of no one who feels that it cannot be done. Indeed, Canadians in general support this move.
The third part of the government's package is the amending formula. We have a great deal of difficulty with the amending formula and the arrangements being made by the government to allow amendments to be made to the BNA Act when it is brought back. I think there could be provincial agreement on an amending formula.
At one time, in 1974, there almost was agreement, and with the climate in the country today I think the opportunity clearly exists, if efforts were made to agree on an amending formula that was acceptable to all the provinces and the federal government agreement could be achieved.
The essential point, after considering each one of these three concepts, is that as a unit and with the process that has been established by the federal government now, they are unacceptable separately. However, with patriation, and an amending formula which had been agreed to by the provinces and the federal government, these concepts are entirely acceptable and could be implemented in the near future. But there must be a separation, a splitting of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and any other amendments to the BNA Act before we ask the British government to return the act. The rest can be developed in Canada by Canadians as represented by provinces and territories, by individuals and by special interest groups. We can only gain by seeking the co-operation of those we pretend to govern. The federal system can only gain by encouraging an environment which fits its provinces and people in the most acceptable fashion. A solution cannot be imposed because it cannot be understood without a dialogue which leads to agreement.
I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that each Member of Parliament, if not each person in the country, has his or her national vision. It is the range of visions which gives strength to our existence,
February 19, 1981

allows practical and idealistic ideas to compete, to co-operate and to contribute to nation building.
I am a very positive and constructive person, Mr. Speaker; this is my nature. But, although I take part in this debate, this moment of history passes me and many parliamentarians by, not because we think less of our country, not because we do not believe in most of the substance of the proposal, but because we believe the process for the evolution of our democratic system must be established on the basis of consensus if it is to work at all, and because a process established otherwise would be divisive instead of unifying.
I cannot vote for this act. The government has no mandate for and no consensus on this act. The act denies the very essence of successful federalism. In the end, the people and the country will survive and history will judge us all. We will be a great nation, depending on the will of the people to overcome the barriers thrown up by the perhaps well-intentioned but certainly misguided politicians.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this historic debate on Canada's Constitution. We all know this will be a long debate. Our party wants as many members as possible to take part in it, to speak and to express their views, so I will be brief and I will commend my example to my colleagues.
When I spoke on the initial proposal last fall I said, that while I supported many features in the constitutional package, I deplored the inadequacies in the charter of rights and its failure to recognize the rights of women and of Canada's native people. Today I am happy to say that most of my earlier objections have been removed. This is a good package. It is not perfect, but it is a good one. Through the work of the joint committee the original proposal has been improved beyond all measure.
In this respect I want to pay tribute to all members of the committee. They worked long, hard hours; they gave their dedication and sincerity to that process. In particular I wish to single out the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).
I regret that the government and the Tory opposition were not willing to accept the amendment moved to Section 15 by the hon. member for Burnaby which would have protected people from discrimination on the grounds of marital status, sexual orientation or political belief. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville said he cannot support the proposal in its present form. I regret that, but I want to say it was largely because of the work of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville that today I can support the package. I very much appreciate his work.
Before I move to the question of aboriginal rights, which I think is central to the Constitution, I want to look at some of the other positive features of this package. In addition to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it enshrines the principle of equalization so that all Canadians will have equivalent access
The Constitution
to social services. It has a resource clause which gives provinces greater control over their resources, and it gives them the right to indirect taxation. The proposal includes an amending formula which I believe is reasonable and fair, considering the diverse nature of our nation. This amending formula requires the consent of each of the four regions.
There has been an attempt to whip up opposition in the west to the fact that Ontario and Quebec have veto power. We need to remember that the west also has veto power in this respect, as do the maritimes. When we look at the population of the four different regions-the maritimes with two million people, Quebec with 6.5 million, Ontario with 8.5 million and the west with seven million-apart from the maritimes, which is much lower in population, the other three regions are more or less equally balanced. What other formula could give the needed flexibility and still protect the interests of each region?
Surely we do not want to endorse the need for unanimity. This has been the hangup for the last 50 years. We do not want to have a situation where Prince Edward Island, with half the population of Vancouver Island, would have a veto.
The Tories have advocated the Vancouver consensus. This would give each province the right to opt out of such fundamental provisions as the charter of rights. This is the kind of amending formula which would have warmed the hearts of the confederate states back in 1860; it denies our basic unity as a nation. I believe the present amending formula is reasonable and fair, and I speak as a member from British Columbia. Above all else, I support the constitutional package because at long last it recognizes the rights of aboriginal peoples of Canada. We cannot overestimate the symbolic significance of this step.
In the pre-Confederation history of Canada, Britain and France entered into relationship with various Indian nations; they looked upon one another as allies. They formed pacts of peace and friendship. The Royal Proclamation of 1763, which recognized the rights of aboriginal people, indicated that an historic relationship of trust had to be maintained. At the time the British North America Act was passed in 1867, this relationship was not considered, it was completely forgotten. The Indian people were not consulted about their place in the new nation. The federal government protected their interests only to the extent of reserving to federal jurisdiction "Indians and lands reserved for the Indians" under Section 91-24 of the BN A Act.
In the 114 years since that time the aboriginal peoples of Canada had no constitutional standing. The Indian Act has not been a helpful act as far as Indian people are concerned. It is something which hhs been imposed upon them. Legislative changes in the act over the past century have robbed Indians of their right to determine the course of their own lives, the form of their own government and the shape of their own societies.
When the government brought out its original proposal to patriate the Constitution last October, it did nothing to improve that situation. The rights of aboriginal peoples were not recognized, except in a negative manner. The historic

