1981-02-26

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Merci beaucoup, madame le President. I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas farmers across Canada do use, and want to continue to use imperial measurements, pecks, bushels and tons, to measure their products, and the Canadian Wheat Board is endeavouring to impose metric tons on the farmers, which makes the producers foreigners in their own country, therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That the government permit farmers to continue to use their imperial measurements, and if the Canadian Wheat Board wants to use metric let it do the conversion in its head office but issue all measurements to farmers in imperial bushels and tons.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The CNR has refused to honour its commitment to the CBRT & GW Local 14 in Halifax for the training of employees in other job areas. This refusal to honour the training provision is an example of the lack of concern that the government has for jobs in this country, and particularly its lack of concern for the future of our youth. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
That the House insist that the Liberal government live up to its commitment to provide job-training programs and that it provide the youth of this country with a hope for their future which they are presently denied.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the foreign-owned B.C. Telephone Company has refused to end the 14-month dispute with its workers despite the excellent efforts of federal mediator Bill Kelly, and since, because of the current strike lockout the company is in a position to rake in massive profits while its wage bill is sharply reduced, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles);
That the cabinet use its powers under the National Transportation Act to roll back the February 2, 1981, CRTC granted rate increase until B.C. Tel ceases its blackmail demands of still further rate hikes and agrees to sign the Kelly settlement package.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Sydney Steel Corporation provides direct and collateral employment for thousands of persons, and is the backbone of the economy in Cape Breton in Nova Scotia. The failure of the federal government to date to fulfil its election promise of financial assistance to revitalize the steel plant has endangered this employment, demoralized the work force, and threatened the whole

February 26, 1981
economy. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House direct the government to honour its promise to Sydney Steel Corporation and to Nova Scotians by providing the financial assistance required to revitalize the steel plant in accordance with the business plan submitted to the government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. A recent article in the Brazil Herald describes Prime Minister Trudeau's visit in true form. In an entirely unprecedented situation, the Prime Minister is reported to have thoroughly embarrassed Brazilian soldiers by handing them bars of German soap while they were lined up to present military honours. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House direct the Prime Minister to come clean, make a formal apology to the Brazilian government, and that he promise this House that in the future he will make diplomatic exchanges with Canadian soap, not foreign soap, and, above all, not soft soap.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


METRIC CONVERSION
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 agricultural chemical industry is being forced to convert to the metric system so that future chemical containers will bear only the metric application measurements without equivalent imperial units shown for comparison and ease of conversion, and whereas miscalculations of the metric measurements could mean misapplication with disastrous results for farmers and the possible loss of an entire crop, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson):
That this House take the necessary action to ensure that equivalent application rates in imperial units be displayed on all agricultural chemical containers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43,1 want to raise the following matter. White Motor Corporation's continued delays in reaching a decision to sell its farm machinery division is causing great hardship not only to the approximately 1,100 workers laid off in Brantford, but also to its Kelowna, B. C. truck plant employees and its dealers across the country.
Close to 75 per cent of its export production has already been lost, and production for its Canadian market must be commenced immediately or that too will disappear. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House unanimously endorse the sending of an urgent message to the president of White Motor Corporation in the United States informing him that the Canadian Parliament expresses extreme concern over the potential job loss if further delays are encountered and asking that an immediate decision be made.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Frank Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Having regard to the fact that the government once again has misaligned its priorities in that commitments made respecting social housing programs have been betrayed, and that programs to which the government was committed under Section 40 of the Housing Act have never been delivered effectively in rural and northern areas of our country, and since energy and other input costs not considered by the program made it prohibitive for most northerners to participate, for whom the program was intended, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That recent spending cuts in the social housing areas announced by the minister responsible for housing should not affect any programs that fall under Section 40 of the Housing Act and that such programs instead be strengthened in a manner which will account for the peculiar circumstances in the north with respect to high fuel and energy costs and other factors contributing to excessive and disproportionate living expenses.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?
February 26, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. This morning most of the veterinarians employed by the health of animals branch inspecting slaughter houses and abattoirs serving Ontario and Quebec decided, for some reason, to be sick. A number of poultry and meat processing plants are unable to operate.
Because of the ineptness of the Treasury Board in organizing a proper contract with inspection staff, our food supply is now endangered. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid).
That the President of the Treasury Board who has shown incompetence in handling labour relations with air traffic controllers, postal workers and now with veterinarians, immediately submit his resignation, and that this House direct the Prime Minister to appoint someone competent to handle this portfolio so that Canadians can depend on essential services.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: After a while you get used to all of this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and has to do with energy matters. He will have seen reports that the United States and perhaps member nations of OECD have expressed concern that the federal government's energy policy might breach certain international agreements. The minister will recall that on December 18, in a correction to an answer he had given me to a question, he said
Oral Questions
that American representations were "in the nature of comments and requests for clarification, and that successful discussions have since taken place with U.S. officials which reassured them." Does that statement stand that U.S. officials have been reassured, or have there been new developments to cause that statement to stand no longer? Can the minister tell us whether foreign representations regarding our energy policy were received as early as November 7, 1980?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I think it is fair to say that U.S. reaction to our energy program has sharpened in recent weeks, perhaps as a result of U.S. domestic pressures, perhaps as a result of the forthcoming visit of the President. In any event, we have received notice from the United States and indications from the European community of concern about some aspects of our National Energy Program. I should say that with respect to the two principal international instruments in question, on the Declaration of International Investment of the OECD, the Minister of Finance specifically entered a reservation in 1976, or rather an interpretation since it was a nonbinding declaration, in which he said at that time that we would not be constrained with respect to the problem of foreign ownership in Canada by this declaration, and with respect to the GATT, the other instrument under which our action could be challenged, we said that we will not use the "buy Canadian" provisions in Bill C-48 in such a way as to contravene our obligations under the GATT.


Charles Joseph Clark: I thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs for that information which indicates that American concerns at least have sharpened since that day in December when the minister thought the Americans had been reassured. The minister made reference to European nations, and to various of the other international obligations to which Canada is subject. Can the minister tell us specifically which other countries, whether in Europe or elsewhere, have made representations to Canada suggesting that our National Energy Program is in breach of the GATT, the International Energy Agency requirements, OECD requirements, or in breach of any other treaty or obligation to which Canada should be held? Can he tell us which other countries have indicated that kind of concern?


Mark R. MacGuigan: To the best of my recollection, the questions have been asked by the United States and the European community speaking as a whole.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister indicated that was to the best of his recollection. We would naturally like him to verify his recollection and make clear to us what objections have been received. I again emphasize that we are not concerned simply about IEA or OECD, but any obligations which Canada might have under any bilateral or multilateral treaty or undertaking which might be breached by this policy.

February 26, 1981
Oral Questions
In light of the change in attitude by the Americans with regard to the very real importance to this country of having Canadian control over the Canadian energy industry, and the interest in this House in knowing exactly what parts of the program are at issue, will the minister confirm that ministers of the government have received letters from the United States? Will he agree to table those letters in the House of Commons so that everyone in this Parliament will know what is at issue between Canada and the United States and between Canada and other countries which might believe that Canada is acting in a way that breaches obligations?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I do not believe that we would be at liberty to table such documents. We will have to find some other way of making the issues well known to the members of this House and to the Canadian public.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has also mentioned the IEA. I might add, with respect to our international obligations there, that of course there may be some concern on the part of other countries that one of the effects of our national energy policy will be to give a certain advantage to Canadians trading abroad. We believe that, if that is the case, it is the same thing as natural advantages which other countries may have in the international trading sphere, and it is a consequence which we are prepared to endure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETRO-CANADA INSTRUCTIONS RESPECTING ACQUISITION PRACTICES
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister, I know, is aware of the fact that a $400,000 profit was made on the sale of shares by four officers of Petrofina just prior to the Petro-Canada acquisition announcement. This illustrates the kind of profit that can be made if there is a degree of speculative activity surrounding these takeovers that Petro-Canada will be entering into in the years and months ahead.
The minister referred in a vague way, in answer to another question that I put to him some days ago, to "standing operating instructions to all Crown corporations... and to Petro-Canada in particular." My question to the minister is, would he now state what those procedures are, would he table them in the House, and would he make it clear that these are procedures that we would hope would avoid the types of leaks which have resulted in these large profits being made by people associated with takeovers and would avoid having the price of shares driven up in anticipation of a takeover offer being made by Petro-Canada?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I know of no written instructions; they are standing instructions which are to follow the normal business practices in all aspects of the laws of the land. I have indicated that on the basis of past experience with previous takeovers, and my examination of what has happened in this particular case, Petro-Canada behaved in the best of ways in dealing with this particular issue.
If there has been speculation and then some profits made by some members of the management of Petrofina, or people of that nature, obviously this is a matter over which I would not have particular control. It is a matter that has to do with the seller and the management of its own operations.
I want to assure the hon. member, as I have indicated, that any specific information would be drawn to the attention of the proper authorities, if he has any. Some information has been tabled by Petrofina before the Ontario Securities Commission. It is examining this at the present time. In addition, I have referred this additional information to my colleague, the minister responsible for consumer and corporate affairs, to ensure that the provisions of the Canada Corporations Act have been respected by Petrofina Canada.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the minister referred, and I quote, specifically to "standing operating instructions ... to Petro-Canada in particular". I have asked the minister to table the standing instructions to Petro-Canada in particular which will avoid these speculative leaks in the future, because Petro-Canada is a company that will be making these takeover bids, takeover bids that have been done sloppily, as this one has been, and it will cost Canadians a lot of money in the future.
My supplementary question, Madam Speaker, is this: has the minister, since these shares were sold pursuant to share options which had been exercised by the officers of Petrofina, received a report relating to the issue of these share options? Can the minister assure the House that the options which were exercised in January were not issued after early September when the negotiations started with Petrofina, but were issued prior to that date?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member who has had some experience in this regard that the price paid by Petro-Canada for Petrofina was felt to be appropriate in the circumstances and was judged so by most investment analysts. If there has been any profit taking by some members of management in this regard, it will have been profit-taking at the expense of other shareholders of Petrofina. This is a matter which is properly for the securities commission, the stock exchanges, and the corporation branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to examine under the Canada Corporations Act also. This will be done.
With respect to the specific question asked by the hon. member, I have indicated to him that I know of no written instructions as such. The standard instructions are that Petro-Canada run its operations like any other business would do. I
February 26, 1981

am not just confident but convinced that Petro-Canada managed its negotiations in the way these things should be managed in any business deal or in any business negotiations. I am quite convinced that there has been no leak of information from Petro-Canada in this regard. I have checked this matter personally. If there is additional evidence which can be brought forward, I will obviously have it investigated thoroughly, but there has to be some evidence, which is more than just vague allegations, to charge that anything improper might have been done by anybody having anything to do with Petro-Canada.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the acting Minister of Veterans Affairs. My colleagues decided that this question should be our first one today in order to indicate our concern that there should be no further delay in the introduction of legislation respecting veterans and their survivors.
In view of the fact that many widows are having to wait four, five or six years for pensions to which they are entitled by a law passed by this Parliament last July, can the minister now say when he will be bringing in legislation to eliminate or shorten the phasing-in period in that legislaiton?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence and Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much the concern of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre about the veterans' question. I can assure this House that I am just as concerned that some improvement can be made to the present system for pensions. I can assure the hon. gentleman that I am examining this question today with my officials in the ministry. We will have a meeting next week with Legion officials to see what their preferences are with respect to improving the lot of veterans.
The following three questions will probably be debated: accelerating the phasing-in of widows' pensions over six and a half years and less; increasing the WVA single rate to persons under age 65; and extending the aging veterans program to include war veterans allowance recipients. These three major questions will be discussed at these two meetings, and I can assure the hon. member that I will be as diligent as possible in trying to introduce legislation in this House, provided our financial capabilities are there.


ADJUSTMENT OF BENEFIT RATES
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear about next week's meeting and the attention which is being given to these matters. Will the
Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs also put on that list the need to adjust the 100 per cent basic rate of the disability
Oral Questions
pension so that it will automatically stay in line with the average take-home pay of the five categories in the public service designated in 1972, and will he also consider the possibility of reviewing the rates of compensation for former prisoners of war?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that we will look at these two questions in addition to the ones I just mentioned. I appreciate the collaboration of hon. members every time we present legislation in this House. I am sure that regardless of what we present in the future for veterans, hon. members will not be disappointed. As usual, this government will look after them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, may I ask the acting minister when he makes his representations to cabinet to remind his cabinet colleagues that the Canadians about whom we are talking did not exercise restraint when they were called to serve their country and that the present so-called restraint policies should not apply to these veterans or their survivors?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Madam Speaker, judging by decisions this government has passed with respect to veterans, I do not think a member of cabinet, the present and previous members of cabinet of this government, have ever exercised restraint as far as improving the lot of our veterans is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It refers to the question of the alleged profits made by insiders on the Petrofina-PetroCan deal. The minister has just heard his seatmate, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources say that there is an investigation taking place into this matter by the ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. My question to him is; what date was this investigation started? What is the legislative authority for conducting it? What are the terms of reference of the investigation?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member did not understand correctly what my seatmate was saying.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Nobody ever does.


André Ouellet: What I can confirm, though, is that, at the request of my seatmate, my officials are looking into this matter under the provisions of the Canada Business Corpora-

February 26, 1981
Oral Questions
tions Act. I will be pleased to report to the House the results of the investigation which my officials will be making under the provisions of the act, with respect to this allegation.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I do not know what sort of fine point we are entering into here with the minister's language problems, when he says that looking into a problem is not necessarily an investigation of it. My questions to him were: under what legislative authority can there be an investigation? What is it? Who is looking into it? It is as simple as that. What are the terms of reference? What is the problem they are looking into? Who gave them the authority to look into it? What are the terms of reference of it? It is simple enough.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, it is clear, I think, that under the provisions of the act the director of my department's corporations branch must ensure that the law is respected. The hon. member is asking what the terms of reference are. The very provisions of the act require that the director make sure that the interests of all those who hold shares in a company are protected and that all shareholders are treated on an equal footing. If privileged information was given to certain shareholders to the detriment of others it is the duty of the director to seek out the truth and I think that is what he is doing in the normal course of his duties.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The National Energy Program underestimates the potential and possibilities of the New Brunswick oil shales in Albert County. It is reliably estimated that there could be as much as 50 billion barrels in those shales, which is as much as the Hibernia field. Should the government give that potential its proper and due recognition, it could have a tremendous positive effect in Atlantic Canada, particularly with regard to security of energy supply and, of course, job creation for the entire region. My question to the minister is: what is the government's position with reference to this very exciting possibility?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I must say to the hon. member that the government is obviously very interested in the development of all existing Canadian reserves of hydrocarbons, particularly petroleum. The matter to which the hon. member is referring, that is whether there are certain reserves to be developed, is well known to the industry and the government and I can assure him that if it is possible to carry out the
profitable development of those reserves it will be done of course.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, the government has offered Saskatchewan a five-year, $50 million heavy oil research and development program. The Government of New Brunswick has approached the federal government to participate in an R and D program which is substantially more modest than the offer to Saskatchewan. My supplementary question to the minister is: can Atlantic Canada expect a favourable response to its request and the same sort of generous support that the government seems so anxious to give to the west?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Madam Speaker.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment. It is now obvious that acid rain from sulphur dioxide and nitric oxide emissions is causing severe damage to Atlantic Canada. It is admitted that acid rain causes fatality to marine life, damage to soils, forests, and damage to structures. We have been told recently by Pat Schnut, chief, chemical hazards, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, that acid rain is causing the loss of
10,000	to 12,000 adult salmon. We have also been advised-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Could the hon. member get to her question, please.


Coline M. Campbell: We have also been advised that at least seven Atlantic salmon spawning streams are-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Coline M. Campbell: -so acidic that salmon reproduction no longer occurs. Can the minister tell me what he plans to do to eliminate the effects of acid rain in Atlantic Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, clearly the hon. member is very right to be concerned with this question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I am glad to see that even members opposite appreciate the seriousness of the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 26, 1981


John (Moody) Roberts: The hon. member should know that the government has taken the decision to increase very significantly the funds available for acid rain research. Much of it will be used to develop strategies for combating the impact of acid rain on fish spawning grounds in the Atlantic provinces.
I know that the House of Commons subcommittee on acid rain will be visiting Nova Scotia soon. I hope that the visit will help make people in Canada, particularly people in that region, more aware of the significance of this problem.
Generally speaking, we are pressing ahead as vigorously as we possibly can with the signature of international accord with the United States government to help regulate this problem. It will be a subject of major importance on the agenda of discussions with the President of the United States when he visits Canada in early March.


FISHERIES
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The minister must be aware of the controversy and concern which have greeted his new proposed regulations for fisheries on the west coast, especially as they affect the Fraser River and its closure. A particular Indian band, the Katzie band, in my riding near Pitt Meadows, depend on the Fraser gill-net fishery for 90 per cent of their income. They are protesting this closure in the strongest possible terms on two basic grounds. First, it is unfair because it hits one fishery and leaves the others relatively unscathed. Two, it is ineffective as a conservation measure.
As a result of these two basic grounds I have two questions for the minister. What steps does the minister intend to take to compensate these people, both native and non-native fishermen, if he does go ahead and proceeds with the full closure for the 1981 season? Will the minister reconsider placing a moratorium on the implementation of these regulations until the department and the minister himself can resume the consultative process which has not functioned for at least six months?


Hon. Romeo LeBIanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member says these measures are unfair. The fact is that all groups have found that the measures we have taken have been difficult to accept and many groups have protested, exactly as the group mentioned by the hon. member. However, the reality is that the Chinook stocks of the Fraser are very badly in need of protection. That is what we are endeavouring to do.
I have said to the hon. member before that we are trying to find alleviation and alternatives for those who will lose all opportunities, or most opportunities, of being engaged in the fishery. I have not excluded the possible measure of meeting
Presence in Gallery
with groups which are very directly affected. Certainly that group on the Fraser is being hampered and hurt, which I recognize.
As for the question of a moratorium or reconsidering, I have indicated if conservation measures can be effected in other ways, aside from the way we have proposed, that I am willing to look at them. The difficulty is that everyone wants to have his group exempted and other groups to pay the costs of conservation. That is not possible.


DISCUSSIONS WITH U.S. AUTHORITIES
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, I agree with the minister that conservation measures need to take place, and that some other groups are also being affected, but the department has strangled the Fraser gill-net fishery.
Aside from the years of mismanagement which have taken place, the habitat destruction, the lack of enforcement in terms of illegal fishing, the pollution, or you name it, there are more Fraser-bound Chinook caught by the San Juan and Point Roberts American fisheries than will be saved by cutting off the Fraser for this year.
I should like to know what the minister intends to do to seek some kind of an agreement with the Americans so that they, instead of destroying our Chinook stock, can help save them?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, we have been in communication with the United States authorities on this very question. My hope is that they will respond positively. They have indicated that they understand the Canadian problem. I think it will be a test of their good faith in the coming negotiations on the salmon interception problem and the whole area of interception between Canadian and American fishermen if they respond to the conservation measures we have taken. I will inform the hon. member when I receive an answer.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKER OF NEWFOUNDLAND LEGISLATURE
Madam Speaker:: I should like to draw the attention of members of the House to the presence in our gallery of a distinguished colleague, the Speaker of Newfoundland, the Honourable Leonard Simms.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SECRETARY OF COMMERCE OF MEXICO
Madam Speaker:: Also I should like to draw the attention of members of the House to the presence in our gallery of a
7700

February 26, 1981
Oral Questions
distinguished guest who just arrived, the Honourable Secretary of Commerce for Mexico, Mr. Licenciado Jorge de la Vega Dominguez.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Could he explain to the House if he plans to initiate a study into the present day asset value of land and mineral rights which were granted to CPR in past years?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, mention has been made of that. It will be a decision for cabinet to make.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I do not know the pecking order of the minister's cabinet. If it is not government policy and there has not been a cabinet decision on it, why is it that his assistant in the Senate, Senator Argue, was quoted yesterday in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix as saying that he will have it initiated before the end of this year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, it is traditional in democratic governments when a decision has not been made by cabinet for members of the cabinet to express their views.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Salary negotiations have reached an impasse between veterinarians employed by the health of animals branch of Agriculture Canada and the Treasury Board. It has culminated today in strike action by veterinary inspectors in Ontario and Quebec closing all the federally-inspected abattoirs in Quebec and most of them in Ontario. In view of the fact that a general strike across Canada would have disastrous results for consumers, the livestock industry, the meatpacking industry and our exports, will the President of the Treasury Board intervene personally, meet with representatives of the veterinary group and bargain in good faith to formulate a salary schedule which will recognize a long overdue inequity to this group of dedicated public servants?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, my understanding is that both parties have been negotiating in good faith. There appears to have
been an illegal walkout and I would hope that matters will return to normal in a matter of hours. It is also my understanding that considerable progress has been made through a mediator. I suspect a fair and just settlement will be reached in the very near future.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. The health of animals branch recognizes that there has been a big problem in recruiting veterinarians for some time. According to the Public Service Commission of Canada there is already a veterinary vacancy rate of 32.4 per cent, caused primarily by a totally unacceptable low salary range. In view of the fact that no apparent effort has been undertaken to alleviate this very serious situation, would the President of the Treasury Board not agree that a starting salary of $17,660 for veterinarians in federal government service is not only a deterrent to recruitment, but an insult beyond any stretch of the imagination to every veterinarian in the country being offered such a ridiculous amount in this day and age after six years of university training?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, this particular group, as all other groups with which we bargain, is subject to our rules of total compensation comparability. I can assure the hon. member that if there are major inequities they will certainly be adjusted during the current negotiation.
With respect to the vacancy factor to which the hon. member made reference, he might direct his question to the Minister of Agriculture. But it is my understanding that there are a number of posts left vacant deliberately and that the Department of Agriculture is seeking to recruit, I believe, something in the neighbourhood of a 5 per cent to 10 per cent increase in those posts; not the 32 per cent to which the hon. member made reference.


WESTERN DEVELOPMENT FUND
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance respecting his recent speech to the Canadian Club at Montreal last Monday. I should like to draw his attention to the direct reference to the $4 billion western development fund, $2 billion of which will be spent over the next three years as a catalyst for co-operative efforts with the governments and people of western Canada to ensure that potential constraints to longer-term development, such as inadequate transportation services or insufficient water supplies, are addressed on a timely and effective basis.
Would the Minister of Finance enlarge somewhat on that very specific reference to insufficient water supplies in the west? It has a very special meaning for me, and I hope he will respond in some way to that reference.
February 26, 1981


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I was speaking in a general way and focused upon the questions of transportation and water supply as important elements in the future development of the western economy. At the present time detailed work is being done within the government as to the best way in which we can respond to the requirements of the transportation system in the west and the water supply problems. When that detailed work is completed, it will be possible to give the hon. member the kind of information he obviously wants today.


Mr. Crosbie:: Double-tonguing.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. With respect to the same reference to insufficient water supplies, I should like to ask the minister whether this is a reference to a much needed long-range contingency drought policy which the west is dearly in need of these days. Even though that high profile agency, the PFRA, is working on this, they need much more incentive. Could it refer to that, or possibly could it refer to the challenge of interbasin water transfers from rivers in northern Canada to southern Canada, in the west?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I thank the hon. member for giving me more detail on his concerns. Obviously it would be difficult to consider water supply programs in the west without concentrating at the same time on the question of drought and its incidence in the west, and both these areas will be addressed in our studies.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Prime Minister, and it concerns recent statements regarding farmers' support of the Crow rate. Since the vast majority of farmers agree with the solution to the Crow rate which was offered by Chief Justice Emmett Hall in his report on grain handling and transportation, whereby the statutory rate paid by the farmer remains, and the government negotiates with the railways to determine the balance of any revenue required in return for service, is the Prime Minister talking about the same Hall recommendations when he talks about doing what the farmers want on the Crow rate?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I wish I had the illusory self-assurance of the hon. member when he says that he knows what the western farmers want. I met-


An hon. Member:: Voting for the Constitution.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, I understand.


An hon. Member:: 1 wouldn't take his word very much at all.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I met with a group, just a couple of weeks ago, the Western Agricultural Conference, and they were presenting a different type of argument. As I have said in the House before, our purpose is to find out, first, if collectively the farmers and related industries in the west want a change in the Crow rate; second, if they do, can they agree on what a change could be? I do not believe the hon. member has a clear authority to say what they want out there, because, as he knows, the government of Saskatchewan is in disagreement with the governments of Manitoba and Alberta on this particular matter.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I realize that some of the provincial governments are in disarray over this issue, but the Prime Minister was talking, in his-


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Sleep.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: -replies on the radio programs out in the west, to farmer majority opinion. Chief Justice Hall, in his survey years ago, established what that farmer majority opinion was. If that report is no longer valid, then what absolute end of the line reassurance or absolute authority does the Prime Minister intend to accept, if his own royal commission report was not good enough?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not suggesting that the report is not valid. I am saying that we are hearing different views on that from different groups in the west, and I made it clear that the government would like to settle this matter in a way which could achieve the greatest possible consensus in the west.


ESTIMATES
Mr. Bruce Lonsdale (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council. With regard to the circumstances that occurred yesterday concerning the tabling of the main estimates for 1981-82-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Bruce Lonsdale: -as you know, there was an obvious attempt to filibuster, and the opposition knowingly set out purposely to prevent the tabling of those documents. It is difficult to understand how the opposition can knowingly set about to do anything on purpose. However, I would like to ask the President of the Privy Council, in view of the circumstances yesterday, what he is planning to do in terms of reviewing the lock-up procedures, and whether he feels that the opposition's irresponsible attitude yesterday will jeopardize the normal and traditional procedure of advance notice and access to information by the press.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 26, 1981
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the question is very interesting and quite appropriate. I intend to discuss it seriously with the President of the Treasury Board at the first opportunity and we will see how to proceed next year, that is, whether or not we should further extend the courtesy given to the press.
Personally I am inclined to extend the privileges of hon. members as much as possible. But what we had to debate yesterday was whether in the present context and according to the established practice there was a breach of the privileges or a lack of courtesy based on tradition. You have made your ruling, Madam Speaker, and we accept it.


MARINE TRANSPORT
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport who is responsible for marine transport and for the Canadian National Railways. The minister knows that there are published reports that Dart Containerline is terminating its operation in the port of Halifax, and removing its multimillion dollar business to the port of Montreal. Is the minister aware of this proposed change, and what does he propose to do about the loss of thousands of jobs at the port of Halifax, in direct and indirect employment, and the loss of millions of dollars of revenue, not to mention the $18 million loss to the CNR arising from the discontinuation of this service?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this news is supposed to be confirmed this afternoon by the company, and, indeed, it will be a very bad announcement as far as the port of Halifax is concerned. The Dart company has decided to move container traffic from Halifax to Montreal. Again, this is a very severe blow. I agree with that. However, one would take into consideration, nevertheless, that the containers going for the Atlantic market, will not be moved, and that represents about 15 per cent of the traffic.
A second announcement which I want to make at the same time is that the Polish line is going to use terminal two in Halifax and that will represent 200,000 tons, beginning Saturday. So, there are some compensating factors, and no doubt, Ceres and Halterm will look for more traffic in the coming days.


Howard Edward Crosby: The minister must know that the ameliorating factors that he mentioned are not connected. The Polish line was already due to come to the port of Halifax, and the local traffic cannot go anywhere else but Halifax because of economic considerations. But I have warned the minister in the House, and elsewhere, of the involvement of CNR in Cast, and it is at the root of this problem.
Will the minister now explain why the CNR refused to become involved in Dart's operation at the same time that they were becoming involved in Cast's operation, but benefiting the port of Montreal to the detriment of the port of Halifax?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The CNR is involved in Cast indeed, but the CNR is also involved in Halterm. There was a time when CNR wanted to get involved in Dart, and was not allowed to do so. But the main reason for this move comes from CP. CP operates from Montreal with smaller ships. It wanted to get bigger ships, and that is the main reason why the transfer of traffic was made from Halifax to Montreal.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The minister will have been alerted, by his alert staff, I am sure, that the rail workers of White Pass and Yukon route went on strike last night despite the recommendations of a conciliation officer.
What steps is the government now taking through his own ministry, or through the Ministry of Labour, or any agency of government, to restore the services of this singular and most vital link to tide water, which transports all of Yukon products out and most of Yukon supplies in?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows this is the direct responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Labour. As a result of the concerns of many in the Yukon as well as those expressed by the hon. member himself, the Minister of Labour has taken a very active interest in this matter. Certainly his officials and some of the key officials with long experience in trying to resolve strikes, especially Mr. Kelly, the assistant deputy minister of labour, have gone into the matter thoroughly and made the parties aware that the services of some of the most experienced mediators in the country, in my view, are available to try to resolve this strike. 1 can only hope that the offer of assistance and the resolve on the part of the Department of Labour will be effective in settling this strike.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, can the minister inform us whether there is included in his current estimates sufficient funds to enable him to go forward with his publicly announced 35 million support for the railroad?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Madam Speaker. I think the hon. member would agree that it is very much in the interests of all Yukoners that this money be made available. As he knows, this is for capital projects which are badly
February 26, 1981

needed; it is not to be used to defray in any way any deficits or operational expenses of the railway.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-17, an act to implement conventions between Canada and New Zealand and Canada and Australia for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['I think I can deal rather quickly with this question of privilege. I would say to the hon. member that whenever he asks me to let him have a room in which to conduct a meeting, to hold a reception of for whatever other reason the rooms in the House of Commons are used by members, he would be perfectly authorized to stop someone at the door in order to avoid having some people crash his party or attend a meeting to which they were not invited. I would have to assume that that person was there under his authority, even if that person was not a Member of Parliament. In the same way I would say that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) who asked me for a room and was given access to it, which is normal for any members of the House of\nCommons, would have the right to determine to whom to give access to whatever business he was conducting in that room.\nIf, under the guise of that question of privilege, the hon. member-I would not say he wishes to make me decide whether or not a room of the House of Commons was used-is saying that I would have to rule on who should be invited to the lock-up, I am afraid I have to tell him that that is totally outside my purview.\nI can therefore deal quite quickly with this question of privilege. I do not think there is one.']
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
Government House
February 26, 1981
Madam,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Julien Chouinard, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 26th day of February, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to a bill.
I have the honour to be,
Madam,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I could direct a question to the government House leader. Would he be kind enough to inform us whether he can allot next Wednesday, March 4, 1981, as an allotted day.
While he is doing that, could he also inform the House whether the arrangements for the visit of President Reagan to Canada have been completed. I have particular reference to whether the President of the United States will be addressing a joint sitting of both Houses. If so, could he tell the House when that might be.
Business of the House


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, next week, unless otherwise decided, we shall continue, at least we hope to, the closing debate on the Constitution. With regard to March 4, I cannot confirm at this point that it will be an allotted day. I am quite willing to discuss the matter later on today with my learned colleague and the House leader of the NDP.
With regard to the details of the visit to Canada of the President of the United States, I am unable to give my hon. colleague of the opposition complete details at this time. However, as soon as details have been confirmed, I shall advise him accordingly; it is quite probable that the President of the United States will address both Houses jointly, but the time and day have yet to be confirmed. As soon as they are, I shall advise my hon. colleagues.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, there are two other items. You will recall the all-night debate that we had in the House prior to the Christmas adjournment. At that time there was an order of the House by unanimous consent, and I am quoting now from Votes and Proceedings of December 18, as follows:
That the House of Commons employees who have worked all night in the sitting that commenced on Thursday, December 18, 1980, and is still in progress, be paid extra compensation for their service, and that the thanks of the House be extended to them.
I have heard from some employees that this extra compensation may not have been paid. I wonder if it would be possible for the government House leader, through the appropriate channels, to make that inquiry and see whether that is the case, and perhaps advise us on the matter.


Madam Speaker:: I can tell the hon. member that this is under my jurisdiction and I can tell him that it is well in hand and he will be informed in due course.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I am grateful to you.
My final question concerns the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is in the House, and it concerns House business. The minister will recall that some inquiries were made with respect to the takeover of Petrofina by Petro-Canada. As reported at page 7611 of Hansard, he was asked whether he would table the results of those inquiries when they have been completed. Have they been completed and could the minister tell us whether he will be tabling that information?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I was in touch with Petro-Canada at the time of the question and again this morning to ask when this information would be made available. I have been advised that I should have it early next week. I will be very happy to table it as soon as I have it.

February 26, 1981
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker PRIVILEGE


MR. BAKER (NEPEAN-CARLETON)-PREMATURE RELEASE OF ESTIMATES
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, if it is in order I would like to proceed with my comments concerning the question of privilege raised yesterday by my colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). Hon. members will recall that he indicated that if Your Honour found a prima facie case of privilege, he would move:
That the matter of the dissemination of details of the estimates through the news media before tabling of the estimates in this House be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
My arguments today will be designed to show that there is in fact such a prima facie case which would warrant you referring this matter to the House for a vote on whether it should be sent to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Yesterday, during the course of the debate, members of the government raised the question that perhaps what we were talking about was not in fact published.
Surely there will be no serious suggestion today that many of the essential ingredients of the estimates which we in this House have not yet seen, have been published; in fact, they have been on the front pages of various national newspapers. In short, I do not think I need plead that there is any question about publication. In fact, during question period, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) assured us that in his estimates there was a certain expenditure item amounting to some $5 million about which the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) had inquired. So clearly it is a public document now, but it still has not been tabled in the House.
First of all, what is the nature of this privilege? What has been of such a nature that it has affected the ongoing operations of each member of this House? What breach has been committed by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) whom I see walking out of the House now? Has he been guilty of gross negligence in the way he handled this secret document?
In short, Madam Speaker, my remarks will be designed to show the degree of secrecy that is required with respect to such budgetary papers. I will be showing the nature of the impropriety that has been committed by the President of the Treasury Board. I have used those words very deliberately, Madam Speaker, because from the precedents it appears to be very clear that if that type of situation can be shown, then there is indeed a question of privilege that should be put to the House.
Having said that very clearly, there can be no question that these matters have now been published. However, the specific detail that has been published may not be as clear to certain members.
For example, let me draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that a local television station, the CJOH "Newsline" program aired last night around midnight, gave specific details with respect to estimates which contemplated expenditures in the national capital area. These details were certainly not
known to me and, I presume, were not known to any member on this side of the House. Certainly none of us have been able to see the blue book which all of us are waiting to see. It included comments to the effect that the estimates contained an innovation, an additional $26.2 million allotted under the government's accommodation program. It went on to say:
There's a submission already before the cabinet to review the government's needs over the next five years. It means new government buildings so that the purchase and renovation of existing buildings in the country's major centres including Ottawa but there are no details. Among the projects definitely set for this year is a $730,000 letter carrier depot in Orleans.
The reason I am reading this into the record, Madam Speaker, is that this is partly what the question of privilege is about. The reason that these documents are to be kept secret before tabling in the House-and I shall read the precedents into the record subsequently-is to avoid the possibility of an unfair profit being made. Yet here is specific knowledge going out about buildings that are going to be built in the Ottawa area including a $730,000 letter carrier depot in Orleans.
The newscast went on to say:
Numerous energy improvements, what the government likes to call retrofits. The construction of a new virus lab at $1.9 million. A public information centre, $1.7 million, $6.8 million for the Rideau Centre, $12.8 million for the construction of a RCMP services building and $1.3 million for the rehabilitation and retrofit of the Rideau Falls generating station.
All of those items are a breach of cabinet secrecy rules. That is what occurred. Certainly those items, which presumably will be found in the blue book when we see it eventually, are not secret, they are openly being disclosed to members of this House generally. In reviewing the background as to the nature of this question of privilege I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that you consult a brief prepared in 1975 by the research branch of the Library of Parliament when the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections was considering a certain reference concerning one of the members of the House. This brief is entitled "Background Information on Government Secrecy, Financial Measures and Parliamentary Secretaries", prepared by Mr. Hugh Finsten, dated August 8, 1975. I will not read into the record all of the background research which this employee of the library has put into his brief, but I think it is very significant how much he has dramatized the importance of what we are speaking about today, which is this whole question of government secrecy. The author writes:
In the process of developing government policy and legislation, it is a general rule that information on specific matters is not to be disclosed until it is made public, either by the introduction of a bill in Parliament or a public statement by the minister concerned. This permits the government to make its revelations at the most opportune moment.
One aspect of this secrecy which pervades the decision-making process is the principle of cabinet solidarity. The deliberations of the cabinet are held in private and its proceedings are considered confidential. The theoretical basis for this is that "a cabinet decision is to advise the Queen, whose consent is necessary to its publication."
The quotation given is from Ivor Jennings' book on Cabinet Government, Cambridge, third edition, 1959, found on page 267.
February 26, 1981

To expand on that quote, we find in Mr. Jennings' work a very interesting observation concerning the nature of cabinet secrecy and cabinet minutes themselves. In due course, I will be pointing out that the estimates are a cabinet document. That is the nature of the estimates. That is why they must be guarded with the utmost secrecy. In his book at page 267, Mr. Jennings said this:
The cabinet deliberates in secret; its proceedings are confidential. The Privy Councillor's oath imposes an obligation not to disclose information; and the Officials Secrets Acts forbid the publication of cabinet as well as other official documents. But the effective sanction is neither of these. The rule is, primarily, one of practice. Its theoretical basis is that a cabinet decision is advice to the Queen, whose consent is necessary to its publication. Its practical foundation is the necessity of securing free discussion by which a compromise can be reached, without the risk of publicity for every statement made and every point given away.
A minister who resigns from the cabinet usually desires to make an explanation in Parliament.
I will come to that point a little later. It is customary for a minister, caught in the present position of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), to offer his resignation. I am quite surprised that the minister has not tendered his resignation to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), but perhaps if he is given an opportunity to speak in due course, he will indicate that he is prepared to take that step.
Let me continue with Mr. Finsten's brief as follows:
It is not merely to protect cabinet solidarity and the publication of government policy prematurely that secrecy is maintained. There is also the aspect of private gain resulting from advance knowledge of government policy.
That is the crux of what we are talking about today. For example, Mr. Jennings, in the work to which I have just referred, at page 110 of his book quotes from a decision found in Westminster's Hansard in which the spokesperson, speaking on behalf of the prime minister of the day, put this very interesting comment on the record:
-inasmuch as the secrets of the Government are specially in charge of cabinet ministers, no minister, and particularly, no cabinet minister, must in any circumstances put himself in a position where he is not able to be the complete guardian of those secrets in that there is any possibility of any private interests being served through a knowledge of those secrets.
Clearly, the President of the Treasury Board has put himself in that position. He failed to maintain a position where he was the complete guardian of the secrets which had been entrusted to him.
What is the nature of the oath which the President of the Treasury Board took, and indeed all privy councillors take? Again, i would emphasize when we speak about impropriety, we must bear in mind that what happened yesterday was in direct violation of the oath of secrecy taken by every privy councillor, and presumably by this President of the Treasury Board. The oath, in part, reads:
-you will keep close and secret all such matters as shall be treated, debated and resolved on in Privy Council, without publishing or disclosing the same or any part thereof, by word, writing, or any otherwise to any person out of the same council, but to such only as be of the council, and yet if any matter so propounded, treated and debated in any such Privy Council, shall touch any particular person, sworn of the same council upon any such matter as shall in any wise concern his loyalty and fidelity to the Queen's Majesty, you will in no wise open the same to him, but keep it secret, as you would from any person, until the Queen's Majesty's pleasure be known in that behalf.
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
In effect, what that oath required the President of the Treasury Board to do was to keep in his custody, and guarantee that custody, the information contained in the estimates until the Queen's message is received by you in this House. Subsequent to the Queen's message being received, then, of course, the minister would have been free to table the estimates and make whatever disclosure, once having tabled the estimates, as he saw fit.
Let us be practical. We all know there have been lock-ups, we all know there have been pre-briefings, but up to this point, whatever the lock-up was, sufficient precautions have always been taken to ensure that no leak occurred, such as occurred yesterday. That is what is so different about this situation and other such situations which occur.
In short, I have determined, after some questioning, that on budget night, for example, it is customary really to have two briefing sessions prior to the budget being formally introduced by a minister of finance in this House. The first is a briefing session for the press on the understanding that nothing is to go out from the press corps until the minister rises in his place in the House and commences to deliver his budget. That is understandable. The press are given an opportunity-and in no way are we saying that they should not be given such an opportunity-to consider the budget beforehand so that presumably they can muster their thoughts, develop their line of reasoning, and write their stories. But the important thing is not to publish it by putting it on any wire or communicating with the outside world-


Madam Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member to ask him to restrict himself to discussing the question of privilege. Whatever the hon. member is complaining about concerning the press does not touch on the privilege. I must remind him that privilege is defined as follows. In discussing the question, we must discuss whether freedom of speech has been impeded, whether it concerns freedom from arrest or molestation or freedom of access. Those are the matters that have to be discussed in a question of privilege.
I ask hon. members to keep very close to that. Otherwise it will be impossible, with the arguments made in the House, for the Chair to look at the question on its merits. Usually members are allowed to speak in order that the Chair can be better informed. In making their arguments, hon. members have a responsibility to stick to the strict question of privilege and not discuss the substance of the matter as though a motion were before the House, the Chair having already recognized that there is a case of privilege.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, granted, in such complicated matters as the one before us today it is difficult always to be sure that our particular points fit into the mosaic to which yon were referring. It is important that we understand that to mean that, in addition to the privileges to which you have referred, one of the most sacred rights we have in Parliament is the right to examine the government's expenditure plans.