February 19, 1981
The Constitution
covenant relationship between Indian people and the Crown was completely ignored. When I and other members of my party objected to this denial of rights, the government answered that it was impossible to recognize such rights.
On November 7 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about this. He answered as follows:
-I think the simple claim of aboriginal rights, without anyone knowing exactly what it means, is not a matter which one can convincingly argue should be put in the Constitution at this time.
When I asked the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien) about aboriginal and treaty rights, he claimed their rights would be protected through the old section 24, which everyone knew was inadequate. All Indian, Metis and Inuit people across the country said it was not worth anything. He implied that nothing more was either needed or possible.
When the Tories brought out their amendment to the Constitution, they went even further than the government in denying the rights of aboriginal peoples. Their suggested amendment did not even mention these people. Their amendment would have read as follows:
The guarantee in this charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any rights or freedoms that may pertain to any cultural community or any other rights or freedoms that may exist in Canada.
This is what the Tory party was willing to offer the aboriginal people of Canada; this was their amendment. The facts are very clear and may be found by anyone who cares to read the record of the constitutional committee.
All members of the committee listened very attentively when representatives of the Indian; Metis and Inuit appeared before the committee. We listed and asked questions, but neither the Liberals nor the Tories were prepared to take any positive action. I am very proud of the role the New Democratic Party played in forcing the government to make a positive recognition and affirmation of aboriginal rights. In this respect I should like to pay tribute to the leader of my party who was involved in some very difficult negotiations with the government. These negotiations were successful and I would like to commend the government for its willingness to move on this important issue. I would also like to commend members of the Conservative Party for giving the amendment their unanimous support when it was put forward to the committee. I invite them now to join with us in supporting this package so that recognition and affirmation of aboriginal rights will become a constitutional reality, and not simply a dead letter in the constitutional report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Douglas Manly: When we bring the Constitution home we will be saying to ourselves and to the world that we are no longer a colonial people. By recognizing the rights of the aboriginal peoples we are also saying that we no longer want to be a colonizing people. We do not want to look upon the Indians, the Inuit or the Metis simply as subjects to the colonized and
as a people who have lands which can be exploited. We want these people to take their full place and their full stature as members of Canadian society.
For this to happen we need a change of attitude, as well as a change in the Constitution. Without the political commitment to see justice done for the aboriginal peoples, our new Constitution will remain only a scrap of paper. Through their experience with a long series of treaties, negotiations and agreements the aboriginal peoples know how empty and hollow our promises can be. Right now the James Bay Cree, who received many assurances a few years ago in exchange for the surrender of their rights, are finding that the Government of Canada and the government of Quebec are going back on their word. These people are suffering a serious health problem and our government says it is powerless to do anything about it because of the agreement.
This is why some of the Indian people are a bit uneasy about the wording which says their rights are hereby "recognized and affirmed." They would like a stronger wording which says that those rights are sanctioned, ratified and confirmed. They would like to see additional protection for their rights in the amending formula so that no changes could be made in those rights without their consent. We would support any strengthening of their rights in the amending formula.
But even without this we recognize that Canada has taken an important step forward, which now needs to be ratified by this House. Constitutional recognition of aboriginal and treaty rights must be backed up by serious negotiations which will give these people an economic base on which they can build. The future actions of the government will indicate how serious it is in the recognition of these rights.
One major problem needs to be faced by us all. We are concerned about Section 12(1)(6) of the Indian Act which discriminates against Indian women on the basis of sex. If an Indian man marries a non-Indian woman she is entitled to Indian status. However, if an Indian woman marries a nonIndian man she loses her status. In both cases women take their status from their husbands. I remind this house that the Indian Act was imposed upon the Indian people. This discrimination was not of the Indian people's making. However, many Indians have come to accept it, as all people sometimes accept discrimination which does not directly affect them. I think the time has come to change this situation.
I would like to throw out two challenges. First, I challenge the federal government to develop a program of land entitlement and financial entitlement which will make it possible and attractive for bands to receive Indian women back into membership, without these women becoming an additional burden upon communities already struggling with poverty and very meagre resources. Let us have some positive action on the part of the federal government to make it possible for bands to receive these people back into membership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Douglas Manly: Second, I challenge Indian bands themselves to develop their own procedures for membership; procedures
February 19, 1981