February 26, 1981
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
Our activities as Members of Parliament are being restricted to the degree the secrecy provisions are being broken, as I am demonstrating, and press comment is allowed. Members of Parliament are supposed to have the primary right to see these estimates at the first disclosure from a member of the cabinet. We are denied access to the same information which the press is distributing from coast to coast. I find it hard to see a more clear infringement of the privileges of members of this House.
In order to support my case, I was trying to demonstrate that there are all kinds of precedents to these secrecy provisions and what would be the consequence of secrecy being broken. I am relating the present situation to what happens on budget night. On budget night the budgetary process commences. I intend to put on record where Treasury Board and the tabling of the estimates fits into the whole budgetary process. Your Honour will find, on reading the precedents, that the situation is very clear when a budget is involved. It is less clear in the case of the estimates which, of course, are part of the budgetary process.


Madam Speaker:: I will interrupt the hon. member to say this. I would like him to distinguish between the rules which apply to government and its practice as the government and the executive and the rules which apply to this Parliament. What we are discussing now is not the way that privilege is defined for Members of Parliament. The hon. member must prove to me that his own privilege has been breached. The Chair cannot rule on what rules apply to the government. If there is some discrepancy between the rules and what a minister or several ministers might have done, that is not the concern of the Chair. What is the concern of the Chair is whether the privileges of a member of this Parliament have been breached.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I do not want to take the time of the House to repeat the arguments made by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), but very clearly the thrust of our remarks is that there is a contempt of Parliament here. The precedents show that if contempt of Parliament is demonstrated, in fact, or at least in a prima facie sense, there can be no question that there is a question of privilege.
Contempt of Parliament is shown by the fact that estimates were not tabled first in this Parliament and did not go through the normal parliamentary process before being made public. That has not occurred in this instance. As I indicated earlier, there has been extensive publication of the estimates. That is a breach of the secrecy provisions which generally ensure that this type of contempt of Parliament does not occur.
In building my case to show why contempt of Parliament has occurred, naturally I have to point out why it does not normally occur. The reason is that the cabinet minister involved lives by his oath and does not breach the secrecy provisions which he swore to uphold.
Having said that, it is important that we review, as I was doing, the question of what happens in fact on budget night. There are all kinds of precedents to show that if the minister of finance of the day does what the President of the Treasury
Board did yesterday, there is absolutely no question but that he should offer his resignation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The process of this House is, first of all, to make a prima facie case, in the hope that Your Honour will find that there is such a prima facie case. Then, hopefully, the House votes to have the matter referred to the appropriate committee, at which time a complete airing of the matter can take place. That is what we ask.
If we want to refer to the precedents, we find that if it can be demonstrated that there has, in fact, been a breach of the privileges not only of mine but of those of other members of this House, it constitutes contempt of Parliament. I suggest, when we review the various authorities dealing with similar leaks or breaches of security, that contempt goes right back to the British North America Act. For example, we find that Section 54 of the British North America Act requires that measures requiring the spending of public funds must be introduced by the cabinet to this House. That did not happen yesterday. What happened was that the public had access to the spending plans of this government through the media before this House did.
The close control which is normally exercised by the cabinet-and I emphasize that it was not properly exercised yesterday-thus brings financial measures within the shield of cabinet secrecy and cabinet solidarity. Moreover, among the most sacrosanct of government documents is the annual budget. In fact, it is considered so confidential that even the cabinet colleagues of the minister of finance are not made aware of the budget proposals until shortly before its presentation in Parliament, and even then they are often provided only with the general outline.
Madam Speaker, it will be evident that if any information about government activity in the fields of planning, development, investment, etc., becomes known to private individuals, large profits could be made. Why, then, should they be considered any less serious a breach of secrecy than a leak of the contents of the budget?
I would refer you, Madam Speaker, in that connection, to a departmental committee on Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act that is referred to in the United Kingdom, Franks committee. In that document it is stated:
Governments take particular precautions to maintain the secrecy of the budget, of their fiscal changes and of changes in the bank rate. These precautions include the rigid restriction of who may have access to such information, which is usually the most effective form of protection. These matters are traditionally included in any catalogue of secret, official information.
Madam Speaker, having said that, I would point out that the Treasury Board and, in short, the President of the Treasury Board, is very much a part of this budgetary process. In a document prepared by the Treasury Board secretariat communications division in 1979, this is how the Treasury Board describes its own function. It states:
February 26, 1981

The Treasury Board of Canada is a committee of cabinet, consisting of the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance and four other cabinet ministers appointed from time to time by the Governor in Council. The responsibilities of the Treasury Board, which have been delegated to it by the Privy Council, are set out in the Financial Administration Act. To discharge them, the Treasury Board relies on two administrative bodies: the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Office of the Comptroller General.
This document, Madam Speaker, goes on to describe how they function within those parameters. They point out that the Treasury Board was created by the Second Order in Council in Canada on July 2, 1867, and that the Treasury Board secretariat was part, initially, of the Department of Finance. It was part of the Department of Finance until 1966, when it became a separate department through the Government Organization Act.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should stop to recognize that he is debating just as though there was a motion before the House. I would like him, in the interest of the affairs of the House, to keep to the point of demonstrating the privilege. I do plead with him to do that. We have been quite a while on this question of privilege now, and I have no intention of hearing him for a long time unless he keeps to the point that is useful to me, as Speaker of the House, so that I can rule on this question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: Do you understand?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I thank you. If, in effect, you are ready to rule that you think there is a prima facie case, of course we have made our case and I do not have to continue any further with what, I think, is very substantive evidence to show that, judging from the precedents we have been able to review, there is a very clear contempt of Parliament in what happened as a result of yesterday's actions of the President of the Treasury Board.
Without reading into the record specific references, 1 would refer you to the seminar on the budgetary process held in Ottawa on Friday, November 18, 1977. There they have an Annex "A" that goes through the importance of this whole question to which I have been referring. It goes on for several pages that I think will give you a great deal of assistance concerning what is the United Kingdom experience and experiences in various other jurisdictions.
Our position is that not only was there the publication of these estimates, as I have said, but essentially many newspapers dealt with this matter. I have there the The Toronto Star that had the information from a separate source: they did not use the Canadian Press. Bob Hepburn, of the The Toronto Star, filed his own story. Madam Speaker, we have been given to understand that many papers across the country literally filed these kinds of stories at a time when this House did not have their rightful first-possession of the estimates, as they should have been tabled in the House prior to the minister disclosing the information to the public.
Let me touch specifically on that, Madam Speaker. There is some question as to what is "publishing". The dictionary says that to publish is to make generally known; to make known to
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
a third party; to announce formally; to promulgate. That is exactly what the President of the Treasury Board did yesterday. Going back to one of the initial references that I put on the record, what the President of the Treasury Board failed to do was to guard the secret information that was in his possession.
As ministerial responsibility is ingrained in our system, when there is such a breach, the minister must accept the responsibility, he must resign and there must be a reference, I suggest, to the appropriate committee to find out if, indeed, our prima facie case is established that there has been, in truth, a contempt of this Parliament. Thank you, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I want to spend a very few moments on this question of privilege to add to Your Honour's ammunition in this respect. My comments are based upon whether or not the privileges of myself, yourself and any member of this House of Commons have, in fact, been breached. I think that is a germane direction to give us and I think it is a very important consideration for us in terms of your consideration.
I hope to demonstrate, by dealing very specifically for a short period of time, that indeed what we have today is a very serious prima facie breach of the privileges of members of the House of Commons and a matter that should be accepted by you on that basis for reference, full deliberation and full discussion and investigation by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Perhaps I could put it in a little different way, Madam Speaker. I think my colleague, the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), has made reference to the fact that there has been publication of this information prior to the time when the matter has been formally brought to the attention of the House of Commons. In essence, what has transpired-and I do not wish to dwell on the facts of the situation, but I have to do so to the extent of making my point-is that we in the House of Commons as yet have not received the formal estimates approved by cabinet; so we are not, in effect, on notice. We have no formal or official notice of what exactly is contained in those estimates.
The fact of the matter is that there has been-and this is acknowledged by the President of the Treasury Board-publication of the estimates in newspapers across the country, including the Toronto Globe and Mail this morning, and the The Toronto Star, to which reference was made by my colleague the hon. member for York-Peel. There has been publication through wire services, and although the caution was put on the wire services' copy to guard against premature release, the fact of the matter is that there was, in fact, publication at law. If you examine the legal precedents with respect to the definition of "publication", you will find that publication involves the conveying of information, not in a general sense of newspaper publications but to any other third party, as my colleague from York-Peel has pointed out. What

February 26, 1981
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
I wanted to do was simply to bring this point to your attention, Madam Speaker, as a point that I think is very germane and relevant to the question of privilege.
We in the House of Commons, as Your Honour will know, have a responsibility that is rather twofold traditionally, historically and in parliamentary terms. One part is, of course, to examine government legislation and government initiatives. The second, and equally important function of the House of Commons, is the control of expenditures of the government. This whole process does involve a number of steps: one is the budgetary process; the second is that involving the tabling of the government's spending plans in the estimates.
While we have changed the procedures with respect to the consideration of those estimates over the years, as Your Honour will note from personal experience, going from a Committee of the Whole system to a system of reference to specific standing and special committees for consideration, the principle still obtains: Parliament must be seized with the initial responsibility of having information at first-hand. Second, having been seized with the government's spending estimates, the House of Commons must then proceed within a specific period of time to pass on those estimates. What makes this privilege more important is this. A great many people watching this debate, may be wondering, why it is so important.


An hon. Member:: That's right.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The ramifications of premature publication are enormous in terms of the consequences on the markets of our country and in terms of information relied upon by the citizens of this country on the basis of reports other than the formal filing in the House of Commons.
This is a matter of some historical consequence and importance. The rules do not exist to make the government bow especially to the House of Commons or the institution of Parliament. The realistic situation is that until the estimates are formally filed, they are nothing other than a mere document. People who act on information in documents before they are filed do so at their peril.
I want to make two points with respect to this situation. First, I am sure Your Honour would find a breach of privilege by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) or the government if estimates were never tabled, that is to say, if the minister decided in this television era that all he had to do would be to give the estimates to the press in a lock-up and explain the government's plans for spending and hold Parliament in suspension without going through the process of referring the estimates to Parliament.
That is exactly the point which is to be made in this situation. The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) is sitting over there at the back in anguish. No matter what he wants to make of this, that is the point I want to make. If the government decided simply to publish its spending plans in the newspapers, that would be a clear breach of the
privileges of every member of this House of Commons. I ask Your Honour to look at that general proposition and at what I contend to be an extension of that argument. Either willy-nilly, by design or by practice the government is giving this information out and publishing it. No matter what members on the government side say, it is the responsibility of the minister to protect the interests of members of the House of Commons in this instance. This information has been published across this country. Members of the House of Commons have not yet been officially presented with this information. It has not been filed. I do not care if it is a matter of one hour, 24 hours or 24 days; the principle is still there. The government has allowed, by neglect or design-and I make no comment on that- information contained in the estimates to be published, and the House of Commons has still not been presented with that information.
The second point I want to make is that members of the House of Commons were denied access to this information before it was tabled. That practice has developed. There is a lock-up before submission. I sometimes wonder whether that particular practice is not in itself against the traditions of Parliament and the House of Commons, but the fact is that in this particular instance Members of Parliament were denied access to this particular information.
I want to ask a rhetorical question. Let us assume that the government, in its beneficence, allowed mere members of the opposition to go into that lock-up. Let us assume that I, as one of those members of the House of Commons, went into the lock-up and looked over the estimates for a period of two or three hours. Let us also assume that some time before the document was tabled in this House 1 went out and either sold or gave away the information contained in those estimates.


An hon. Member:: Who would buy it?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If I as a member of the House of Commons did that, I do not think there is any question that I would be guilty of a breach of the privileges of members of the House of Commons, and I would be liable to account for that action. I think that is a very valid point. I think we have to develop that particular analogy. What has happened here is that on the basis of its practice, tradition, or whatever we want to call it, this government has allowed the press to get this information. Perhaps we have become a little too lax in the way in which we deal with these very important documents with respect to government expenditure and government budgets, but there are reasons for these things. There are reasons why we have these rules. We do not have them for the sake of making members of the House of Commons larger people on the national stage. There are valid reasons in terms of the operation of government.
One way or the other, there has been publication prior to the time the matter has been formally put before the House of Commons, and I consider that to be a breach of my privilege. Under what basis of curious logic should everybody else in the country be able to have access to and an explanation of the government's spending program and the legislators be the last
February 26, 1981

people to have access to that information on an informal basis? That is an incredible situation.


Mr. McRae:: You won't let us.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Now members on the government side want to curtail our ability to speak up on a matter of privilege, and I resent that very much because I have a right, as much as any other member, including the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, to stand here and question the integrity of the actions of the government and to ask Your Honour to look at the rights and privileges of your fellow Members of Parliament in the carrying out of their functions and duties.
Publication means a number of things. It means that perceptions and points of view are put across through briefings by departmental officials in properly carrying out their functions, but this tends to diminish the ability of the individual Member of Parliament to debate on the floor of the House. I think that is exactly the point Your Honour was asking about. How are the rights of the individual Member of Parliament affected by this action? I simply submit that my ability to deal properly with the spending estimates has been severely diminished by the premature and haphazard publication of regional reviews of what particular rights and benefits will accrue or what obligations will accrue to particular areas of this country. That is where the member of Parliament is affected. This is not a hypothetical discussion or an academic discussion. This is a discussion about the rights of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, the hon. member for Saskatoon West, the hon. member for York-Peel and the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) to carry out their responsibilities properly.
Today we still have not had this matter before us, and yet it has been published, or extracts of it have been published across the country.
I will conclude simply by making those two points. One is that there is no question that, by virtue of the fact that the government publishes before it tables, it is in breach of the traditional rules of the House of Commons and Parliament and of the privileges of each and every Member of Parliament. Second, by delivering this information and allowing it on whatever basis, accidentally or by design-I make no distinction here because I do not know what went through the mind of the President of the Treasury Board in this connection-and publishing this information widely before members of the House of Commons are officially in receipt of the information, the government severely diminishes our ability to assess properly and discuss the estimates which are apparently to be tabled in the House.


Paul Edmund McRae: Madam Speaker, I do not recall any time in this House when I have been as angry as I have been in the last 24 hours. My anger results from the fact that my rights in this Parliament have been abridged.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Hear, hear!
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker


Paul Edmund McRae: I listened all yesterday afternoon to an absolute filibuster on the part of the opposition so that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) could not get the floor. Then hon. members opposite had the unmitigated gall to say we were in some way responsible for not getting the estimates tabled. I will say it again; I have never been as angry in this House as I am now. Many situations like this have developed. I remember that on February 6, the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) came in here and gave notice of a spurious question of privilege. I have seen no record indicating that he raised it the next week. He used about ten minutes of the time of the House just to do that. I was prevented from giving a full speech, which I had intended to give. It is hyprocrisy for the Tory party, the official opposition in the House, to say that we are in any way, responsible for that document not being delivered. That is something I cannot accept.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I rise on the point of privilege which is now being discussed. I will not be lengthy because I do not want to increase the anger of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae). Even his anger must give way to the privileges of members of this House. It is easy to understand why he has not often been angry in this House. It is because he has not often been in the opposition and been subjected to the contemptible treatment the opposition receives from members of the government.
What I want to refer to first is that we are discussing not only the conduct of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) on this question of privilege but we are also discussing the conduct of the government House leader, who was the one who actually compounded the contempt of Parliament and the breach of privilege by authorizing at 6.40 p.m. last night that the public information on the estimates should be released. He can deny this, of course. If he does deny it, then I will believe him. But I would like to cite one article from the Gazette of February 26. The article reads in part:
Government House leader Yvon Pinard authorized publication of the estimates anyway.
That is exactly-


Yvon Pinard: The hon. member just mentioned that if I were to deny that he would accept my word. I formally deny it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, naturally I will accept the government House leader's word and say that the Canadian Press, the Montreal Gazette and a host of other news agencies across this country will have to explain why they took the name of the government House leader in vain by stating that he authorized the release and told them to go ahead. In this article from the Montreal Gazette it is stated that the Government House Leader authorized publication. The article then deals with the President of the Treasury Board and it states:
-he regarded the embargo as still in force.
This afternoon in the Senate Senator Perrault said that as far as the government is concerned the embargo remains in

February 26, 1981
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
effect with respect to detailed information on the estimates, although it has not been observed by certain sectors of the media. Consequently, he could not answer questions on the estimates. This is another strong argument, Madam Speaker, why you should find that a prima facie case exists so that this matter can go to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Let the facts be established.
Why should every news media say that release of this information was granted to them by the government House leader if he did not do it? The government House leader says he did not do it, so there must be some kind of mix up. Who did it? In any event, we know that due to the gross negligence of the President of the Treasury Board, information on the estimates went out over the Canadian Press wires after 3.45 p.m. We know that the information went to their clients in the news business. We know that it went to certain embassies, including the embassy of the United States of America. That is certainly publication of the estimates.
Your Honour might ask what the difference is if this went out. The difference is, Madam Speaker, that people had information in their hands which was not available to the rest of the world until all of this information was released by somebody, the press in any event, at 6.40 p.m. Therefore, a number of things could happen. For example, do the estimates show that the government will really battle inflation? Is it reducing the deficit for 1981-82 in some meaningful manner? A look at the estimates would reveal that, no, it is not serious about inflation. So, one would have to take that into consideration with what will happen to the Canadian dollar, what will happen with interest rates and that kind of thing. That is the kind of information which went out to certain privileged persons at 3.45 yesterday afternoon, which other persons did not receive until after 6.40 p.m.
I would like to refer to the same article prepared by the research branch of the Library of Parliament which was cited by the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). I am looking now at page 25:71 where the importance attached to financial measures is being discussed. Financial measures do not just include the budget speech which was brought down on budget night, in this case on October 28. Financial measures include tax legislation, changes in the Excise Tax Act, the Customs Act, etc. It is the estimates which carry out the expenditure side of the budget plan as presented on budget night. This is all part of the budgetary process. I quote from the article:
On the spending side, the BN A Act requires that measures involving the spending of public funds be introduced by the cabinet.
I emphasize "introduced by the cabinet". This is the first place they are to be introduced. They are not to be introduced to the public or the media in a secret lock-up held in Room 200 of the West Block. As I understand it, you, Madam Speaker, representing us, the members of the House of Commons of Canada control Room 200 in the West Block. Yet that part of the parliamentary premises was used by the President of the Treasury Board to bring in a certain favoured group of people-the media of Canada or their representatives-to give them information on the estimates. This is part
of the budgetary process, part of the financial measures which he was to introduce into the House of Commons. He excluded members of the House and, as a result of his actions, his lack of care and concern, his contempt for the members of this House, at 3.45 p.m. yesterday afternoon this information went over the wires to a number of news and radio stations across the country. At 6.40 p.m. because of somebody's additional negligence-it is alleged to be that of the government House leader who denies it-the rest of the world received the information. Therefore, we want to have the facts established. Is the government House leader right? Of course, I accept what the government House leader says as being correct. But I do not think the Montreal Gazette will. I do not think the Canadian Press will. I do not think they just made it up, so there must be some explanation.
Returning to the document which I cited from before, it goes on to read:
The close control exercised by the cabinet thus brings financial measures within the shield of cabinet secrecy and cabinet solidarity.
Further on in the document it is stated:
Today, the budget is not delivered until the stock markets have closed across the country.
The stock markets were not closed yesterday afternoon at 3.45 p.m. when this information went out over the wires. The stock exchange does not close until 4 p.m. in Toronto. It does not close until several hours later in Vancouver.