which do not discriminate on the basis of sex. In this regard I was very pleased to receive a copy of a telex from the Aboriginal Council of British Columbia, which represents many different tribal federations and many different bands. I believe this telex indicates that Indian society is not static, chauvinistic or a relic of the past, but that it is dynamic, moving with the times and that Indian people themselves are committed to fairness. I would like to read the telex. It is from George Watts, chairman of the Aboriginal Council of British Columbia. It reads:
The Aboriginal Council of British Columbia meeting in full delegation Saturday, February 7, 1981, gave unanimous approval to the following resolution:
Moved by Ray Jones (Gitksan-Carrier Tribal Council) seconded by Leonard Tanner (Okanagan):
That all tribal groups in the province of British Columbia actively seek legislative change to the membership section of the Indian Act before the next quarterly meeting of the Aboriginal Council, and That the tribal groups endorse the reinstatement of people of our nation not recognized as being Indian, and
That the chairman on behalf of tribal group representatives forward a telegram to the Minister of Indian Affairs informing him of our position.
This telex indicates that the Indian people are serious about removing discrimination. They do not want to be discriminated against by non-Indian society: they do not want to discriminate within Indian society. By recognizing their rights we will make it possible for Indian people to remove this kind of discrimination. By recognizing their rights in the Constitution we will make it easier for them to gain recognition of their economic and their political rights so that once again they can take their full place as members of the Canadian society.
I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I believe this is a good Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 1 believe this is a good Constitution. I am proud to give it support.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in participating in this debate. I had hoped to be able to do this last October when the debate began. As events proceeded, the government made certain not too many of us would be able to participate in the debate at that time. Thus, the speech I planned to make at that time had to be postponed.
I am pleased to follow my countryman from British Columbia who just concluded by saying this is a great Constitution and a great bill of rights. In the next few minutes I will be examining them to see whether they are as great as he says. Maybe he has very selective vision. We will see.
We must keep in mind as we debate this issue that it is an important issue for the House only because it is on the Order Paper. It is not an important issue before the country. I think members on both sides of the House will agree that the people across Canada believe it is the economic issues that ought to be debated in the House at this time. It is the inflation which we are facing in our country and the robbing of the low income group of 20 per cent of their pay cheques which should be before us for consideration.
The Constitution


An hon. Member:: Two supporters have just arrived.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I hope after all this applause you credit me with a few extra minutes, and then some.


An hon. Member:: Three more just arrived.


Benno Friesen: While every other western nation is debating the problems of energy supply and security, we debate the Constitution. It seems to me it is evident all across Canada that this Constitution, or any other, will not put one extra slice of bread on the table.
I spoke to a Liberal member from the eastern townships and asked how much he was getting on the constitutional issue and he said zero; yet we have the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) saying we have to pass this package now because the people of Quebec are demanding it. The people of Quebec know the important issue facing us today is the economy, and if this package addresses the referendum in Quebec, why do the three party leaders in the province of Quebec oppose it? We understand why Mr. Levesque might oppose it, but why does the Liberal leader in that province oppose this package if it is the answer to the referendum?
This package has the highest priority on the Order Paper only because the government controls the Order Paper.
I want to begin my remarks by paying tribute to my leader who on October 2 was given 90 minutes by the Prime Minister to study the text, analyse the issues, look at the problems and then address the people of Canada; 90 minutes, Mr. Speaker, in that short time he homed in on the critical issues facing the country now and in the future if this proposition passes in its present form.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: He did all Canadians proud. 1 was proud of him, and I know the people of Canada now recognize that it is because the Right Hon. Joe Clark assumed the leadership that night and it is because of his perceptions, his honesty and his willingness to put his future on the line, that we have an open and honest debate in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: I also want to pay tribute to my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) whom I watched very carefully during the debate in October and in the proceedings of the committee. I observed his skill, his patience and his statesmanship, and I want all members of this House, all the people of Canada, to know that I am proud to call him a brother.
Finally, I want to pay tribute to the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal). I came to this House at the same time as he, and I remember very well that he was the mover of the Speech from the Throne that year. I recall listening to the conservations of other members in the government benches at that time when they said this is a young man

February 19, 1981
The Constitution
who bears watching, and he has done this chamber proud. I watched him during the proceedings of the committee in which I participated several times. I saw his fairness, his incisive intellect, his respect for the institution, his respect for the people who appeared before the committee, for the people on the committee, and I was proud to call him a colleague and a friend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, probably one of the most frequent words used in this debate is the word "entrenchment". The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) in his "Householder" to his constituents last fall used that word and defined it as meaning "to dig deep" and "put into place" so that something will be immovable. It is a word taken from construction, and that is a good definition. If that is what entrenchment means with respect to the Constitution, then it is imperative that we be careful of what we entrench. If it is going to be immovable or difficult to change then we have to be careful what we put in.
I think it is recognized that a charter is a statement of an understanding of what we as a people perceive to be right or wrong in our society, and is designed to address those perceptions. It is only those ingredients we want which must be there, otherwise the foundation will crumble. I would ask, particularly my colleagues from the province of Quebec, suppose in 1867, the Fathers of Confederation had entrenched in the British North America Act, a bill of rights based upon the mores, perceptions, bigotry and lack of understanding that existed in the Quebec community of that time. I wonder if today the people of Quebec would be enjoying the flowering of their culture and their language. Would we be where we are as a nation; would the French-speaking Canadians be where they are had we entrenched such a bill of rights?
The difficulty with entrenching a bill of rights is that none of us have that omniscience whereby we can anticipate the future; none of us are that wise. I repeat, we must be careful of what we entrench. In the jargon of the construction trade, there can be no lumps of clay, there can be no raw dirt mixed in with the concrete. And I believe we are entrenching in this Constitution some materials that make for a crumbly foundation.
One of those foreign ingredients, one of those lumps of clay, one of those ingredients that will cause the foundation to fall apart, is the amending formula. Any formula which makes of some provinces second-class citizens and indeed of some, third-class citizens, is a foreign object to that aggregate in the foundation. It is something we do not want.
While the Prime Minister talks about a charter of rights, at the same time he talks about second and third-class provinces because of the very nature of the formula he is imposing. The difficulty with this charter of rights is that we are entrenching not only good things, we are also entrenching unfairness into our Constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: If the hon. member for Davenport is right when he says that entrenching in a constitution means to dig deep, then we ought not to be entrenching unfairness in this Constitution.
Let me show what I mean, Mr. Speaker. The amending formula is what is called the Victoria formula, now reduced to seven provinces but 80 per cent of the population. Clause 45 provides that a province which at any time has had 25 per cent of the population has a permanent veto in the amending of the Constitution. That means that two provinces, Quebec and Ontario, have a permanent veto. In 1971 Quebec had 27.9 per cent of the population of Canada; in 1981 it has 26.4 per cent. In other words, the percentage is going down; in one decade it has dropped by 1.5 per cent. Using the same ratio, by 1991 the population of Quebec will be 24.9 per cent. But, under the 25 per cent limit, Quebec will still have a veto on constitutional amendments.
British Columbia has a population of about 2.5 million and it increases by about 500,000 or just under 1 per cent each decade. In 1971 the population of British Columbia was 10.1 per cent of the total Canadian population; by 1981, it had risen to 11 per cent. This means that by 1991 it will be 11.9 per cent or 12 per cent.
With the progression we have today, in order for British Columbia's population ever to reach 25 per cent of the population of Canada, and for the province therefore to enjoy veto power, it will take 14 decades; it will take 14 decades for British Columbia to become equal to the province of Quebec. That means that in the year 2120 British Columbia will become equal with two other provinces, even though the population of the province of Quebec by that time may have dropped to 20 or 18 per cent. One hundred and forty years from now British Columbia will have made it.
The hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) says this is a great Constitution. How long is British Columbia supposed to wait to become an equal partner in confederation? The proportions I have given hold true only if the rest of the population remains constant. If the population in other provinces grows, however, then British Columbia will have to wait another 25 or 40 or 50 or 200 years. So, by the year 2180, assuming that all provinces experience growth, British Columbia will become an equal.
I say to my colleagues who come from the province of Quebec, it took you 114 years to achieve the kind of equality you want to enjoy, and I applaud the fact you are achieving that-I am happy for you-but British Columbia has been waiting 110 years. Do you want us to wait another 140 or 200 years under this amending formula? Is that your concept of fairness?
Members of the New Democratic Party applaud the Constitution even though my friends from British Columbia have been called upon to represent the interests and needs of that province and to make sure it enjoys the full benefits of confederation, as does any other province. They are saying this
February 19, 1981

is a good deal for British Columbia, even though we will have to wait 200 years. My friend, the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Parker), laughs but I wonder if his constituents who are waiting for full partnership are laughing. British Columbia wants to be a full member of confederation.
The proportions I have given tonight rest on the assumption that population growth remains stable in the rest of Canada. British Columbia does not want full partnership at the expense of the other three western provinces. Under this amending formula British Columbia can form 50 per cent of the western population with one other province but no other western province can do that.
Under this amending formula Prince Edward Island, with a population of 120,000-which is less than in my own constituency where there are about 175,000 people-is now an equal with all the other maritime provinces. I am happy about that, but in the process Prince Edward Island with 120,000 people has gained more power than the 900,000 people in Saskatchewan and more power than the 900,000 people in Manitoba.


An hon. Member:: One million.


Benno Friesen: One million. Is this fairness? Alberta has over two million people and Prince Edward Island with 120,000 people has a power equal to or greater than the province of Alberta. Members opposite say this is a fair Constitution? My friends in the New Democratic Party say this is a good Constitution.


An hon. Member:: Not all of them.


Benno Friesen: That is the New Democratic Party.


An hon. Member:: Minus four.


An hon. Member:: That is socialist justice.


Benno Friesen: I took both a sense of pleasure and pain when I watched the news conference on television last night conducted by four members of the New Democratic Party. I applauded and I felt the anguish they felt. It was not an easy thing for them to do, to maintain party loyalty and to stand for principle. I do not belittle that at all. I admire the stamina and the integrity of these four people. In the news release one of them said this:
I want to turn for a moment to the amending formula. It is a particular denial of co-operative federalism when the amending formula now before Parliament includes two key features that have never been discussed at federal-provincial constitution conferences within the past decade.
I admire that kind of integrity and that kind of honesty. I wish to God we had 12 members of the New Democratic Party from British Columbia who had that kind of integrity. What about the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett), the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), and the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) and the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)? Where are these British Columbians who are supposed to be
The Constitution
looking after the interests of British Columbia? They have been voted for and called to this House to look after the interests of the people of British Columbia.