Donald James Johnston: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.


John Carnell Crosbie: A point of order! It is a point of shame when you get up.


Donald James Johnston: Would the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) entertain a brief, simple question?


Mr. Beatty:: On a question of privilege?


Madam Speaker:: It is not at all usual. 1 would prefer if the hon. minister would, instead, rise on a point of order, if he has one. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) can answer the question if he consents. It really is not usual procedure.


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not want to take much time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What a joker!


John Carnell Crosbie: I would entertain-


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Two members cannot have the floor at the same time. The two hon. gentlemen are standing. I am asking the hon. member for St. John's West if he will entertain a question?
February 26, 1981


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I will outside. I will try to counsel the President of the Treasury Board outside. 1 cannot do it in this place because I do not want to be too lengthy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I would like to proceed with my reading of this article:
In Britain, at least two ministers have had to resign as a result of breaches in the security curtain. In the case of Hugh Dalton, Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1947, a "premature and unpremeditated disclosure" was made to a newspaperman shortly before the budget was to be presented.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I do have to be enlightened on this question of privilege. I would ask the hon. member to answer this question. If it is true, and the hon. member is exposing facts whereby ministers have had to resign because of some breach in the rules which apply to members of the government, in the case he is citing, did this hon. minister also resign from the House? What we are discussing here are breaches in the rules of the House, not of government procedure or administrative procedure. We are speaking of the rules of this House. I would like the hon. member to address himself to that point. If the minister he mentioned resigned from the cabinet, that is one thing. But I would like to know if, as a consequence, he had to resign from the House.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, in the particular case of Mr. Hugh Dalton, he did not resign from the House, he resigned from the cabinet, as should a gentleman who understands the parliamentary system. Because his breach of the privileges of Parliament was unpremeditated, he was not required to resign his seat. Mr. Dalton was on his way into the House at that time and he bumped into a newspaperman whom he knew. He just happened to make a remark which tipped off the newspaperman as to a certain tax which was to go up. He was not required to resign his seat.
It would be up to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to decide whether the President of the Treasury Board should resign his seat as a member of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I would hope that they would exercise some discretion or mercy in that respect. I would not want to have the hon. gentleman resign his seat in the House if he now makes a clear breast of the matter and promises not to do it again. But, yes, from the cabinet he should go.
I should just like to conclude my quotation from this document. The following page reads:
It would seem evident that if any information about government activity in the fields of planning, development, investment, etc. becomes known to private individuals, large profits could be made.
That is why this secrecy is so important. It continues:
Governments take particular precautions to maintain the secrecy of the budget, of their fiscal changes, and of changes in the bank rate.
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
The estimates which are to be introduced to this House are fiscal changes. They are clearly within the rules set out in the document cited by my hon. friend and also in the report of the departmental committee which sat in London in 1972.
Also I should like to refer to a precedent in our own House. Just after I brought down the budget on December 11, 1979, which brought down the House, a question of privilege was raised with respect to an alleged budgetary leak. I should like to refer Your Honour to the Wednesday, December 12, 1979, edition of Hansard at page 2283 where the now Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) raised a question of privilege. He said:
Such practice is based on the principle that no individual, whoever he may be, must know in advance the details of a budget which he could use for personal gains.
I submit that the budget is a budgetary process. The details of expenditures, the total government spending, the amount of the deficit for the coming year, what the interest charges are to be on the budget, what the government's fiscal stance is, are they really practising restraint or not, are they following what they said in the budget, are all part of the same process.
Then the minister alleged that there was a leak of information in connection with the budget in a CTV broadcast. He went on in his remarks to deal with that situation. Then he moved the following motion:
That the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be instructed to investigate the advance knowledge by journalists and others of measures to be proposed in the budget, including proposed changes in corporate and commodity taxes, in advance of the delivery of the budget-
That was the essence of his motion. Here we are discussing knowledge by journalists and others. We know who the others are; there are thousands of others who had advance knowledge of measures proposed in the estimates of this government, a large part of the budget.
Also on that question of privilege, as the minister of finance of the day, I naturally spoke in response to that motion. I said that I did not take any responsibility for any leak of budgetary information, and in fact there was no leak. That was my response to that question of privilege. It was a flat statement of fact that there was no leak, and I would take no responsibility for it because there had not been a leak.
Your Honour's predecessor made a decision, as reported at page 2287 of Hansard. He said:
When the Minister of Finance at any time stands in his place and says, as he has said today, that there is no leak, that he has examined and attempted to discover whether there was and finds none, and therefore does not take responsibility for one and, furthermore, disputes the fact that one in fact took place, that word must be accepted.
That is not the situation here. We have a situation here where the President of the Treasury Board cannot stand in his place and say there is no leak. He cannot do that. There has been a gigantic leak. It is not a leak; it is a veritable flood. The news media of this country was given all of this information before the House was given it. So he cannot say that there is no leak. There was a leak from 3.45 yesterday afternoon and subsequent to that. There was a leak which, the news media alleged, was aided and abetted by the government House leader who, they say, gave them permission to go ahead at 6.40

February 26, 1981
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
p.m. with publication. He has not said that he examined and attempted to discover whether there was one and finds none. He cannot say he was not responsible for one. He arranged the lock-up. The President of the Treasury Board arranged a lock-up for the press only at eleven o'clock yesterday morning in the precincts of this Parliament.
I point out that ruling to show Your Honour that we have an entirely different situation. The Speaker of the day went on to say:
I cannot find on the face of the motion, as I am being asked to find, that there has been a publication-
Your Honour can take judicial knowledge of the fact that it was in every paper of the country, that it was on television news broadcasts, radio broadcasts, and it appeared in The Toronto Star which was brought before the House this afternoon. So, there is no question about publication.
In conclusion, why is this important? Why does this have any importance, apart altogether from the fact that some people might have been able to take advantage of having some advance knowledge, a few hours of advance knowledge, before the rest of the public with respect to this matter? It is important for this reason. It is part of the pattern of conduct which Your Honour has observed in this Parliament since we came back here in the winter of 1980. It is part of the course of conduct by the government. If Your Honour does not stop it, then we on this side of the House cannot hope to have any effect whatsoever or to be treated with any of the normal parliamentary courtesies. We have seen this happen week after week. It is part of a process of making statements outside the House and refusing to make them in the House. It is part of a process which was brought out in a question of privilege by my hon. colleague the other day with respect to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray). It is part of a process which was demonstrated in the question of privilege yesterday, which took up 1.5 hours, by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) with respect to the rights of members of this House to represent their districts. One of the traditions of this House is that these financial measures should be introduced here first before they are given to any outside body.
It has become the custom in the last few years to have lock-ups for members of the press to help them inform the public, but it has also been the practice, when the media has been informed so that they can better inform the public, that the members on this side of the House are also informed so that we can carry out our function and respond to the estimates, the budget, or whatever it is, once it is tabled in this House and becomes public knowledge.
But if the President of the Treasury Board can decide that he will enlighten the news media, that he will give his version to the news media and the public of Canada, and he will not permit us to examine what he is doing until he actually tables it in the House, then surely it is a contempt of this House for him to be permitted to have a lock-up of the news media or anyone else in advance of this information being presented to the House.
It is part of a process whereby members of the House are treated with contempt. We are treated as nothing when we are treated as though there were no parliamentary tradition, when we are treated as though the government did not care so long as our question of privilege did not meet the technical qualifications of privilege. Of course, a question of privilege is extremely technical in any event, but as long as they can stay outside the narrow, technical confines of the laws of Parliament, it is in order.
Now we have the President of the Treasury Board, of whom we expect better, a gentleman learned in the law but already flawed by the arrogance of his government in his few short months in office, treating members of the House in that way.
All Madam Speaker has to find is that there is a prima facie case. In my opinion, this is clearly not an open and shut case. I would ask Your Honour to exercise your discretion and send this matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Let them establish the facts; let them decide what the rules should be. Otherwise, we can forget budgetary secrecy, we can forget that whole process, because anything will go and there will be no rules to deal with it at all.


Madam Speaker:: I will now hear one speaker from the New Democratic Party, and then I will decide whether I have heard enough on this question.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, certainly I will be brief, given that this matter has taken a considerable length of time. I must say, like many members who have spoken, that I have been disturbed over the course of the time I have been here by the practice ministers have followed of making important statements outside the House. However, this does not constitute a breach of my privilege. Sometimes I wish it did, but it does not.
What Your Honour has before you is a difficult question. There are three questions to be dealt with, as I see them.
First, is the release of the estimates prior to tabling a breach of our privilege? If you were to decide, upon reflection, that it is a breach of our privilege, the second question then must be: Is the method currently in use to protect the secrecy of the statements adequate? If you were to decide, upon reflection, that the answer to that question is no, then what further action must be taken?
I think those are the three questions which must be answered.
First, I want to say that there is a distinction between a budget, on the one hand, and the estimates, on the other. The reason for the secrecy of the budget documents is to guarantee that no one can profit from prior knowledge of the content and changes in the budget. When you compare that with the estimates, there is some distinction. It is somewhat more difficult to see where profit could be made from prior knowledge of the estimates, since there is no requirement that the government move any bill or motion on the estimates as a
February 26, 1981

matter of ongoing practice. Therefore, the estimates could be introduced to the House at any time. It would be very difficult to present a case that a person who is not connected with the House of Commons, having information of what is contained in the estimates hours or moments in advance of its introduction, could make a substantial profit.
The second point is one which concerns me greatly, and that is the current method used in protecting the secrecy of the budget and the estimates. The lock-up process that we currently have in place is fundamentally flawed and inadequate. 1 want to suggest to the ministers through you, Madam Speaker, that if they decide to use the lock-up process and give advance confidential information to the press or to Members of Parliament, they must guarantee that these individuals remain in the lock-up until the minister rises.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Ian Deans: That is the practice which is followed in other jurisdictions, and that is the tradition followed in the Mother of Parliaments. Therefore, I suggest that the practice we follow-I, myself, have been involved in adjuring the most recent budget-of inviting both members of the press and members of the opposition to a pre-budget briefing, and then to allow any or all of them to leave before the minister rises to begin the delivery, is a flaw in the system. If the minister believes-and he may or may not do so-and if you, Madam Speaker, believe-and you, of course, will tell us shortly-that the estimate papers are confidential until such time as the minister rises, then the entire process is wrong, and the minister must then accept the responsibility for the fact that the press were permitted to leave the lock-up in advance of his tabling the documents.
However, if you come to the conclusion that the budget is somewhat different from the estimates and that there is no opportunity for individuals to profit from advance knowledge, then the minister-though his action is perhaps unacceptable to members of the opposition, and maybe even members of his own party, in terms of sharing government information in advance, of making it public to the general public-if you were to decide that that is the case, then I can only say that you must rule that there is no actual breach of privilege.
The information that government decides to give to the opposition, and the way in which it is given, is frequently inadequate. The member who just spoke, the former minister of finance, the member for St. John's East-


An hon. Member:: West.


Ian Deans: St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), thank you-is expressing a frustration that many people feel: that ministers do not treat the House of Commons with the respect which it deserves.
I think that in your deliberations, Madam Speaker, you might give some thought to whether or not there are occasions when ministers should bring their statements to the House in advance of holding press conferences, because not doing so
Privilege-Mr. Blenkarn
adds to the level of frustration and acrimony in the House of Commons. God knows, we do not need any more than we have. It makes the opposition suspicious of the government's motives, and it creates a sense of ill-will which does this country no good.
We are discussing more than a question about the procedure used by the minister. I am annoyed by it, and I think it is inappropriate. It would have been better to have had a proper lock-up with members of the opposition and members of the press present. That would have been the prudent and sensible thing to do.
If a lock-up is necessary, I think that it should extend to the point where the minister rises to table the documents. If that had been the case, this debate would never have occurred.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: He is just incompetent.


Ian Deans: In the interest of not compounding the matter further, I think that we should stop the debate and let the minister table the documents so that we do not make an even greater mess of an already unacceptable situation.


Madam Speaker:: I am going to inform the hon. members now that I feel that this consideration of the question of privilege has taken quite a lot of time; but that is not the point. The point is that I feel that I am sufficiently informed. The arguments are becoming repetitive, which is an indication to me that most of the points have probably been made. I quite understood the points made by five hon. members from the Conservative Party, one hon. member from the NDP. and in the three brief interventions from the other side. That is a sufficient number of speeches, not all of which were short, and I do feel that I have been sufficiently informed. I will take this matter under advisement and consider all of the arguments that the hon. members have submitted.


MR. BLENKARN-DENIAL OF ACCESS TO PRESS LOCK-UP BY DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, earlier today I advised you of a matter which I thought was a question of privilege, and it was in connection with the use of the Houses of Parliament.
Yesterday, I attended at room 200 at eleven o'clock in the morning. Mr. Sproat and Mr. Hardie-who I understand are employees of the Treasury Board, and not employees of the House of Commons-barred my access to a room in this House of Commons. I was then accosted by Mr. Radborn- another employee of the minister of the Treasury Board and not an employee of the House of Commons, who phoned Mr. R. L. Richardson-who is apparently a deputy secretary of the Treasury Board, who then again denied me access to part of the House of Commons.
Madam Speaker, you are in charge of the House of Commons on behalf of Members of Parliament, and clearly you can assign to a Member of Parliament-whether or not that

February 26, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Blenkarn
Member of Parliament is a minister of the Crown-space and facilities in this House of Commons, and Parliament. However, that is not what happened. You may have made arrangements for the use of Room 200 by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) or a member of his staff; but neither the President of the Treasury Board nor his parliamentary secretary-or even a Member of Parliament-were in charge of that room. The only employees of the House of Commons present were the constables who look after the general security of that building. The people who denied me and my colleagues access to Room 200 were public servants who worked for a ministry and who have their offices elsewhere than in this House. The problem is that this minister and this government, in denying access to Parliament, are guilty of the same kind of thing as happened under the reign of Charles II.
Members of Parliament have been denied access to the facilities of Parliament by officers of the Crown. That goes to the fundamental principle of how the House of Commons, Parliament itself, is supposed to operate. The essence of the battle is that Parliament is a separate place; it is not part of the government. The government is a different thing than Parliament. Members of cabinet are often members of this House of Commons or members of the other place but that does not entitle them, other than in the course of their duties as members or as ministers of the Crown, to allow their public servants who run the departments of government to decide what Members of Parliament can or cannot do in the House of Commons. That is essentially what happened yesterday.
Without wasting the time of the House, Madam Speaker, or being accused of conducting a filibuster, I want to say that the essence of what happened yesterday is that Members of Parliament were denied access, and their privilege was interfered with, not by any Member of Parliament or an officer of Parliament who had assigned a particular room to a member of Parliament on your instructions through your service, but by officers of a ministry. That is wrong. That is a breach of the privileges of a Member of Parliament. On that basis. Madam Speaker, 1 would ask you to find that this matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Madam Speaker:: I think I can deal rather quickly with this question of privilege. I would say to the hon. member that whenever he asks me to let him have a room in which to conduct a meeting, to hold a reception of for whatever other reason the rooms in the House of Commons are used by members, he would be perfectly authorized to stop someone at the door in order to avoid having some people crash his party or attend a meeting to which they were not invited. I would have to assume that that person was there under his authority, even if that person was not a Member of Parliament. In the same way I would say that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) who asked me for a room and was given access to it, which is normal for any members of the House of
Commons, would have the right to determine to whom to give access to whatever business he was conducting in that room.
If, under the guise of that question of privilege, the hon. member-I would not say he wishes to make me decide whether or not a room of the House of Commons was used-is saying that I would have to rule on who should be invited to the lock-up, I am afraid I have to tell him that that is totally outside my purview.
I can therefore deal quite quickly with this question of privilege. I do not think there is one.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates with regard to sums required for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1982, was presented by hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Madam Speaker to the House.
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I am certain that my colleagues will allow me to introduce the following motion relating to the tabling of the main estimates.


REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES TO STANDING COMMITTEES
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I move, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 59, that the Main Estimates 1981-82 tabled this day be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows. Because the list is rather long and there is a detailed allocation of the estimates to the committees, if it is agreeable to the House, I ask the list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read.
[Editor's Note: The list referred to is as follows.]
That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982, Tabled on Wednesday, February 25, 1981, be referred to the several Standing Committees of the House as follows:
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture Agriculture Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 To the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture Communications Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, L25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90 and 95
Secretary of State Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence External Affairs Votes 1, 5, 10, LI5, L20, 25, 30, 35, L40, L45, L50, L55, L60, 65 and 70
National Defence Votes 1, 5, 10 and 15 To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs
February 26, 1981

Economic Development Vote 1 Finance Votes 1,5, 10, LI5, 25 and 30
Industry, Trade and Commerce Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, L35, L40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70 and 75 National Revenue Votes 1 and 5 Privy Council Vote 20
To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry Environment Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 Fisheries and Oceans Votes 1, 5 and 10 To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs Consumer and Corporate Affairs Votes 1 and 5 National Health and Welfare Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 Social Development Vote 1
To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, L45, L50, 55, L60, L65 and L70 To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Justice Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 Solicitor General Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration
Employment and Immigration Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 Labour Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 To the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services Parliament Vote 5
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates Finance Vote 20 Governor General Vote 1 Parliament Votes 1 and 10 Post Office Votes 1 and 5 Privy Council Votes 1,5, 15 and 25
Science and Technology Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 Secretary of State Vote 35 Supply and Services Votes 1, 5 and 10 Treasury Board Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works
Energy, Mines and Resources Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, L50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, L80, L85 and 90
Public Works Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, L65, L70, 75, 80, 85 and L90
To the Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines Economic Development Vote 5 To the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections Privy Council Vote 10
To the Standing Committee on Regional Development
Regional Economic Expansion Votes 1,5, 10, LI5, L20, 25, 30 and 35 To the Standing Committee on Transport Transport Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, L45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, L100, 105 and 110 To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs Veterans Affairs Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my only question with respect to that and on the agreement is whether the minister can assure me that the precedent on the reference follows the precedents of other years and that there is nothing unusual about it because I have not seen a copy of the reference, if he can do that, I am quite prepared to agree.
Estimates


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Madam Speaker. I am told that it is the usual motion. I will make sure that within seconds or minutes my colleagues have a copy. I am sorry it is not ready. It was not distributed, but we thought we were to table the estimates much later.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the minister can clarify for me if the estimates have been tabled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Weren't you here?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No, they have not.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council. Is it agreed that this motion be accepted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to make a statement following the tabling of the estimates which has taken an undue length of time. I am sorry that members of the opposition, of the Tory party, have played the role of des vierges offensees because 1 elected to follow the procedure which is the only procedure followed in the past with respect to the lock-up. I will undertake to ensure that in future the luncheon invitation will be extented to a greater number of members or that some other procedure is adopted in order to avoid the incredible inconvenience foisted upon us by the game that has been played in the past few days.
I find it interesting that the same members who have shown such concern about not attending a press lock-up, declined to accept an invitation from me several weeks ago when I offered to review the new form of the estimates with members of the opposition. Curiously enough, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) did not show up for that meeting, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) did not show up for that meeting, the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) did not show up for that meeting, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) did not come to the meeting and, needless to say, neither did the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) show up for that meeting.
Before 1 go to the substance of my comments, I would draw to the attention of the House that members opposite were aware last week that I was to table the estimates on February 25. I would point out that no one from either of the opposition parties requested a lock-up with respect to these estimates. The press lock-up has been a tradition. As you know, the press are subject to an embargo. I pointed out yesterday, and I point out again by way of introductory remarks, that the traditional procedures have been followed.

February 26, 1981
Estimates
The statement which I am about to make bears a close resemblance to some of the material which has appeared in a number of newspapers. It is somewhat with a sense of deja vu that I approach this task, but I insist that 1 should not be subject to any copyright infringement.