Mr. Blackburn:: No, the people of Canada.


An hon. Member:: They are in bed with the Liberals.


Mr. Kempling:: Make a speech, Blackburn.


Benno Friesen: I said at the outset that the ingredients in the foundation have to be consistent and they have to be clean.


Harvie Andre: Western Canadians don't count.


Benno Friesen: The amending formula is bad because we are entrenching unfairness into it. It is wrong.
Second, the unwelcome ingredient we do not need, the ingredient which will destroy the foundation, is such that we are entrenching an illusion. I recall that the representative from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association who came before the constitutional committee said the charter of rights in that form, admittedly somewhat amended and improved now, was a verbal illusion. That was what he called it, and that is what it is. When I first read the Constitution and looked at the charter, I looked at the provision. Seemingly it had all of the ingredients of a charter of rights as we usually think of them, and as we read them the French or the American charter, for example, but something was bothering me about it. I could not understand what it was, but I had a gnawing feeling that something was wrong. Then I began to look at the language of the charter, in other words, the grammar of it. Whether or not there is a direct speaker, every writer has a speaker. Every writer, whether the speaker is identified, puts a speaker into that piece of writing. If the speaker is not identified, you find the speaker in the style of the writing. As an example, let us take the American bill of rights, the first amendment passed ten years after the original constitution was written. We find in Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,-
Let me repeat that: "Congress shall make no law." Who is being addressed? Who is being spoken to in that amendment? It is the Congress, it is the government who is being spoken to. Who is speaking to the government? The people are speaking to the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: The language of the American bill of rights indicates clearly that the people are the ones who have all the rights, all the privileges and all the power except those that they assign to the Congress. They have the residual powers.
I might add there is another aspect of this style in the American bill of rights. In Amendment VI we find the following:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,-
Notice the emphatic form of the words "shall enjoy."
February 19, 1981

Adjournment Debate
Let me turn to the proposed charter here in Canada. I read
in Clause 2:
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms-
Who is spoken to? The citizens are the ones being spoken to. If the citizens are the ones who are being addressed, who is doing the speaking? The government is doing the speaking. It is the government, the state, that is giving the powers to the individual, except those it wants to keep to itself. That is just the opposite to the American bill of rights.
Notice the passive form of the verb "has" in the Canadian charter whereas. The American one says "shall enjoy." What is so important about this? The one who is extending rights is the real owner of those rights. The one extending those rights has the real power. If he has real power, he can take the rights away.
The people have the power in the United States. They can also take away the power. That has been done. The U.S. has worked a formula into the Constitution itself by which the American people can take powers away from the government. This is known as initiative and referendum. The one extending the powers owns them and can take them away. The Canadian charter by the very wording of it, means that the central government, which says it will assign certain enumerated rights and privileges to the people, can also take them away.
Someone mentioned the Russian constitution. I have a copy here. The language in it is in the same passive form: "every citizen has the right." We know that the citizens of the Soviet Union have had their rights taken away, because the government enjoys all the rights anyway.


An hon. Member:: The Canadian and the Russian are the
same.


Benno Friesen: I heard the hon. member. I wish he would repeat it.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I rise concerning the question I posed in this House to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Simmons') on Monday, February 16, 1981, regarding the Niagara River as one of the greatest sources of Great Lakes pollution.
This deadly problem concerns not only those in the Niagara River vicinity, but all Canadians, and it must be dealt with immediately.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain) who is listening to this debate and who was one of the first to raise this troubling matter during this session of Parliament on November 19, 1980. At that time the hon. member asked:
Will the Government of Canada ask the government of the United States to take the necessary steps to reopen the recently completed SCA hearings, in light of the new evidence concerning quantities of TNT recently located on ... the Niagara River from Niagara Falls, Canada?
I know the efforts the hon. member for Niagara Falls has made and is continuing to make to keep on top of this issue. His representations to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), to the Minister of State for Science and Technology and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts), to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan), and to the IJC are commendable. Indeed the hon. member recognized, as we all must, that a problem of a severe nature exists in the Niagara area, which must be solved.
An editorial which appeared in the Toronto Sunday Star on February 15, 1981, prompted me to raise my question with the minister, as it too had seen the urgency of this matter. Indeed, the International Joint Commission which oversees the Cana-da-U.S. Great Lakes water quality agreement stated that the Niagara River remains a dangerous cause of pollution in the Great Lakes.
The commission in fact urged governments on both sides of the border to give this problem top priority, to try to eliminate the known sources of contamination-organic, chemical, and metal wastes-which are being dumped into the system, as well as preventing future contamination.
There are deep concerns over the amounts and variety of pollutants which are being dumped into the system daily, including such toxic substances as lead, arsenic, copper, mercury, PCBs and many others. The major contributors are the chemical and industrial sites along the banks of the river, as well as the added absorption of sewage wastes from both New York State and Ontario.
A New York State sewage plant on the upper Niagara, for example, is currently dumping vast amounts of sewage directly into the river and has been doing so for some time. It is this type of blatant action which must be curtailed. There are some fears that contaminants from many of the chemical waste sites along the river, such as from the Hooker Chemical Company, are seeping into the soil and creating further dangers. The Star reported, and I quote:
SCA Chemical Waste Services is currently before the American courts in a battle to continue dumping millions of gallons of chemical wastes into the Niagara yearly.
The Niagara River system provides drinking water to the cities and citizens along its banks. Also it provides water for irrigating crops which produce much of the fresh fruit and
February 19, 1981