Walter David Baker: Dispense with the statement.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


Donald James Johnston: If I may, I will shorten the statement to a number of points in which members of the House will be interested.
For the first time, the estimates are contained in two parts. Part 1, entitled the "Government Expenditure Plan", is the new document of which I spoke when I tabled information on the new form of the estimates several weeks ago. Part 2 is the traditional blue book.
I would point out that the updated expenditure plan to 1983-1984, set out in part 1 of the estimates, provides for the same total spending level in 1981-1982 and the future years as was envisaged by my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), in his budget last October. The expenditure plan 1 have tabled today reflects a more detailed costing of departmental programs, as a result of the review leading to preparation of these main estimates because the material was not available at the time of the budget. I should note the detailed spending plan is based on the same set of assumptions about the Canadian economy as were presented in the budget. Further, the fiscal plan presented in October provided specifically for the adjustments of detail which have been reflected in these estimates.
Total spending of $67.6 billion in 1981-1982 is 12.8 per cent higher than last year's level. This rate of growth, while somewhat higher than over the past few years, is below 1980-1981 growth. Total spending is forecast to increase by about 10 per cent in the two planning years beyond 1981-1982. I would stress that these increases meet the government's continuing commitment to expenditure restraint. In the budget, the government reaffirmed its commitment to keep the growth in spending to less than the trend in the economy as a whole, and this spending profile set forth in these main estimates honours that pledge.
It is important for members to place the spending plans of this government within the context of the government's continuing commitment to restraint adopted in 1975. You will recall that government spending in the 1974-1975 period increased over the previous year by 28 per cent at a time when inflation was approximately 11 per cent. From that time on, major reforms have been progressively implemented to give effect to a rational policy of restraint to approach spending cuts with what I call the carving knife rather than the meat axe. It is in this spirit that we have initiated and carried forward the improvement in management practices and controls through the office of the Comptroller General. It is in this spirit that we have introduced the new policy and expenditure
management system. It is in this spirit that we have tightened up administrative practices so as to effectively address the problem of cost overruns on Crown projects, and it is also in this spirit that we have consistently, over the past several years, held the increase in authorized person-years to less than 1 per cent. In other words, our objective has been, and continues to be, to ensure that the taxpayers' dollars spent by the federal government are well spent, and that taxpayers receive value for money.
Last week, as members know, the President of the United States announced cuts in direct spending of $41.4 billion from the U.S. federal budget which will now be in the range of $700 billion for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1981, this together with a proposed tax cut totalling 30 per cent by mid-1984. The President has also proposed reforms to reduce regulation and red tape, as well as major changes in the depreciation allowances for business and industry to expedite modernization and research and development.
The U.S. administration has embarked upon what we in Canada already know to be a difficult, painful, and often frustrating exercise. And I cannot help but point out, when considering the President's program, that what the U.S. government proposes to do for three years we have been doing for the past seven.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Nonsense.


Donald James Johnston: Specifically, and this is for the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), the indexation of personal exemptions and personal tax brackets introduced in 1974 has had the effect of reducing the revenues of this government in 1980-1981 alone by $7.5 billion. I might add these are the numbers which appeared in the budget of the then minister of finance, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), in December, 1979. Moreover, the changes in depreciation allowances and the new proposals for research and development proposed by President Reagan, bring the U.S. federal tax system in this area very much in line with the one we have enjoyed in Canada for many years. And as far as regulatory reform is concerned, designed to reduce both the cost of government and the cost to the private sector, we are rapidly moving ahead with work programs across the federal government to achieve exactly the same objectives as those proposed by President Reagan. I announced those measures some time ago.
I can assure you that we will continue to apply the policy of fiscal restraint within the parameters and within the philosophy that I have outlined. Let me now turn to a brief review of the highlights of the 1981-1982 estimates.
The 1981-1982 main estimates provide for budgetary expenditures of $64.6 billion which is 11.6 per cent higher than budgetary expenditures in 1980-1981. The 1981-1982 main estimates also provide for loans, investments and advances of just over $1 billion. Total reserves of $3.6 billion have been included in the expenditure framework for 1981-1982 to cover adjustments to statutory and voted programs as well as new initiatives the government might wish to undertake during the
February 26, 1981

course of the year and any other unforeseen requirements. If all these reserves are used for supplementary estimates, total estimates at the end of 1981-1982 would be $69.2 billion. Two adjustments must then be made in reconciling total estimates to planned total spending of $67.6 billion. First, total estimates must be adjusted downward for repayments of previous years' loans that are not offset by new loans. The current estimate of these repayments is $544 million.
Second, since the government cannot legally spend more money than Parliament authorizes and, in fact, always spends less, an adjustment for this lapse of expenditure authority must be made. The current projection of the lapse for 1981-1982 is $1,064 billion.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, these estimates and the Government Expenditure Plan of which they form a part, clearly indicate that this government is meeting the concerns of Canadians in a number of areas. The estimates continue to provide for the indexation of payments to the elderly, to help them cope with the higher costs of living. They include funds to cover this government's commitments in the areas of social needs, regional development, housing, employment development and assistance to native peoples. They provide for assistance to farmers and industry to help cope with the changing economic times. The expenditure plan includes $2 billion in total over the three years to 1983-84 which has been identified to help promote economic development in western Canada. In 1981-82, $350 million of this total is provided for, and specific information on the allocation of these funds will be included in future supplementary estimates. Finally, the estimates and the government spending plan will go a long way toward meeting the concerns of Canadians in the field of energy. The main estimates include about $700 million in spending under the National Energy Program. Other aspects of national energy plan initiatives will be included in future supplementary estimates.
I would now like to turn to a discussion of the size of the public service, Mr. Speaker. Ministers of the Treasury Board approached the growing demands for increased person-years with fairness but with a determination to keep over-all increases to less than one per cent. I am pleased to report that we achieved these objectives while at the same time not compromising the effective delivery of government services to the public. Members will note that substantial increases in person-years were made in some departments for that purpose. In particular, I would draw your attention to increases accorded the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The 1981-82 main estimates provide for 315,680 authorized person-years. This is an increase of 3,085 or just under one per cent from last year's level, which was our objective. This small increase follows two successive years of actual reductions in
Estimates
person-years and even with this increase we are still below the level of person-years authorized in 1975-76.
I would point our that of the total 3,085 increase in authorized person-years fully 1,373 person-years are for 1981-82 only, representing the requirements for the 1981 census. If one discounts this temporary increase, the total increase is only about 0.5 per cent. This 0.5 per cent rise is a net amount made up of increases in some areas of the federal public service which are partially offset by decreases elsewhere. The increases are largely in programs which deal directly with the public under conditions where the resources must be provided in keeping with the growing demand for services. In order to maintain an acceptable level of services, even after achieving reasonable productivity gains, the number of people delivering them must obviously increase. Examples include Revenue Canada, where the workload reflects the growing number of tax returns, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, where increased demands come partly from provinces and municipalities which contract with the federal government to provide a level of policing which meets their requirements.
As I have indicated, a particularly important area of increased person-year requirements is in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources where 470 new person-years are provided in the First stage of implementation of the National Energy Program announced in last October's budget. Important new initiatives necessitate additional human resources to ensure effective delivery and control of programs to which substantial financial allocations are being made.
Similarly, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will receive a sizeable increase in person-years. This increase will provide for the rationalization of activities in the areas of fisheries management and ocean science research. This includes a provision to cover work previously done under contract in the Salmonid Enhancement Program.
I would like to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that this government, unlike the previous one, does not intend to implement arbitrary cuts to manage the size of the public service. Such arbitrary measures can cause serious damage to the level and quality of service of some very important programs and are clearly not a viable means for managing the public service.


Walter David Baker: You are absolutely right.


Donald James Johnston: Instead, this government plans, through an orderly review of all programs, to achieve savings by eliminating duplication of effort and by improving productivity and management.
[Translation)
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the new document, the Government Expenditure Plan, that I have tabled as Part 1 of the estimates for the first time today. As you recall, I have released the government's proposals for reform of the estimates. These changes were initiated at the request of my fellow parliamentarians and the general public. The Government Expenditure Plan represents the completion of the first stage in that process.

February 26, 1981
Adjournment Motion
The document contains a statement of the government's expenditure plan to 1983-84 and an analysis of that plan by policy sector and associated resource envelopes. It places the 1981-82 main estimates within the context of the total expenditure plan and highlights certain aspects of these estimates. Finally, one chapter each year will be devoted to special analyses of expenditure issues that are of current interest. This year, chapter 5 contains a reference paper that explains the different definitions of the size of the public service and analyses historical growth in the part of the Public Service which is controlled by the Treasury Board of Canada.
I would stress, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first edition of the Government Expenditure Plan. I fully expect that the structure and content of the document will evolve over time. As it is intended first and foremost to serve the needs of Parliament, I wish to urge hon. members to study it with care and advise me on changes and improvements that would enhance its value to them and to the Canadian public.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would remind hon. members of the commitment given by the Prime Minister in August, 1978, namely to provide Canadian taxpayers with more for less. The 1981-82 main estimates demonstrate the continuing commitment of this government to that objective.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Fries-en)-The Constitution-Query respecting telegram from British Columbia ecclesiastics; the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-National Energy Program-Implementation in eastern Canada; the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish)-Drought Assistance-Request for extension of boundaries.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of a message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1982, presented by Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Madam Speaker to the House.
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we have only been presented with these estimates a few moments ago. Therefore, we cannot give an in-depth analysis at this stage. Even so, we have seen enough to know and to feel a great disappointment that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) is engaged in the same old shell game, the same old con game, that has been going on with this government for so many years in the past.
The President of the Treasury Board said there had been a game played in the last day. The minister hears nothing and he learns nothing. The game played in the last 24 hours has been a game by the President of the Treasury Board who has attempted to tamper with the right of Members of Parliament in ways that have been gone into in detail in the last few hours.
The President of the Treasury Board has learned nothing, and will continue to learn nothing, and unless you, Mr. Speaker, bring him to account nothing can be done, because we have to look to you for protection from the kind of arrogance that was exemplified in that remark.
The minister made a fatal mistake in his statement. He said "these estimates are based on the same assumptions as in the budget". I am quoting his exact words. The budget was last October 28, almost four months ago. He said "the assumptions on which our spending estimates are based are the same as in the budget." Has he not listened in this House for the last couple of months? The assumptions in the budget of October 28 of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) have all proven to be completely incorrect in the last several months.
The minister's budgetary document forecast inflation for this year to be 10.2 per cent. The inflation rate for this year, 1981-82, is already 12 per cent. How can these estimates be based on an inflation estimate of 10.2 per cent, as is the case, if it is on the same assumptions as in the budget? If that is the case, they are completely out of whack already.
Then, Mr. Speaker, there was an assumption in the budget, and the documents that accompany the budget, that the Canadian dollar this year would trade in the area of 871/2 cents U.S. Well, what is it trading at today? Just between 83 cents and 84 cents. What was it last week? Down around 82 cents. That is another assumption in the budget last fall which was completely wrong, and that is going to raise the cost of the
February 26, 1981

minister's borrowing outside Canada by a very considerable extent.
Interest rates, Mr. Speaker: what were the assumptions on interest rates in the budget of October 28? The assumptions there were that interest rates were going to decrease quite rapidly in 1981. Has anybody noticed interest rates decreasing rapidly? They have been high now ever since the late fall. Unless there has been some change today-and I did not get a chance today to hear what happened to the Bank of Canada rate-it is now 18 V4 per cent at the banks and has not changed for a number of months.
So assumption after assumption of the budget of last October 28 has been shown by events to be wrong; yet this minister says that he has presented his estimates on the same assumptions as in the budget. Well, we can already see that his estimates are pretty well worthless.
Just look at his statement, Mr. Speaker. Examine the statement that the minister just gave. He gave it to the press yesterday and it went to the world yesterday, and we are getting it now and we can comment on it now, 24 hours later. He says that total spending-the first page-of $67.6 billion in 1981-82 is 12.8 per cent higher than the forecast for 1980-81.
It was the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of this government that, in a solemn commitment in Toronto in January of 1980, said that the rate of spending "under our government will not increase more than the real increase in the gross national product". That was his statement. It was proven to be entirely false last year, and this year, on these estimates brought before the House, it is false again. The Minister of Finance says we should change that because it was a trend line. How trendy the Liberal government is! They are always so trendy that they just suit many people up in Toronto, the sophisticated, trendy types, on the trend line of the gross national product. But it is not on the trend line of the gross national product. It is not on the gross national product at all. That is another promise broken.
Nor is the spending, Mr. Speaker, $67.6 billion. The minister there is trying to hide his real spending. What is he hiding? One item that he is hiding is $2.4 billion in spending for oil subsidization under the oil import subsidization program. That is not apparent in the estimates this year, Mr. Speaker. Why not? Because the Minister of Finance imposed new charges on the public, and the public is going to pay into a fund $2.4 billion this year that is going to be spent on the oil import subsidization plan.
So there are only several hundred millions of dollars still appearing in the estimates, rather than the total amount which would be several hundred million plus $2.4 billion. So why is the President of the Treasury Board trying to pretend to the people of Canada that his spending is only going to be $67.6 billion? You have to add to that $2.4 billion in spending on the oil import subsidy plan. That brings the spending, when you add that on, up to $70 billion. And it is not a 12.8 per cent increase; it is a considerably larger increase. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there is another incorrect statement.
Estimates
Let us compare this with the estimates of previous years. Last year, in the budget of October 28, the unemployment insurance contributions went up: a very considerable increase. Everybody employed in this country today who pays unemployment insurance premiums is paying more because of the minister's budget of October 28, and the increased sums paid in those premiums are being used to meet the increased employment costs. So additional hundreds of millions-I haven't got the exact figures here now-but a billion, or a billion and a half, or whatever the amount is, has to be added on to the $67.6 billion if there is to be any correspondence with previous years for actual spending by the government.
So it is not 12.8 per cent; it is not 13 per cent; it is not 13.5 per cent: it is something very much in excess of all of that. And the gentleman who is doing all the secret spending-or they try to keep it secret-is now in the House facing us, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). So much for restraint!
Mr. Speaker, this statement of the President of the Treasury Board is so ludicrous, if it was not so serious for Canada. Let us look at page 2 of his statement. I quote him, Mr. Speaker:
And I cannot help but point out, Madam Speaker, when considering the President's program-
That is the program of President Reagan announced a week ago. What the U.S. government proposes to do for three years we have been doing for the past seven years. Imagine, what President Reagan proposed last week, this government has done for seven years! Mr. Speaker, how does this square with Hansard of Thursday, February 19, when the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) put a question to the Minister of Finance about priorities and suggested to him that, if he wants guidance, he should take a look at President Reagan's economic package which he presented last night. That is at page 7454. The hon. member for St. John's East asked that. He said that if he wants guidance, he should look at President Reagan's economic package. And here is what the Minister of Finance said.


An hon. Member:: Is that where you got your ideas?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the untrammelled rabble over there are trying to heckle me, but it will not do any good; rabble can't bother me. At page 7455 of Hansard, here is what the Minister of Finance said:
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.
Why don't these two get their act together? The President of the Treasury Board is taking guidance right from the President, and he says that for seven years he has been doing what President Reagan is doing; that is what his government has been doing. He said that we are rapidly moving ahead with work programs across the federal government to achieve exactly the same objectives as those proposed by President Reagan; and just last Thursday, February 19, the Minister of Finance scoffed at President Reagan. He said this:

February 26, 1981
Estimates
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 1 take guidance .. . that is the kind of guidance I am not taking from the Leader of the Opposition ... or from the President of the United States.
Who is in control of this government?


Walter David Baker: Nobody is in control.


John Carnell Crosbie: Is it the Minister of Finance, who is anti-Reagan and anti-everything he stands for, according to Hansard of February 19; or is it the President of the Treasury Board, who today trots out President Reagan and says that he has "out-Reaganed" Reagan. That is what he said in his statement here today, that he is rapidly moving ahead with work programs. What are the work programs that he is rapidly moving ahead with that are going to cut our budget just as much as President Reagan is cutting the budget of the United States of America? The people would like to know that, Mr. Speaker. Let us move along; time passes; we cannot spend too much time on this preliminary look.
Mr. Speaker, the government is planning to spend $3.8 billion more next year than would have been spent were we still in office. They continue in their spendthrift ways. I do not know where President Reagan comes in on this. This President of the Treasury Board has had to admit to this serious situation-and it is serious. The public debt of Canada is going to cost us, in 1981-82, according to the estimate-and it is a low estimate because it is based on interest rate assumptions now out of date-$12,350 million. That is more than the entire budget of Canada was less than ten years ago. A huge amount of money!
The taxpayers of Canada are going to have to cough up in taxes this year, or they are going to have to lend to the government, sufficient funds to pay $12,350 million: 19.1 per cent of the government's spending, according to their own figures, and it is actually much higher, is going to go in interest payments and debt charges on the public debt. Hon. gentlemen over there may be able to say that that does not worry them. They are not worrying because they are only thinking of the short term. They never think of the long term. They are not worrying about what is going to happen to Canada in four of five years' time when this is up to 24 per cent, 25 per cent or 30 per cent, where it is headed to if hon. gentlemen opposite stay in office. They are not worried that so much of the revenue taken from the people of Canada has to go out entirely-it does not provide a service. It provides nothing. Just to meet their profligate spending of the last ten years, all these interest payments have to go out. They have had deficits every year since 1972-73, and this year they now say they are going to have a deficit of $13.7 billion. They say their deficit last year was $14.2 billion, and this year it is going to be $13.7 billion. If you apply 10 per cent only in interest to the $13.7 billion they are going to borrow this year, that is some $1.37 billion more in interest costs alone in the year following that, and on and on and on it goes under these gentlemen. But they do not care. They do not worry. They are not worried about anything like that. What are they going to do? Well, the minister talked about a document, or one of his
releases deals with federal transfers to the provinces, territories and municipalities. Where the government thinks it is going to save some money next year and the years to come after that is on hospital insurance, medicare, post-secondary education, extended health care programs, equalization. Just look at the figures attached to this document of February 25, 1981, and see what the minister is going to do. The minister is now going to squeeze the provinces. The provinces that this government forced into a position where they could not refuse to come in on these programs are now going to be left stranded and told by the Government of Canada that they have to accept more and more of the burden for these programs that were instituted under the pressure and direction of the Government of Canada. This is where they think they are going to achieve their savings.
With respect to fiscal equalization, Newfoundland got $416.7 million in 1981-82, or that is the estimate. Newfoundland got $79.7 million for hospital insurance, $27.4 million for medicare, $50.7 million for post-secondary education and so forth. All together total cash transfers amount to $730 million. The total altogether across Canada is $13,783 billion. This is where the government says it is going to save the money. It is going to squeeze Newfoundland until the pips squeak because Newfoundland will not do its bidding, and it is going to squeeze the provinces. It is not going to worry about its debt payments or how they are mounting up or whatever else they are going to do. It is just going to squeeze the provinces, and the minister gives us the figures so we can see just what that is going to cost them.
There was a boast. The minister boasts. I am not sure whether he does or not. They have been boasting that they are spending more on economic development. Well, it is significant that they are spending less on economic development. The expenditure envelopes have changed. Instead of spending $7,155 billion on economic development, they are going to spend $6,873 billion. So there is a diminution in their emphasis and priority on economic development.
We have to point this out to show you how quick we are mathematically and how in a quick few minutes I could do this computation. The estimated cost of services for the government in 1980-81 was $4 billion. That is the cost of services performed, people carrying out services for the government, overhead. In the fall, the Minister of Finance projected that the cost for this year, 1981-82, would be $4.5 billion. But now in the document tabled by the President of the Treasury Board that spending is up to $4.7 billion, a 17 per cent increase in the overhead. Already, since October 28 they have had to revise spending on their own services, their own fat cat selves. They spend on the hiring of Liberal consulting firms, the hiring of Liberal lawyers-all these very, very valuable services, the doing of surveys, the carrying out of polls, this kind of service. The spending there is going from $4 billion to $4.7 billion.
February 26, 1981

The minister wants to try to tell us that he has real restraint in effect in government. We know different, and we will be pointing that out when these estimates go to committee.
What else can I say with this short notice? I have a newspaper here from St. John's, Newfoundland. It came up today, Thursday, February 26. The Daily News says this: "Feds to fund synchrolift". This is the synchrolift in my district of St. John's West that the federal government has refused to fund. It has advised the province and Canadian National that it will not provide these moneys that were supposed to be in the estimates last year and this year. This daily paper printed down in St. John's in the early hours of this morning said they have had a look at the estimates. Tom Sullivan of The Daily News, special from Ottawa, said that there is $11.5 million in the estimates for the synchrolift for the dockyard in St. John's. This will show you how accurate these estimates are because I will make the prediction right now that if that $11.5 million is in the estimates, it is not going to be spent on a synchrolift in St. John's; it will be spent on other little projects, public works projects in Canada, but not on the synchrolift. But if that turns out not to be the case, then 1 think that this is the one item in the estimates that I can look at and say it would be money well spent and the government would be carrying out solemn commitments and pledges it has made in the past.
It also has to be noted that the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board have to get together because the Post Office is going to have a further deficit this year. The figure is over $500 million. I do not have it right at my fingertips at the moment. Yes, here it is; no, it is not.


An hon. Member:: Is it?


John Carnell Crosbie: I am sure you will forgive me while I look to get the exact amount. There are so many papers. They have been pawed over by so many people before we ever got them that I cannot find them right at the moment.


An hon. Member:: You are always mixed up.


John Carnell Crosbie: I ask hon. gentlemen for patience. Here it is. The Post Office is going to cost more to run this year- 1981-82-and it is going to wind up with a $557 million deficit. When we look at the budget speech of October 28, we see in that budget speech the statement that they are not including any spending on a deficit for the Post Office for the year 1981-82 because they say the Post Office is going to break even, it is not going to cost the government anything; and that is why the Minister of Finance in his budget speech explains that he has no expenditures under the Post Office, yet three and a half months later, what is to happen? It is going to have a $557 million deficit.
All of this is to say that we cannot take this statement by the President of the Treasury Board seriously. It is a con game. It is a gigantic shell game on the people of Canada. It is a charade. I only hope he comes through with his vastly improved estimates so that people will be in a position to understand them more easily, if they can understand them at
Estimates
all, when they are presented. But to date I am afraid he has been a very, very great disappointment in his position, which he has further added to by his behaviour in the last 24 hours.
So these are our first preliminary comments. My hon. colleague who is our critic on the Treasury Board will have a lot more and a lot more detail as to what is wrong with these estimates when he gets a chance. I assume we are going to have a chance, after the New Democratic Party has made its statement, to ask questions of the minister and get some more detail on this, but it is a disappointing charade. It is bad news for Canada. The spending is up. The debt is up. The government is not meeting its commitments. It is based on the same false assumptions in the budget. It will not help the economy. It will not help the Canadian dollar. It will further depress it because the evidence in here is that the government does not care about inflation and that it has no real fiscal plan. It is just lying there. The government is just drifting. The government is on a gradualist course of action. As I said last night, the government is like shaver soap. It does not sink, it does not float; it is just lying there becalmed in water. The only one doing anything-and he is doing a lot of damage to the economy-is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
It is a great disappointment. I am afraid there is no way we can congratulate the minister on his performance or on the detail he has given us today.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the tabling of the 1981-82 estimates in this House on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I am not nearly as disappointed with the estimates as I am with the conduct of this House over the past 24 hours. I expected to be responding some time yesterday around four o'clock. I find myself responding a day later at five o'clock because of an error in judgment made by the Liberals and because of the activities of the Conservative Party which followed after that.
I would like to say that I am pleased with two other aspects, besides the tabling of the 1981-82 estimates. I am pleased with the new form of the estimates, Part 1, which was brought before us today, the government spending plan. I would like to say a few words about the second part, being the new form of the estimates which will be before us in the coming years. I would like to commend the past public accounts committees of both governments for the work they have done in making Parliament more aware so that government is more responsive and accountable to the people of Canada. I am looking forward to the new form of the estimates which are to come before us. As I said, I would like to commend the work which has been done through the public accounts committee, the office of the Auditor General and the new office of the Comptroller General, which has done a lot of work in bringing about the revised form of the estimates.
I am looking forward to the government's expenditure programs, the estimates themselves, once they are revised substantially, and the guide which will go with it. I think these

February 26, 1981
Estimates
measures will go a long way in serving members of Parliament, so that they can have a more enlightened view of what is actually happening in the government with regard to spending and making the government accountable to Parliament. I think these measures will save a lot of research for members and their office staffs, since the new form of the estimates will be much more understandable than it was in the past.
The expenditure plans, especially in terms of the programs, will make departments sit down and look in an objective way at the programs they are putting out. They will have to justify what the objectives of the programs are and the funding which will go along with those programs. We, as members of Parliament, and the public accounts committee, can check against those expenditure plans of programs in future years by comparing it to the public accounts of Canada. 1 think that is a big step forward. Those who have worked very long and hard to bring this about should be commended.
I do not think the government can stop in terms of having a revised form of the estimates. I would like to see it proceed further in terms of freedom of information and to have the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) listen to recommendations made by the special task force which was set up this year to deal with regulatory reform. I would like the President of the Treasury Board to give some serious consideration to having permanent staff allocated to committees, such as the public accounts committee, so that there is some kind of consistency with regard to the people who are watching those committees.
I am concerned about the amount of the public debt. It is acknowledged that the public debt is the fastest growing envelope, increasing by 16 per cent. I do not see that the government has its public debt under control yet. That causes me some concern.
I would like to go on to say that the estimates have, in fact, increased the number of person-years by 3,085 for the 1981-82 estimates. I acknowledge the fact that many of these increases are in terms of the National Energy Program and in terms of the census which is to be taken this year.
I would like to say a few words about the National Energy Program itself. I feel there are some good objectives within it. 1 would like to see Canadians gain some increasing control of ownership within the petroleum industry in Canada. 1 feel that the political will is not necessarily being carried out in Canada with respect to this program. I fear that the government has placed the oil companies up against the wall and they are rebelling. Even though we do agree with many of the recommendations and objectives of the National Energy Program, we have a great deal of fear with respect to the way in which this program will be carried out.
I want also to respond to the inconsistency between the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the President of the Treasury Board in terms of one supporting the objectives of President Reagan and the other being opposed to them. I would like to reiterate that they should be getting together with respect to their approach to Canada's economy, decide the manner they will take to approach this and be consistent.
I would like to turn to the transfer of payments to the provinces, which was also touched on by the previous speaker. Including the statutory payments paid under the equalization program to the provinces, a large proportion of those payments is paid to eastern Canada as compared to what is paid to western Canada in terms of per capita population. I think this is a good sign. It shows an increase in the economic wealth of the western provinces. For example, 26.9 per cent of the population is contained in western Canada. In that figure I am using the 1976 census figures for the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, which make up this 26.9 per cent. Yet those same provinces only receive 11.3 per cent of equalization payments. The large balance, of course, goes to eastern Canada, that is from Ontario east, including the Atlantic provinces, which are in a worsening economic position.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Ontario does not receive equalization payments.


Douglas Keith Anguish: The hon. member says that there are no equalization payments being made to the province of Ontario. I would like to point out that in these transfer payments Newfoundland receives $440.5 million, Prince Edward Island receives $100 million, Nova Scotia receives $ 509.5 million, New Brunswick receives $429 million, Quebec receives $1,707.2 million and Ontario receives $85.5 million. The provinces I have mentioned are the ones 1 consider to be eastern Canada. I would like to deal with the provinces of western Canada. Manitoba receives $369.5 million, Saskatchewan only receives $2.2 million under the transfer payments. This is the amount that was agreed to under the British North America Act for statutory subsidies. The province of Alberta receives $40.7 million, British Columbia receives $4.1 million and the Northwest Territories and the Yukon each receive $0.3 million. The point I am trying to make is that there is a great transfer of the wealth in this country to western Canada, in terms of the western provinces helping to carry the load for the rest of Canada in the bad economic times we are facing. I am happy to see this. I do not see it as a necessarily negative aspect.
Also, I would like to say that I am concerned about the government and its expenditure plans. It is transferring a great deal of the responsibility for payment of some programs to provincial and municipal governments. It is a cost which they cannot afford to be absorbing. The two programs that come to my mind immediately are the community services contribution program and the costs of policing. The community services contribution program provided a great deal of funding to needy municipalities across this country. This program has not been cut off. At this point in time there will be nothing to follow it up. This creates a void within some of the municipal governments across Canada.
In The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, the constituency which I represent, there are some communities such as Uranium City which will have its payments for policing costs go up this year over last by 95 per cent. In the town of The Battlefords the
February 26, 1981

cost is going up by 91 per cent. I would like to put the federal government on notice that there are some very serious concerns here about policing within many communities. These communities will have to look at alternative forms of policing. They do not want to do this because they are very happy with the RCMP and the arrangements which they have had with them. They may also have to cut back on their policing because of the policy of this government to transfer much of that responsibility over to the provinces and the municipal governments.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out some inconsistencies between what the federal government is trying to do and what is actually written in their document. I refer to the press kit fact sheet number four, which deals with the highlights of the ministry. I would like to turn to the entry under energy, mines and resources and deal specifically with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. AECL had a budget in
1980-	81 of $144.2 million. That budget has been increased in the 1981-82 estimates by $133 million to render a total for
1981-	82 of $277.6 million. This is a whopping increase for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, especially when I know, as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, that this same Crown corporation came before that committee and asked for forgiveness of $893 million because of some management, planning and marketing problems. There is no indication at this point in time that those problems have been rectified. At the same time, the government is allocating an increase of $133 million to the same organization which is asking for forgiveness because of bad management, not necessarily now but certainly in the past. The things which enter into this are outstanding loans and bad planning, for example, with respect to the Glace Bay heavy water plant that is not promoting sales at the present time. That plant is stocking reservoirs of heavy water for future prospective sales and no marketing strategy has been outlined. Also the Laprade plant in Quebec is in a partially completed state and will never likely be used. AECL has mothballed it at a cost of several million dollars.
I should like to raise further questions on these matters when the minister is entertaining questions in terms of the estimates for this year. All in all, I do not see these estimates as being quite as drastic as do members of the Conservative party. Our party is concerned about the federal deficit and that there is a lack of control on the purse at this time, but I am very enthusiastic about some of the things which are happening in terms of improved accountability and improved information to Parliament respecting the revised estimates and the work of the office of the Comptroller General who, I feel, is doing a good job.
With those comments, I should like to close. 1 look forward to asking the minister some questions on the topic of the 1981-82 estimates.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. We are on statements by ministers. In the circumstances, there are no
Estimates
hard and fast rules. Accordingly, perhaps it would be advisable if I indicated what I think might be a reasonable procedure, but of course the Chair will be guided by the mood of the House.
First, I want to recognize the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) who is the Treasury Board critic. Because he was unable to be here earlier, I would expect to recognize him for three or four questions.
Following that, my hope would be that hon. members might feel it satisfactory to deal with the matter by asking a question and a supplementary. As I said, it is not a ruling, it is a suggestion of the Chair, and matters will proceed in accordance with the mood of the House.


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had to give a speech off the Hill at four o'clock and missed the privilege of replying to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) before this time.
I should like to refer him to page 2 of his prepared statement in which he compared the management direction of the Canadian government with the route upon which the United States administration has embarked. I notice that he tried to point out that the Canadian direction will be in line or parallel with the difficult task undertaken in the United States.
Recognizing that the President of the Treasury Board is a noted author of a book entitled: "Fiscalamity" and another book written in 1977, and recognizing his skill with the use of words, does he not feel he has gone too far in the third paragraph on page 2 of his statement? In actual fact, another way of putting it would be that the American deficit is 7 per cent of spending, whereas the Canadian deficit is 21 per cent of spending. In the United States, interest on debt as a percentage of revenue is $1 of tax out of $10 of revenue, whereas in Canada the interest on debt as a percentage of revenue is $1 of tax out of $4 of revenue.
In light of that information, I find a great deal of trouble reconciling or being sympathetic with his words in that paragraph, particularly when the direction in the United States is toward a balancing of its budget. If one looks at the projections in the estimates tabled by the minister, that does not seem to be the direction in which we are going. That is my first question.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would draw to the attention of the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) the fact that my comments indicated that we have practised restraint. I pointed out in my text that the spending in 1974-75 was in the neighbourhood of a 28 per cent increase. Since 1975, the government has consistently applied a policy of restraint. Moreover, if one looks back to 1978 and to August, 1978, one will see that the exercise undertaken at that time was very similar to the one which has now been proposed by President Reagan. I suggest that the cuts, in terms of what is discretionary, are almost in the same order of magnitude. Going beyond that, with respect to the tax cut aspects of the United States package, I believe Canadians take for granted that they have

February 26, 1981
Estimates
indexation in the personal income tax system in terms of exemptions and brackets.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What has this to do with the estimates?


Donald James Johnston: I am saying that there was a tax cut each year for the past seven years in this country. In response to the ad hoc intervention of the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), it has a lot to do with it.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I thank the President of the Treasury Board. I hope he will read his answers to these questions and blush a little.
Also I note in the estimates under Petro-Canada an item of $100 million, yet Petro-Canada purchased Merit, a downstream distributor of oil, in Burnaby, British Columbia for $10 million and recently entered into an extravaganza with Petrofina for something like $1.4 billion. If the advice I am receiving from rather substantial economists in the land is correct, that $1.4 billion will turn out to be $2.4 billion by the time financing and interest costs are included, and perhaps it will cost the Crown corporation a further $1 billion per year.
Would the President of the Treasury Board please tell us where the authority is and the vote is for the purchase of these corporations in which Petro-Canada is involved? Is it a loan or a grant, other than the $100 million of equity? There was $80 million in the previous estimates and $100 million in the new estimates. That is a total of $180 million, yet we are getting into billions of dollars of acquisitions on the part of Petro-Canada.
Are contingent liabilities being created which are not shown in the estimates and in Crown corporations? Are we truly moving toward getting Crown corporations under control, or are we really avoiding the true nature of the debt which is being created through these estimates?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of all members in the House, particularly the hon. member for Capilano, that we are looking at the main estimates. There is no provision in this document, in the main estimates, which reflects the Petrofina acquisition. Obviously supplementary estimates will be tabled during the course of the year, but in any event the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) indicated in the House the procedure for the acquisition program.
With respect to the other question as to whether or not Crown corporations are under control, I would say that the answer is yes, very much so. As I have said before in the House, I hope we will be bringing in a comprehensive, omnibus Crown corporations bill in the very near future which will basically follow up on the legislation and improve versions of the legislation tabled several years ago.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Madam Speaker, I gather that the President of the Treasury Board is saying that the Petrofina purchase will be brought in on the supplementaries under the
$1 vote. I wonder if he could help me with my concern that once that $1 vote is accepted, no change can be made and we are then really into contingency account financing.
If I could then move to the matter of the public service, the estimates show that it has now increased by 3,053. I am wondering if the minister could clarify a problem that I am having with that figure. His predecessor had reduced the public service by some 5,000, and yet he is showing only an increase of 3,053. Is it true that the actual increase is probably closer to 8,000? Also, can the minister explain the productivity figures of the Public Service Commission of Canada whereby their person-years have been reduced by 200. Even Statistics Canada figures show an increase of 1,300. The President of the Treasury Board is probably going to tell us that these are temporary. Is that not a way of misleading the House? If some of us forget, in the next estimates, that the 1,300 person-years shown by Statistics Canada are there on a temporary basis for the purpose of the census, what kind of control will we have over temporary person-years? Does the President of the Treasury Board really think that that should remain in the person-year category when it is strictly a temporary category? I am a little confused in this area. Is the figure of 3,053 an actual figure in light of the reduction that took place in that interim period?


Donald James Johnston: The fact sheet, No. 6,1 think, is quite explicit in terms of what is taking place. As I indicated during my earlier remarks, the increase is being held at less than 1 per cent, as a result of very deliberate decisions-by ministers of the Treasury Board, and of exercising that policy of restraint over the size of the public service.
If the hon. member looks at the increases that I have indicated he will see a temporary increase, because of the census. This temporary increase is reflected in two departments. It is reflected in Statistics Canada to the extent of
1,000	person-years. It is reflected in the Department of National Revenue, which also has a role to play with respect to the census, in the neighbourhood of 305 person-years. These are, indeed, temporary person-years.
The hon. member can rest assured that in the future, the Treasury Board ministers will very carefully police the requirements of these two departments to ensure that the obligations with respect to these temporary person-years are honoured. That leaves an increase which would be called a permanent increase of approximately one half of one per cent. These are spread over a number of departments. I indicated that the principal increases in that regard are in the department of my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), who requires additional person-years, obviously, to implement this very major National Energy Program. They are also found in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Our colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc), put forward very forceful and very convincing arguments which I am sure would be accepted by the member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), were he here, to the effect that additional resources were required in that sector.
February 26, 1981

Some additional person-years, are taken up in the Department of National Revenue, for the purposes of enforcement and for the purposes of processing more tax returns which are, I suggest, areas of necessary increase. I believe I earlier made reference in my comments, to the RCMP where additional person-years are required in order to honour obligations to meet the requirements of provinces and municipalities, in large measure.
1 think that the person-years we have agreed to and have authorized in these main estimates have been well justified by the ministers from whom the requests have come. However, I would again emphasize that we have looked at these very carefully. We are concerned this year, as we have been in past years, with uncontrolled growth of person-year authorization. I believe that the ministers of the Treasury Board took a very responsible and fair attitude toward the requests of their colleagues.


Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: I have a couple of short supplementary questions for the minister with respect to actual cuts. On page 46 of the summary, the chart for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation shows an increase. But when we actually look at the figures which are set out in the estimates, it shows that there were actual reductions in the level of expenditure for the next year over last year.
I would like to ask the minister how he accounts for that discrepancy? We have all recognized that the government is abandoning its responsibilities in the field of housing, but I suppose it would be unbecoming for it to admit that is what it is doing. I also recognize that there is this contradiction between the President of the Treasury Board's (Mr. Johnston) desire to be a clone of President Reagan and the parent policies of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). But I would like to ask him how he accounts for the fact that item 23(4) of the estimates shows an actual reduction of over $100 million in the CMHC budget, while the little brief profile shows an increase.
It seems to me that there is something misleading in this and I would like the minister to indicate which of these documents is telling the truth.


Donald James Johnston: I have not had the opportunity to study this particular question in detail, nor do I think that this is the forum in which specific questions on individual departments should be asked. We are not sitting in Committee of the Whole or in the committee on miscellaneous estimates. If the hon. member would agree, I would be happy to try to find an explanation for the discrepancy to which he refers.
Second, with respect to his allegation of being a clone of President Reagan, I never suggested that I was a clone of President Reagan, nor did I suggest that we were implementing his policies. I said we have in the past, and we are continuing, to exercise a policy of restraint.
I noted that many of my colleagues seem to ask, "Well, where are your tax cuts?" We have had tax cuts for seven years. "Where is your restraint?" We have had restraint since
Estimates
1975. That is the point. We are not trying to follow or in any way support the policies of President Reagan. This has to do with the fact that the government, since 1975, has consistently followed policies of over-all restraint.


Bob Rae: I referred to a specific area because I was trying to demonstrate that there is a fundamental contradiction in the line being followed by the President of the Treasury Board. On the one hand, he is saying "We are a government that is doing all good things for all of the people," and, on the other hand, the government is cutting down on expenditures for programs which provide housing for the Canadian people.


An hon. Member:: That is not so.


Bob Rae: That is exactly what the President of the Treasury Board has done. All I can say is that it took me some time to look at the estimates and at one or two of these figures. In other areas, such as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the provision for the so-called "Industrial Restructuring Program" shows that that money has been taken out of other items of the budget. This means that the real, new additional expenditure is not as large as has been made out by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray). We notice that there are capital cutbacks and expenditures in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
These are just examples I have chosen, going through the estimates in the time available to me. I think we are entitled to know that the government is speaking out of both sides of its mouth at once. It is saying to the Canadian people that it will continue to provide programs when in fact it is cutting back. It holds press conferences to announce brand new programs to provide brand new ideas in terms of industrial assistance when in fact the money is being taken from another item in the department's budget. I think the Canadian people are entitled to know that not only does the government not have a clear idea of what it is doing but even as it does it, it attempts to mislead the people on the true input of the proposals.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I did not interpret that as a question but rather as a declaration or debate. I am quite happy to respond to specific questions. I suggest that this is a reconciliation that can be made in the economic development envelope if we are talking about the statements made by the Minister of Finance in October and some modifications made since that time which are largely due to loan repayments into those envelopes or to different costing of some of the programs. The over-all expenditure limits are identical to those established by the Minister of Finance in the October budget and the changes within the envelope structure, I would suggest to the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), who is obviously not interested in my point of view-


An hon. Member:: He is walking out on you.