produce marketed to Canadians in all parts of the country. It has now been shown to be in danger of a disastrous overloading of various highly toxic wastes, many of which are known to be lethal to man.
One must stop to think what long-term and short-term effects these chemicals and contaminants will have on the health of the people who now live near the Niagara and future generations who will continue to make their homes there. Stronger measures must be taken now in order that we may protect these Canadians and preserve that which we will hand down to our children in future generations. We must ensure that the Niagara is not subjected to these great amounts of pollutants in the future, in order to preserve and protect our children's futures.
What can the Canadian government say it is doing to solve this problem and to protect the wellbeing of its citizens? It is imperative that all levels of our government work together in a concentrated effort to clean up these sources of pollution to the river and prevent further disintegration of the system from new sources.
But this is not enough. The Canadian government must work with the government of the United States in a joint venture and in a bilateral effort in order for any serious changes to work. Canada and the United States, as signatories to the Great Lakes water quality agreement, have the tools for co-operation and must continue to work together toward reducing the influx of pollutants into our Great Lakes. Without this joint concern and co-operation, all of our efforts are fruitless.
It is surely not too late for us to act upon these problems. Surely we can reverse the present levels of contamination into the Niagara River and subsequently into the Great Lakes.
I should like to congratulate the Toronto Sunday Star for drawing this serious problem to the attention of Canadians. Its editorial motivated me, as a Member of Parliament, to raise this issue in the House of Commons. No government can ignore these problems or their effect on our society and we, as concerned Canadians, must endeavour in every possible way to eliminate such destruction of our natural resources.
Canadians have a right to know what constructive action the governments on both sides of the border have taken and plan to take in the future to clean up all sources of contamination along the Niagara River and the Great Lakes.
1 am a little disappointed that opposition members on the Conservative side are poking fun at such a serious problem. Shame!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: It is a good thing you don't read the Toronto Star comics.


William James Kempling: He is on the comic page anyway.
Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the
Adjournment Debate
Environment): Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my good friend, the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis), for raising this issue and also my good friend, the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain), for having pursued the issue over a number of months. This is an issue which concerns all of us in this House.
The International Joint Commission report on pollution in the Niagara River contains quite a number of specific recommendations for joint U.S.-Canadian programs. These recommendations include the establishment of a comprehensive and co-ordinated study of the total Niagara River system, including the identification of sources of contaminants, implementation of control programs and monitoring their effectiveness.
These major recommendations have already been acted upon for some time. Environment Canada has had a comprehensive surveillance and monitoring program in the Niagara River for many years. This program was strengthened in 1979, with the result that the Niagara River is the most intensively monitored portion of the Great Lakes system today. As a result of this effort, a federal-provincial report on the environmental quality of the Niagara River was released in 1980. I am pleased to note that the IJC has relied heavily on the data compiled by Canadian agencies in its report.
As early as last April, Canadian federal and provincial officials met with officials of New York State and the United States Environmental Protection Agency to work jointly on identifying specific sources of contaminants to the river and on the development of controls and monitoring requirements. More recently this co-operative effort has taken shape, as the Niagara River Toxics Committee is charged specifically to map direct and indirect discharges to the river and waste disposal sites suspected of having an impact in the area, to undertake an over-all assessment of the total pollution to the river, to advise on reported controls and to evaluate their effectiveness.
The International Joint Commission is also concerned about any additional discharges to the river which would increase the input of contaminants not only to the river but also to Lake Ontario. This has been our concern for some time now, and it is for this reason we have urged that SCA discharges not take place until its existing problems upstream have been adequately resolved. The Minister of State for Science and Technology and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) has addressed this issue with American officials on a number of occasions.
Finally, Environment Canada is paying particular attention to the difficulties being experienced on the U.S. side of the river. We are actively encouraging investigations into past disposal practices and into resolving existing discharge problems, especially with respect to the Niagara Falls, New York, sewage treatment plant.
Once again I thank the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