Donald James Johnston: -now that he is preparing to leave.


Bob Rae: I am interested.

February 26, 1981
Estimates


Donald James Johnston: The fact is that the statements that have been made by my colleagues are correct. I see no conflict. If the hon. member wishes to sit in committee and review the items with the ministers responsible for the various ministries,
I am sure they will be delighted to accept questions and supply the necessary details.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. A considerable number of members wish to rise. I want to remind hon. members that we have royal assent at 5.45 p.m. or shortly thereafter. The President of the Treasury Board raised a point which I take to be quite in order, and that is that this is an opportunity for questions and answers, not for debate. I presume that hon. members are agreeable to short questions and short answers.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I have two very short questions. Would the President of the Treasury Board table information from the compensation analysis branch on the number of people actually employed in the civil service to January, 1980-81? We could then compare that with the budget or with the allocation of 315,680 members of the civil service allowed in the estimates. I would point out that there is sometimes a difference of as much as 25,000 persons. Would he explain briefly how the numbers are rationalized and if he has some system of keeping control on what are necessary employees and why there is such a discrepancy between the authorization and the amount necessary.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, there are frequently misunderstandings with respect to the force or strength of the public service. It is in part for that purpose I would say to the hon. member that we have prepared Chapter 5 in Part 1 of the estimates, which I think gives an adequate explanation of the different criteria used.
Let me point out a mistake which is often made by members of the public and of this House. The 315,000 does not represent people; it represents person-years. That means, for example, that if you employ one different person each day in the year, that is one person-year, theoretically. In fact, that is what it is. It is all measured in terms of person-years. The purpose of that and why it is used as a measure of control is fully explained in Chapter 5. It gives management more authority, more flexibility. It does not at all represent the physical number of people on strength at any given point in time. That is an important point to remember. It also refers to the people who are subject to Treasury Board control.
Other universes are used, for example, by Statistics Canada in terms of the size of the public service, which is a different yardstick. I suggest that my explanation is not nearly as complete nor as concise as that set out in Chapter 5. It was in response to the confusion that has arisen over the years that Chapter 5 was included in the estimates this year.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It was stated in the budget that the public borrowing for interest charges this year would be $10,250 billion. The minister has $10.4 billion for his supplementary estimates. For the last ten or 11 weeks the government has
been borrowing at very close to 17 per cent interest on treasury bills and rolling those over at least at $1 billion per week. Has the minister a Supplementary B for further interest costs, for this year, and how does he recognize his cost of interest for next year at $12.35 billion when the budget showed $12,265 billion? How does he rationalize this?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my commentary, the entire plan of the main estimates, including the public debt costs, is based on the budget assumptions of the Minister of Finance for the Canadian economy. He has not indicated any intent to revise his projections at this point. It is sheer speculation to say what he might opt to do. Any substantial revisions to these numbers, as the hon. member suggests, would be included in supplementary estimates.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow up on a question posed by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), who spoke of our public debt and related it to the U.S. situation. We are paying roughly-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I want to remind the hon. member and all hon. members that statements have been made in response to the minister's statement. Statements are over. The only thing remaining now is the tradition of questions and these have to be brief. We have questions now, not statements.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I was not attempting to make a statement. I just wanted to give the background to the question so that I could get a full answer from the President of the Treasury Board. Could he give the House an opinion on the point at which our national debt becomes a burden? The U.S. is paying $1 out of every $10 tax dollars collected to service interest. We pay $1 out of every $4, and it seems that we may get to the point of paying one out of every three tax dollars to service debt. Does the minister have an opinion on the level at which this becomes prohibitive in terms of the functioning of a productive economy?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I think that is more properly a question which should be addressed to the Minister of Finance.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, would the minister answer a question regarding the impact the reduction of federal moneys for the RCMP will have on municipalities and some provinces? Crime is increasing. The increased costs to municipalities will be as much as 95 per cent or 100 per cent in some cases. This will result in reduced policing and will give criminals a better chance to operate. Could the minister advise the actual amount of money being cut from the RCMP budget and whether there is still room and time for negotiations regarding this formula?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that this exercise is not an examination of the estimates before committee. I would think that question ought to be put to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan). I would like to be in a position
February 26, 1981

to respond to all questions with respect to all departments of government. 1 think that exercise today would be impossible for me to undertake. In fact, it would always be impossible for me to undertake. The questions with respect to the RCMP should be directed to the Solicitor General.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, my question will be brief. In view of the very large federal government deficit, in view of the transfer, perhaps 25 per cent of federal funds, to provinces, and in view of the OECD projections as well as the recent statement in the seventeenth annual review by the Economic Council of Canada that there will be an over-all government surplus in this country in the next two or three years, in spite of the large deficit which the federal government will incur, can the President of the Treasury Board tell me whether he is looking at the resolution of this strange phenomenon whereby one government has large deficits and other governments have large surpluses?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to be regarded as someone who likes to pass the buck-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You pass a lot of them.


Donald James Johnston: -but the negotiations of the various transfer programs are properly the responsibility of the Minister of Finance.
The point which the hon. member makes is one which the Minister of Finance has made in speeches outside and inside this House and I believe it is one with which we would all concur. I would point out that if the hon. member looks at fact sheet No. 5 on federal transfers to the provinces, distributed with the budget papers, the hon. member will find the projected transfer of funds to other levels of government in the 1981-1982 year, consisting of cash transfers and tax points, totals $18,882 billion, or just under $19 billion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There has to come a point when the Chair has to make some decision as to what is or is not appropriate in view of the fact that these matters are going to committee in due course. I cannot recognize the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) on the grounds that he has already been recognized once. My understanding is that traditionally he is not permitted to have a second opportunity to ask questions. However, I will reconsider that point.
I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on his feet. I will recognize the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) for one supplementary. In my view, other than the matter related to the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, I think that ought to be adequate for this discussion under statements by ministers. I said earlier that was not a ruling and I will take advice from members if they feel there is a need to go further. However, we are expecting royal assent any moment, and I thought we might tie that in with the completion of the questions.
Estimates


Mr. Collenette:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have been talking on these estimates for a while now and I realize that we have had a long statement by the minister and we did have time allotted for a reply by each of the official critics of the other parties. I hope that we do not prolong this debate any longer and that when we do come back from the Senate, we could get to orders of the day. In my view, this seems to have been a most lengthy time period for a statement by a minister and questions thereon.



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 informed 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 the following bill:
Bill C-54, an act to amend the statute law relating to income tax.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of a message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982, presented by Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Madam Speaker to the House.
Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). It concerns the notice I gave during my response on behalf of the NDP caucus and has to do with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. I mentioned that, being a member of the public accounts committee, I know that AECL is asking for forgiveness of $893 million of debts they have incurred from a total of $1.2 billion. There is no end of reasons why they got into this problem, such as three heavy water plants, one partially completed at Laprade, one at Glace Bay and one at Port Hawkesbury, which they operate only to build up funds.

February 26, 1981
Estimates
What did Treasury Board take into consideration to approve an additional $133.4 million in excess of their 1980-81 budget? How can Treasury Board justify approving that kind of increase when at the same time AECL is in debt to the tune of $1.2 billion?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the question is one that would more appropriately be asked in committee of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) who has responsibility for AECL. With respect to the $800 million-odd write-off to which the hon. member made reference, that decision was made on the recommendation of the Comptroller General of Canada in keeping with the over-all policy decision with respect to loans outstanding to corporations where there is no likelihood of repayment. It is deemed to be good accounting practice for the government to write off such liabilities. That is the reason for the change of status of that amount. With respect to the expenditure program of AECL and the necessity of increased capital, that question should properly be put to the minister responsible in committee.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of a general nature. We heard about the western development fund in the throne speech and reference to it by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in a speech in Montreal recently. I do not want to ask the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) for specifics, but I would like some kind of indication as to whether that kind of fund has been allowed for in his estimates and if we can look forward to some announcement on the start of the expenditure of those funds. Many of us have written to the appropriate ministers asking for some kind of information on how these funds will be allocated. I would like an indication whether the expenditure of this money is allowed for in the present estimates. Can we look forward to some of these programs being announced under the western development fund in the near future.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the expenditure plan identifies $2 billion in total over a period of three years to 1983-84 of which $350 million is allocated to the year under consideration, 1981-82. The details of the expenditures in respect of that $350 million will be brought forward through supplementary estimates. The details are not included in these main estimates.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) mentioned there have been tax cuts since 1975. I wonder if the hon. minister can reconcile the fact that, with these tax cuts, there will be increased borrowings and increased deficits.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a question for the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), but it seems to me to be very easy to reconcile. If you take the year 1980-81, in which the tax cuts that I referred to contributed to lost revenue of $7.5 billion, had that revenue been received it would have gone a long way towards reducing the deficit.


Mr. Dave Dickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have two very brief questions. In the amounts of moneys to be voted for transfers from the Department of Finance to the provinces, some $3.9 billion, I notice that the effect of the passage of Bill C-24, the Fiscal Transfers Act, has not been taken into account. I wonder if the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) could give us a rough estimate of the difference that would make, the reduction in that estimate that would be brought about by the passage of Bill C-24.
The second question, Mr. Speaker, is as follows: The President of the Treasury Board refused to tell us, when questioned by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), what his estimate of the additional funds needed for the servicing of the public debt might be, in light of higher interest charges that prevail today and the low value of the Canadian dollar, which will affect the amounts of money needed to make interest payments on foreign loans.
I would like an assurance from the President of the Treasury Board, although he refuses to make this information public, that there are people within the Public Service of Canada who are studying these matters and have, indeed, made these estimates, because it would appear to me that a great deal more public funds are going to have to be voted by way of supplementary estimates for this very reason.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first question, I am not unable to answer that, nor do I think it would be appropriate. I am here basically to answer questions in respect of the main estimates, which take into account the legislation as it exists at that time: it is a snapshot taken at a period of time.
With regard to the second question, the Department of Finance has responsibility for developing the kind of information to which the hon. member makes reference, and when that is conveyed to Treasury Board the appropriate adjustments are made. 1 would point out, however, that the spending plan provides, or the expenditure framework, provides for a total of $3.6 billion for the 1981-82 year. This is designed, of course, to provide for adjustments both to the statutory programs and to the voted programs; so that is where any adjustment would have to be made in terms of the public debt brought within the expenditure framework ceiling.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is of a general nature and relates to statements made last year by the President of the Treasury Board before certain committees, particularly the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, and having to do with the reforms that were to be made to the presentation of the main estimates.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister if he still intends to present the members of this House, or a committee of this House, with the pilot projects he alluded to last year. I think one dealt with the service side of Supply and Services, and the other with the question of services. These were to be given to
February 26, 1981

committees, or we were hoping the miscellaneous estimates committee would get one of these so we could interest our-selvps in this new format, this new presentation. This was a promise made by the minister last year, and I am wondering if he can inform the House when he intends to table these new pilot projects.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, hon. members may recall that a few weeks ago 1 tabled in the House two pilot projects for the two departments in question. Although I did not then refer those two projects to committee, I have the impression that the public accounts committee is or might be studying at least one of those projects if not both. We still have three other pilot projects. I hope that I will be able to table them in the House perhaps within three weeks and that several committees, including the one chaired by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), will have an opportunity to make an in-depth review of at least one of those special studies. Again I would like to insist on the fact that today I tabled for the first time Part 1 of the main estimates which gives us a general idea of government spending. It is the first time we have done it that way; so, to a certain extent, this is an historic day, perhaps for many reasons. But in any event I hope all hon. members will have an opportunity to give us their comments on the contents of this new project.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-15, an act respecting the Royal Canadian Legion, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,371 to 1,390 inclusive, 1,393 to 1,398 inclusive, and 1,401 to 1,413 inclusive.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's Water Supply Project at Pukatawagan?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. $1,692.
2. No. A new revised total has been submitted to the Treasury Board for an additional $419,856.
3. (a) Yes, the project was stopped in February, 1979, and is presently being held in abeyance. If new Treasury Board approval is received, upon allocation of additional financial resources, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will complete the project using intense financial control and strict supervision.
(b) The directives outlined in chapter 148 of Treasury Board Administrative Policy Manual, cost control of projects will be implemented for each such project, namely: (i) a project manager to be appointed for each project which may require contract or project approval by the Treasury Board; (ii) the department to be responsible for complete and adequate project documentation; (iii) reliable estimates of cost that include all direct and related costs, that reflect contracting risks, contingency allowances for identifiable risk areas, inflation cost indices and which specify the base-year dollars in which the estimate is expressed is to be provided along with the source of the estimates for each project; (iv) each submission for project approval to include a statement to the effect that the department will not, during the course of the project, exceed the estimate provided in support of the project approval submission without the prior approval of the Treasury Board; (v) a reporting system to be established in order that immediate advice is given where there is evidence of a potential cost overrun.
In addition, the department has established a project control system, and is now ready to start initial implementation of a computerized project accounting system in response to the cost control directive. Also, a capital management branch has been established in the Indian and Inuit Affairs Program with one of its primary objectives to ensure that all aspects of cost control are adhered to and that all capital dollars are cost effectively spent.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's Planning and Water and Sewer System Project at Canoe Lake?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?

February 26, 1981
Order Paper Questions
3.	Are steps being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the poject and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil,
2.	Not applicable. Project not yet in construction stage.
3.	The project will be carried out in accordance with cost control procedures as outlined in the response to question No.
1.371,	part 3(b) answered this day.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's New School Project at Sandy Bay?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil.
2.	Not applicable. Project is not yet in construction stage.
3.	The project will be carried out in accordance with cost control procedures as outlined in the response to question No.
1.371,	part 3(b), answered this day.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's School Addition Project at Pukatawagan?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil.
2.	An overrun of some $1,109,000 in the final cost for project completion is anticipated.
3.	This project was initiated and approved prior to issuance of the Treasury Board directive on cost control, December, 1979. To the extent possible at the stage of construction, the cost control procedures outlined in the reponse to question No.
1.371,	part 3(b), answered this day, were followed and are now in place.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's New School Project at Cross Lake?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil.
2.	Not applicable. Project is not yet in construction stage.
3.	The project will be carried out in accordance with cost control procedures as outlined in the response to question No.
1.371,	part 3(b), answered this day.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's New School Project at Poplar River?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil.
2.	No overrun anticipated.
3.	This project was initiated and approved prior to issuance of the Treasury Board directive on cost control, December, 1979. To the extent possible at the stage of construction, the cost control procedures outlined in the response to question No. 1,371, part 3(b), answered this day, were followed and are now in place.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's New School Project at Lake St. Martin?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil.
2.	No overrun anticipated.
3.	This project was initiated and approved prior to issuance of the Treasury Board directive on cost control, December, 1979. To the extent possible at the stage of construction, the cost control procedures outlined in the response to question No. 1,371, part 3(b), answered this day, were followed and are now in place.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's New School Project at Jackhead?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. $41,928.
2.	No, total cost overrun is $190,000.
3.	The project has been completed. It was initiated and approved prior to issuance of the Treasury Board directive on cost control, December, 1979. To the extent possible at the stage of construction, the cost control procedures outlined in the response to question No. 1,371, part 3(b), answered this day were followed.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's School Addition Project at Easterville?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
February 26, 1981

3.	Are steps being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. $198,870.
2.	No, total overrun is $308,000.
3.	Project has been completed. It was initiated and approved prior to issuance of the Treasury Board directive on cost control, December, 1979. To the extent possible at the stage of construction, the cost control procedures outlined in the response to question No. 1,371, part 3(b), answered this day were followed.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's Water and Sewer System at Fond du Lac?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil.
2.	Not applicable. This project has been postponed.
3.	When the project is resumed, it will be carried out in accordance with cost control procedures as outlined in the response to question No. 1,371, part 3(b), answered this day.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's Multi-Purpose Building Project at Big River?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. $179,000.
2.	Yes.
3.	The project has been substantially completed. It was initiated and approved prior to issuance of the Treasury Board directive on cost control, December, 1979. To the extent possible at the stage of construction, the cost control procedures outlined in the response to question No. 1,371, part 3(b), answered this day were followed.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's Carcross/Skagway Road, MI 50-85 in the Yukon Territory?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. $700,000.
2.	Yes.
3.	Work is complete. This project, as well as the Liard and the Dempster Highway projects, was started before the new
Order Paper Questions
Treasury Board policy on procedures for cost overruns was formulated. Therefore, a large part of the overrun can be attributed to cost escalation, a factor not considered in the original estimates. Now, as a result of the above-noted policy, all projects started after July 27, 1979, have an allowance for this significant cost escalation factor. Steps taken to prevent further cost overruns include adherence to the Treasury Board policy which as well as allowing for cost escalation establishes procedures for ensuring better cost control. For further details see response to question No. 1,371, part 3(b) answered this day.
In addition to the above, D1AND is, along with Public Works Canada, continually seeking means whereby costs can be kept to a minimum while at the same time, building safe, quality highways. Areas under consideration include seeking methods and procedures for more efficient filed investigation as well as less costly designs.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's Liard Highway MI 21-158 Project in the Northwest Territories?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	See response to question No. 1,382, part 3 answered this day.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's Dempster Highway Project in the Northwest and Yukon Territories?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil for the total project although there have been cost overruns caused by unforeseen soil conditions on individual contracts on this highway.
2.	The department cannot predict whether there will be a cost overrun as defined in the new policy but steps are being taken to ensure against it.
3.	See response to question No. 1,382, part 3 answered this day.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's Elementary School at Whycoco-magh, Nova Scotia?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?
7732

February 26, 1981
Order Paper Questions


John Carr Munro: 1. $394,500.
2.	Yes.
3.	Project has been completed. It was initiated and approved prior to issuance of the Treasury Board directive on cost control, December, 1979. To the extent possible at the stage of construction, the cost control procedures outlined in the response to question No. 1,371, part 3(b), answered this day were followed.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's Elementary School at Eel Ground, New Brunswick?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. $61,897.
2.	Yes.
3.	Project has been completed. It was initiated and approved prior to the issuance of the Treasury Board directive on cost control, December, 1979. To the extent possible at the stage of construction, the cost control procedures outlined in the response to question No. 1,371, part 3(b), answered this day, were followed.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's Electrification Project at Fort Hope?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. $62,750.
2.	This is an estimate. Further delays, or unforeseen contingencies could result in additional overruns although this is not anticipated.
3.	The project is being carried out in accordance with cost control procedures as outlined in the response to question No.
1,371,	part 3(b), answered this day.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's Water Supply Project at Red Sucker Lake?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil.
2. An overrun of some $37,227 in the final cost for project completion is anticipated.
3. This project was initiated and approved prior to issuance of the Treasury Board directive on cost control, December, 1979. To the extent possible at the stage of construction, the cost control procedures outlined in the response to question No. 1,371, part 3(b), answered this day, were followed and are now in place.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's Water Supply Project at God's Lake?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil.
2.	No overrun anticipated.
3.	This project was initiated and approved prior to issuance of the Treasury Board directive on cost control, December, 1979. To the extent possible at the stage of construction, the cost control procedures outlined in the response to question No. 1,371, part 3(b), answered this day, were followed and are now in place.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's Water Supply Project at Poplar River?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil.
2.	No overrun anticipated.
3.	This project was initiated and approved prior to issuance of the Treasury Board directive on cost control, December, 1979. To the extent possible at the stage of construction, the cost control procedures outlined in the response to question No. 1,371, part 3(b), answered this day, were followed and are now in place.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the gymnasium at Standoff?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps presently being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	The project has been completed. It was initiated and approved prior to issuance of the Treasury Board directive on cost control, December, 1979. To the extent possible at the stage of construction, the cost control procedures outlined in
February 26, 1981

the response to question No. 1,371, part 3(b), answered this day, were followed.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the school addition at St. Mary's?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps presently being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. $167,750.
2.	Yes.
3.	The project has been completed. It was initiated and approved prior to issuance of the Treasury Board directive on cost control, December, 1979. To the extent possible at the stage of construction, the cost control procedures outlined in the response to question No. 1,371, part 3(b), answered this day, were followed.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the school addition at Crowfoot?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps presently being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. $85,400.
2.	Yes.
3.	The project has been completed. It was initiated and approved prior to issuance of the Treasury Board directive on cost control, December, 1979. To the extent possible at the stage of construction, the cost control procedures outlined in the response to question No. 1,371, part 3(b), answered this day, were followed.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the school at Red Earth Reserve?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps presently being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil.
2.	No overrun anticipated.
3.	This project was initiated and approved prior to issuance of the Treasury Board directive on cost control, December, 1979. To the extent possible at the stage of construction, the cost control procedures outlined in the response to question No. 1,371, part 3(b), answered this day, were followed and are now in place.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the school addition at Beauval?
Order Paper Questions
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps presently being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. $112,197.
2.	No, the total overrun will amount to $159,000.
3.	The project is being carried out in accordance with cost control procedures as outlined in the response to question No.
1.371,	part 3(b) answered this day.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the school at Montreal Lake Reserve?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps presently being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil.
2.	Not applicable. Project is not yet in construction stage.
3.	The project will be carried out in accordance with cost control procedures as outlined in the response to question No.
1.371,	part 3(b) answered this day.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the water and sewer system at Wollaston?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps presently being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil.
2.	Not applicable. This project has been postponed.
3.	When the project is resumed, it will be carried out in accordance with cost control procedures as outlined in the response to question No. 1,371, part 3(b), answered this day.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the arena at Waterren Reserve?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps presently being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. $122,200.
2.	Yes.
3.	Project has been completed. It was initiated and approved prior to issuance of the Treasury Board directive on cost control, December, 1979. To the extent possible at the stage of construction, the cost control procedures outlined in the response to question No. 1,371, part 3(b), answered this day, were followed.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the water and sewer system at Flying Dust Reserve?