February 19, 1981
Adjournment Debate


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT-OTTAWA &quot;CITIZEN&quot; INDOOR GAMES-ALLEGED PAYMENTS TO PARTICIPATING ATHLETES
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in the fact that the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) raised his question. All of us in this House know the reason for our having the late night show is dissatisfaction on the part of hon. members with the responses they receive from the government or with the actions of the government respecting the issues in question.
I fully understand why the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park would be irate at the fact that the government is not taking any action on this issue. It is on the same basis that I am now raising my question because I was very dissatisfied with the response I received from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan), who is responsible for amateur sport in this country.
The background is simply this: there have been reports in the press with respect to payments by the Ottawa Citizen, the one newspaper remaining in Ottawa, our national capital, to amateur athletes participating in the Ottawa Citizen Indoor Games.
There are two aspects which have caused me some serious concern. One is the whole question of where we are going in terms of amateur sport, and the other is the reports which have been forthcoming, and not denied by the newspaper, about an attempt to suppress the reporting of this particular story by a reporter employed by The Citizen. This is a matter of great concern in Canada today. The Kent commission is investigating the monopolistic tendencies of the newspapers in our country. The one-newspaper town is becoming a reality in more and more cities across Canada, and this is a very delicate issue to which we must address ourselves.
We should discuss in Parliament whether there is going to be a proper balance in terms of reporting and whether one-newspaper towns will have that balance where there will be freedom of reporting and disclosure of information, regardless of whether the newspaper involved is what I consider to be a commercial enterprise.
I know the management of the Ottawa Citizen has indicated that this event is not a commercial endeavour. There have been reactions to the fact that I raised this matter in the House of Commons and suggested that the Ottawa Citizen, according to the editor, lost something like $80,000. But let us face it, this particular indoor track meet, which is very popular and successful-and I hope it will continue-is a promotion by the Ottawa Citizen the same as the promotions one finds in the brewery business or the cigarette business, and the fact that the Citizen does not break even and loses money is a price the newspaper pays for this promotion. To suggest that it is not a commercial endeavour is, I think, not as close to the actual facts as one would hope, in view of the response from the editor of the Ottawa Citizen.
The Minister of Labour, who is responsible for fitness and amateur sport in Canada, said he will not investigate this matter. I find this to be a curious business. I do not wish him
to be the policeman of amateur sport. That was not my purpose in asking him to look into this matter. But the minister responsible for amateur sport is the person in cabinet designated to disburse a substantial amount of money to amateur athletics across Canada. It seems preposterous for the minister to say he is not going to look into the matter at all, that he is not responsible for this and has no interest in it, when I am sure the taxpayers of Canada would be very interested to know who is in receipt of these funds.
In terms of the minister's properly administering his department, it would seem to me that he would want to know exactly the nature of guidelines set by the organizations which are funded by the department. I suppose that was the point I was making to the Minister of Labour. It is his responsibility as a custodian of taxpayers' money to find out exactly what is happening in terms of the organizations and associations to which he is disbursing funds. That question remains unanswered by the minister.
I was more satisfied with the response of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Fleming), to whom the Kent commission is reporting. He responded in the House that the matter would be brought to the attention of the Kent commission. Subsequently I received a telephone call from his office assuring me that this matter was brought to the attention of the Kent commission, that is, the whole concern of suppressing news stories by the Ottawa Citizen or newspapers involved in commercial enterprises. The Minister of State for Multiculturalism has assumed his responsibility to have this matter looked into and to ensure that this aspect is investigated so that there will be a balance in Canada and we will not have a one-newspaper town subjected to coercion, or whatever one wants to call it, by the publisher or the editorial staff, as apparently took place, on the face of it, in this particular instance.
I should like to refer to an article by Julia Turner which appeared in last Saturday's edition of The Globe and Mail, in which she pointed out that Tim Harper, a reporter for the Ottawa Citizen, made a telephone call to follow up on a tip he received about these payments and was told by the senior editor that the matter was to be dropped. In a meeting on Thursday to explain why the story was dropped the sources said that the newspaper admitted to the payments.
I should like to conclude on this note: the Minister of Labour has a responsibility to find out whether this is an isolated incident or whether it is widespread in terms of the disbursement of funds. I simply ask the parliamentary secretary if he will respond by indicating why the minister is refusing to take any action in this regard.


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Ottawa Citizen Indoor Games are organized and sponsored solely by the Ottawa Citizen. They have been held annually for the past four years at the Civic Centre, which is located in my riding of Ottawa Centre. Quite frankly, the games have been a great success. Whether or not they have been a profit-making ven-
February 19, 1981

ture by the Ottawa Citizen, I think they have contributed greatly to the ability of my constituents and others who visit the national capital region to see first-class amateur athletics. The meet about which we are talking tonight was sanctioned by the Canadian Track & Field Association, the national governing body for track and field in Canada.
As to the question of payments to some athletes which the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) raised, both Canadian and foreign athletes who have participated in these games or in similar games in Canada have received a great deal of attention in the media over the past week or so. The Ottawa Citizen, the sponsor of the games, and the Canadian Track & Field Association, the national governing body, have both stated publicly that any expense payments were made in accordance with established practice and were for expenses only.
The responsibility for the matter of the amateur status of Canadian athletes rests with the Canadian Track & Field Association. It is not intended to have departmental officials investigate these allegations, as it is not the responsibility of the department.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM-FINANCIAL EFFECT OF PROPOSED OIL INDUSTRY NATIONALIZATION
Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, on January 20, I rose in the House and asked a short question of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen). The essence of my question was what it is costing Canadians to buy oil companies and, second, whether there is a saving to Canadians. Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance was not able to answer me at that time. Hopefully, the parliamentary secretary will be able to do so tonight.
I would like to review some of the financial aspects from which I drew my question. The national energy policy states that the dividends paid to foreign countries in the past year has been approximately $600 million. We also know from the national energy policy that the government wishes to reduce foreign control from 70 per cent to 50 per cent. That means 20 per cent of $600 million is $120 million in dividends which Canadians will save each year. That is all they will save, and no more. With my background in investments it is not hard for me to calculate what we are really talking about in share prices.
1 am sure the parliamentary secretary will confirm my figures when I say that the average oil company in Canada trades at 50 times its annual dividends. It is simple to take $120 million and multiply it by 50. You get $6 billion, which is the initial cost to Canadians. So, we will save $120 million a year but will have to pay a minimum of $6 billion. Unfortunately, this is only the start of my story.
When we look at Pacific Petroleums, we see it was bought at 50 per cent above its market value. When we look at Petrofina, we see that it was bought at over 100 per cent above its market value prior to take-over rumours. If you take these figures and start breaking them down, you come up with some very
Adjournment Debate
startling conclusions. To begin with, we have a figure of $6 billion as a minimum amount, which will be the cost to the Canadian people. But we have Pacific Petroleums, for which we paid a premium of 50 per cent over the market value, which brings us up to $9 billion. Then we have Petrofina, for which I said we paid a 100 per cent premium, which now brings us up to $12 billion. I would like to go on a little further and then come back to this, since a strange thing comes out of it.
We know from the National Energy Board that we consume approximately 1,850,000 barrels of oil a day in Canada. We know that the Canadian ownership account will tax us up to a maximum of $4 a barrel. If you multiply the barrels of oil per day by the number of days in a year, you come up with a figure of $2.7 billion for which the Canadian government can tax Canadians. This money could go out of the country. No one can stop it from doing so. You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that if we have X dollars to buy something-and we know what the current interest rates are-we can calculate how much we will pay for a product.
I would like to come back to what I said before. If we pay $6 billion for these oil companies, the cash flow which Canadians will be taxed on, which is money leaving the country, will be $1.1 billion. Part of my question dealt with that matter. If the amount we pay is $9 billion, it will go up to $1.7 billion in cash flow that Canadians will be taxed on each year. But what if the cash flow is $2.7 billion upon which we are taxed? How much can we buy with that? Knowing current interest rates and knowing that Canadian National, to use an example, can borrow at 14 per cent, with probably a 20-year bond issue, with that cash flow of $2.7 billion we could afford to purchase Canadian oil companies up to the amount of $16 billion. I have been trying to find out what it will cost Canadians. I am now saying it will cost Canadians a minimum of $6 billion and probably up to $16 billion. Anyone who wants to buy any firm or industry should know what they are prepared to pay for it. I want to know from the parliamentary secretary what the government is prepared to pay. How much money is the government prepared to export just to get a state-owned oil company? What will it cost Canadians? How will the government stop these funds from leaving the country? I would like the parliamentary secretary to answer that.
Of all the money involved, not one dollar will improve our oil situation. The government says it wants self-sufficiency by 1990. In 1974 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stood in this House and said we will have oil self-sufficiency by 1980. We do not have self-sufficiency, and the province of Alberta is saying by 1990 we will be importing three times the amount of oil now imported. Somebody is not telling the truth.
We know what the Prime Minister said in 1974, we know what the Alberta government said in 1974 and only the Prime Minister of Canada can be proved wrong, certainly not the province of Alberta.

February 19, 1981
Adjournment Debate


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting to listen to the analysis of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright), especially with regard to his estimation of the value of securities and how they achieve their value. He seemed to imply, and I think Hansard will indicate this, that it is the value of current dividends that determine the value of shares. I hate to disillusion the hon. member, but I used to teach people like himself who were in the investment business-


An hon. Member:: There goes his credibility.


John Leslie Evans: -and at that time the value of shares was based upon the present value of future dividends, not current dividends, and if you talk about future dividends, you are saying that the cash flow of the firm in the future determines its value.
The hon. member asks how much we are prepared to pay. It depends on the estimate of the future cash flow and dividends. And when he says we cannot stop money from flowing out of the country in a nationalization or Canadianization program, whatever he wants to call it, he is right. When we or a Canadian company buys the assets of a foreign multinational, certainly there is always the chance those funds will leave the country, but the alternative is that if foreign ownership is
retained, then dividends will flow out of the country in perpetuity, and if the system works as the hon. member and I both agree it should, then the present value of the dividends leaving the country will equal the present value of the money that is leaving the country as the purchase price.
All we say is that by improving Canadian ownership we are getting a bigger control of our own resource base in Canada. Canadians should participate more in the control and management of resources in Canada. That is the purpose of the Canadianization program, and the price being paid for those assets, as it was with Petrofina, is a fair price, as analysts have indicated, and reflects the value of the benefits that Canadians will receive from those assets in the future.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense. State control; no benefits at all.


John Leslie Evans: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to respond to the hon. member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.29 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, February 20, 1981