February 26, 1981
Order Paper Questions
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps presently being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil.
2.	Not applicable. Project is not yet in construction stage.
3.	The project will be carried out in accordance with cost control procedures as outlined in the response to question No.
1.371,	part 3(b), answered this day.


Mr. Schellenberger: !. What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the planning and water and sewer system at Jos Bighead?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps presently being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	The scope of this project was reduced.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the planning and water and sewer system at Buffalo River (Dillon)?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps presently being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil.
2.	Not applicable. Project is not yet in construction stage.
3.	The project will be carried out in accordance with cost control procedures as outlined in the response to question No.
1.371,	part 3(b), answered this day.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the planning and water and sewer system at English River (Patuanak)?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps presently being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and. if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil.
2.	Not applicable. Project is not yet in construction stage.
3.	The project will be carried out in accordance with cost control procedures as outlined in the response to question No.
1.371,	part 3(b), answered this day.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the arena at Island Lake Reserve?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps presently being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. SI8,400.
2.	Yes.
3.	The project has been completed. It was intiated and approved prior to issuance of the Treasury Board directive on cost control, December, 1979. To the extent possible at the stage of construction, the cost control procedures outlined in the response to question No. 1,371, part 3(b), answered this day, were followed.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the planning water and sewer system at Turnor Lake?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps presently being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil.
2.	Not applicable. This project has been postponed.
3.	When the project is resumed, it will be carried out in accordance with cost control procedures as outlined in the response to question No. 1,371, part 3(b), answered this day.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the school at James Smith Reserve?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps presently being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Project has been redefined, now seeking Treasury Board approval for revised project. The project will be carried out in accordance with cost control procedures as outlined in the response to question No. 1,371, part 3(b), answered this day.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the planning and water and sewer system at Black Lake?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps presently being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil.
2.	Not applicable. Project is not yet in construction stage.
3.	The project will be carried out in accordance with cost control procedures as outlined in the response to question No.
1,371,	part 3(b), answered this day.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the planning and water and sewer system at Pelican Narrows?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps presently being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?
February 26, 1981


John Carr Munro: 1. Nil.
2.	Not applicable. Project is not yet in construction stage.
3.	The project will be carried out in accordance with cost control procedures as outlined in the response to question No.
1,371,	part 3(b), answered this day.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the school addition at Saddle Lake?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps presently being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. $111,206.
2.	Yes.
3.	The project has been completed. It was initiated and approved prior to issuance of the Treasury Board directive on cost control, December, 1979. To the extent possible at the stage of construction, the cost control procedures outlined in the response to question No. 1,371, part 3(b), answered this day, were followed.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the present amount of the cost overrun for the arena at Sandy Lake Reserve?
2.	Is this the final cost overrun on the project?
3.	Are steps presently being taken to prevent further cost overruns on the project and, if so, what are they?


John Carr Munro: 1. $107,000.
2.	Yes.
3.	The project has been completed. It was initiated and approved prior to issuance of the Treasury Board directive on cost control, December, 1979. To the extent possible at the stage of construction, the cost control procedures outlined in the response to question No. 1,371, part 3(b), answered this day, were followed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The questions as enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Orders of the day.
The Constitution



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed debate on the motion of Mr. Chretien, seconded by Mr. Roberts, for an Address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada.
And on the amendment of Mr. Epp, seconded by Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton)-That the motion be amended in Schedule B of the proposed resolution by deleting Clause 46, and by making all necessary changes to the Schedule consequential thereto.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In the absence, at the moment, of the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), whose time will not be lost as a result of this, I will now recognize the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish by means of a point of order to seek advice from the Chair on the debate now in progress in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would like, if I may, to explain my point of order to you and ask for your indulgence and direction. According to the traditions and the customs of this House, bills are usually amendable at the report stage, and it is at least my understanding that the Speaker gathers these amendments, sometimes informs the House that he or she has before him or her a certain set of amendments, some of which are grouped together, and before passing on the suitability of the amendments informs the House that she or he has reviewed these and that they will be taken according to the relevance and substance of the amendments.
We are here dealing with a resolution about which some backbenchers-and I am one of those-would like to get some instructions and information from the Chair regarding the procedure at hand. There has been a series of speakers on the amendment moved sometime ago by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) when he spoke in this House. I understand that the speeches to date have been on that amendment. I also understand that every member of the House is entitled to speak for 40 minutes on this amendment, and while we are

February 26, 1981
The Constitution
discussing that amendment no other amendment, except possibly a subamendment, may be entertained.
Some of us do have amendments. I suppose Your Honour will appreciate that some of us are not experts as to the receivability of these amendments and, since it is a custom and practice to do these things with respect to a bill, 1 wonder if it would be possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to accept, or if it is possible for members of the House to accept by unanimous consent, that some of us may be allowed to table our amendments to this resolution. This would be for the purposes of informing our colleagues that we intend to move these amendments eventually. Possibly Your Honour could look at them as to their relevancy and substance, and perhaps group them together until some of us get together on issues we feel strongly should be incorporated in this resolution.
For example, 1 would like to move an amendment to include Ontario under section 133 of the BN A Act. I do not actually have any difficulty in doing that expect that the Table, the legal advisers of the House and everybody tells me there might be difficulty in respect of the receivability of this amendment. To avoid waiting too long I would like to ask for the Chair's advice, or perhaps for the unanimous consent of the House so that many of us here on both sides of the House who have amendments could have the benefit of tabling them, having them published in the Order Paper and having the benefit of the Chair's advice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: We might begin by the Chair indicating that in some sense the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is requesting either information or possibly a ruling, but in another sense he is asking a hypothetical question. The Chair ought not to get involved in that because we would not be into debate, but into form of consultation as between hon. members and the Chair. I think there are other methods which may be more valuable to the hon. member with regard to how we might proceed.
1 do appreciate the point he raises. I simply confirm to the hon. member that there is an amendment at the moment standing in the name of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). That amendment is related to the referendum section of the resolution before the House. Accordingly, any further amendment would have to be, under our Standing Orders, a subamendment to that amendment. If it were not related to that amendment, then the Chair would have to find that it would not be receivable.
I understand the difficulty of the hon. member, which is why I continue, when perhaps I might or should not. The matter which the hon. member really did not raise is the question of relevance. If hon. members were to insist that members rising in debate address themselves to the matter before the House, then they would have to address themselves to the amendment, and accordingly if the Chair felt the mood of the House were to insist on relevancy, the Chair would have to persist in bringing to the attention of hon. members that they must address themselves to the question of the amendment put before the House by the hon. member for Provencher.
However, that has not been our tradition. This is the difficulty all occupants of the Chair have had. The difficulty has been whether we are to insist on the rigid application of the Standing Orders or whether we are better guided by the mood of the House. My impression is that hon. members want the Chair to be guided by the mood of the House in that regard and not to insist too much on relevancy. That being the case, unless the Chair is given some indication of the mood of the House, the Chair will continue to permit hon. members to address themselves in a very wide-ranging way to such subjects as they see fit relating to the Constitution.
I point out to the hon. member that he may wish to attempt to lead his colleagues to an instruction to the Chair to be more rigid in the matter of relevancy. Whether he will succeed is for the hon. member to work out.
That leaves us with the question of other amendments and whether they might be receivable or groupable. Since the Standing Orders prohibit receiving them unless they are in the form of a subamendment to the existing amendment, I need not worry about their being groupable, because I cannot receive them unless they are in the form of a subamendment to the existing amendment.
There is an exception, and that is why I think the hon. member has raised a very interesting question. It may well be the view of all hon. members in the House that it would be in the interests of the House to be informed of other amendments which might be brought forward. In such circumstances it may well be the wish of the House that some proceeding be permitted which would-and I think it would have to be by unanimous consent-permit and, in fact, even encourage hon. members who have amendments to bring them forward. That then would be followed by the whole business of relevancy, grouping and so forth.
The Chair is not in a position to make a ruling in that regard, but in so far as it may be of assistance to the hon. member, I certainly would say that I understand the desire of the hon. member to see an opportunity somewhere in the system to overcome this problem of relevance, which is in fact prohibiting other hon. members from putting forward amendments. I understand that, so there seems to me to be two options open: One is for the House to instruct the Chair to insist upon relevancy; the second is for the hon. member to seek unanimous consent for some method which would permit other amendments to come forward in this process.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is what I am doing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair cannot make that choice for the hon. member. Because I think his point is very well taken I did go on at some length, but I think that is all that needs to be said at the moment. 1 should go on and recognize other hon. members in debate. I see there are other hon. members rising on the same point of order. I will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
February 26, 1981


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I shall be very brief. Indeed, I shall simply make a suggestion to the hon. member who raised the point. My suggestion is that he discuss the matter with his House leader.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The question of how this stage of debate would be handled was discussed among the House leaders. Various suggestions were made. The one we are now following is the one the government chose.
I make the point that we are not debating a bill, so the normal report stage procedure does not apply. We are not even debating a report from a committee. We are debating a brand new resolution put down by the government. I make that suggestion to the hon. member, because I also was concerned that at least it might be possible for hon. members who wish to make amendments down the road to give notice of them, but 1 do not see that there is any way that the Chair can provide that. However, perhaps there could be another discussion among House leaders.
What I suggest to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is that he speak to his House leader about it. He, of course, will tell the hon. member that we have already discussed it, but there is no law against discussing again something which has been discussed before.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had not said it, then I would, and I will repeat it. The discussion as to how this aspect of this resolution was to be handled was a discussion which took place among House leaders over a long period of time. This was the choice which was made. In fact, as my friend has said, the choice was made by the government. You know, Mr. Speaker, on reflection it was not a bad choice.
I can understand the position of the hon. member with respect to his amendments, but the rules of the House are designed, as we have seen from time to time, to protect the rights of hon. members, depending upon the matter with which we are dealing. Given the foundation for the rules and the reason for the rules and given the choice after long discussion, I think it might be better if the hon. member found another way to publicize what he wants. I would certainly be interested in knowing what he wants, and there would be another way outside the procedures of the House to deal with that, which would certainly allow the hon. member to make the point he wants to make.
If he had a statement he wished to issue I would be delighted to receive it. I must say that as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was speaking I recalled the discussions we had. We had lengthy discussions with respect to the procedure that would apply. I see nothing thus far which indicates that the decision taken by the government with respect to the procedure to be followed is unwise or should be changed.
The Constitution


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I was present at those discussions. If I am correct, this was a matter which was discussed over a period of months. The government chose to follow this course of action in consultation with the other parties. I think this has been quite apparent, but I would suggest this kind of discussion should really take place in another forum. I hope we will not unduly delay the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) who has been seeking the floor for the past two days to speak on the resolution.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne).


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: You cannot interrupt me when I have not even started.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I would like to reflect back on your comments, Mr. Speaker. As I read Hansard for Monday, the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) was not finished and wanted to go on. The Chair has now recognized the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi. You made some reference, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Burnaby temporarily not being in the House. Am I correct in saying that since you have recognized the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi, I will be the next speaker to be recognized?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: No.
What I was referring to is a situation which sometimes occurs in the House; that is, where an hon. member has the floor then some intervention takes place, such as rising for dinner or something of that nature. There is often some confusion about that practice, to the extent that some hon. members feel that if the hon. member who had the floor prior to the recess was not back at the very next available opportunity in order to resume his remarks then he lost his opportunity. The fact is, that is not correct, he has not lost his opportunity. It is somewhat of a peculiarity of our rules, but he can come back at any given moment and pursue the remainder of the time allotted to him.
That was the reference and the explanation. Simply as a courtesy I did not want to leave the hon. member for Burnaby, in his absence, feeling he had been cut off. In a moment I will be recognizing the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi.
More specifically, I cannot promise to recognize any hon. member. For the sake of the peace of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) I will assume he will be the next to be recognized.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have this point made clear. Is there some right now for the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) or, indeed, any member of this House, to be absent for two or three days and pick up where he left off? Is that what you are saying, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
February 26, 1981
The Constitution
Speaker? I want to make the point that this is a departure from what I understand the rules to be. 1 do not know of any rule-subject to correction, naturally, from the Chair or the Table-that allows a member to carry on beyond the next available opportunity. Therefore, as I understand it, the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) will be next followed by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), at least with respect to this amendment. The member for Burnaby can speak on other amendments. I know of no right to reserve the time for him to speak at some later date. If there is such a right then it may have to be argued later, as I do not want to take up the time of the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi. I think the Chair would certainly have to point me to an authority.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think the matter can be handled easily. I am relying on my recollection. It is a very clear recollection I have of an incident where this occurred before and, in fact, what I indicated is what happened. But it is not a ruling. I am simply indicating my purpose for making the earlier comment. The Chair will undertake to ensure that I have not lost track of myself, or of the procedures. Over the dinner hour I will verify what I have indicated. If I am wrong then either myself or the next hon. member in the Chair will make sure the matter is corrected. As hon. members can see, I am relying on my memory with respect to a previous occasion.
I now recognize the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, since I waited what seems like a week and a half to start, if I do not finish before the dinner hour I will come back in about a week and a half to finish.
This is an historic debate, Mr. Speaker, and one in which I am proud to participate. I want to take this opportunity to thank my constituents for having afforded me the opportunity to participate. Many of those who have participated in this debate have congratulated and thanked the co-chairmen of the special joint committee for the work they have accomplished. I want to add my voice to those who have gone before. I want to congratulate all members who gave so much of their time and talent to this great task. I simply want to say "thank you" to all of them.
I said at the outset that this is an historic debate, so I sought some appropriate sentence with which to begin my remarks on the motion before us. At his inauguration John F. Kennedy said to his countrymen, "Let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness and sincerity is always subject to proof." Therefore, in my remarks, I shall try to be civil and I will grant to all concerned in this debate the opportunity to prove their sincerity.
However, I do believe it is time to begin anew-time for Canada to take her place in the list of nations which are truly independent and truly sovereign. No longer should we have to go begging to some other nation to amend our Constitution or
ask some other nation to be the custodian of our individual rights and freedoms. I do not want to spend much time on the process, but rather on the substance.
I want to say I have no qualms of conscience about the Government of Canada wanting to remove the last vestiges of colonialism from this nation. Neither do I have any qualms about asking Great Britain to divest herself of any custodial charge over our Constitution, our rights and freedoms. Nor do I agree with those hon. members opposite who claim that any provincial legislature can speak for all Canadians, rather than the Parliament of Canada. I am proud that my party and my leader have taken both the initiative and the determination to make my country, at long last, truly independent-truly a nation.
We have heard a great deal about the need for consensus. Like motherhood, consensus is difficult to oppose. However, the arguments we continually hear in this place and in the press would lead one to believe that consensus is solely the responsibility of the national government and that the Government of Canada alone is responsible for achieving that consensus and any lack thereof is solely the fault of the national government. We have seen the continuous and constantly changing positions of the provinces making increased demands on the national government. Premier Hatfield, the dean of the premiers, has stated before the committee that consensus is not now possible and that it is never likely to be possible. But he correctly points out that this motion before us provides a two year period to achieve this consensus if all the players are truly serious. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan), himself a former premier, recently had this to say:
I was on the other side of the table as a provincial premier for eight years and I participated in a number of conferences dealing with patriation of our Constitution.
I saw the provinces demand more powers given by the federal government to the provinces before they would agree to bring home the Constitution.
I took part in the conference at Victoria, where we came closer than at any other time, before or since, to total agreement on bringing it home. In the end, Quebec disagreed and asked for some power which the other provinces wouldn't agree to. But the significant thing is that this September, when the provinces failed to agree with the federal government after the negotiations had continued all summer long, not one of the issues on which the disagreement occurred had even been a provincial demand or under consideration or on the table nine years earlier in Victoria. And so if we continue to negotiate for another ten or another 20 or another 30 years, there will always be new premiers, there will always be new demands, and there will never be the possibility of total agreement.
So much for the demand by some for one more first ministers' conference where supposedly all differences will be automatically forgotten, where there will be a love nest, and everyone will get together.
I should like to deal now with the substance of the motion, in particular with two or three items. First I should like to deal with language rights. Early in our history we decided against the melting pot theory of nationhood and opted, instead, for the maintenance of the language and culture of our two founding nationalities. The BN A Act and Section 23 of the Manitoba Act guaranteed language rights within the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba. The Official Languages Act of 1969
February 26, 1981

gave all Canadians the right to communicate with and be served by the Government of Canada in either English or French. While the federal government would like to see constitutionally guaranteed institutional language rights at the provincial level, it will not impose such rights over the opposition of the provinces.
The charter provides minimum guarantees in attempting to achieve the widest consensus possible from provincial governments. Thus, when the provisions for institutional language rights at the provincial level, included in the draft charter tabled at the first ministers' conference in September, received virtually no provincial support, apart from New Brunswick, the provisions respecting the provinces were withdrawn. However, the status quo is preserved and both Quebec and Manitoba remain bound by existing constitutional rights. As New Brunswick officially requested that these rights apply to that province, this is being done. In addition, the amending formula has been modified to facilitate the opting-in of any other province to any or all of the language provisions listed in Sections 16 to 20 inclusive of the charter.
I should like to quote some comments of Premier Blakeney. He said:
I do not object to the constitutional entrenchment of French and English language rights. The right to use French or English, or the right to receive some government services in either of those languages, is not, after all, a right which we claim as humans. It is an essential fact of Canada, an essential element of the Confederation bargain, and, as such, is an obvious candidate for inclusion in the Constitution.
The minority language educational rights reflect the unanimous agreement of the provincial premiers in 1978 to the principle that children of the French or English-speaking minority in each province should be entitled to primary and secondary education in the minority language where numbers warrant. The rights provided by the charter are minimum guarantees and do not preclude the provinces from providing greater rights, as some of them do now, such as allowing immigrants and citizens to send their children to minority or majority language schools as they may choose. For instance, this happens in New Brunswick.
I keep referring to the province of New Brunswick because hopefully we, in New Brunswick, are enlightened with regard to language rights.
The federal government agrees that ideally the rights should be extended to all residents of Canada. Although it might be preferable to provide for freedom of choice in language of education, the charter is designed not only to safeguard the interests of the majority, but also to protect the basic rights of the minority. If the majority language group in any province wishes the right to have their children educated in the minority language, they have the democratic means at their disposal to ensure this result.
The minority language education provision is being implemented on the basis of the premiers' Montreal agreement of 1978. This clearly specified the entitlement on the basis of "where numbers warrant". Thus, this qualification remains, but it will be a matter for review by the courts. When they
The Constitution
determine that the minimum numbers have been set too high, they can direct that they be lowered so as not to render the right ineffective. The charter assures the right to minority language education, but it does not get into the details as to how this will be provided.
I should like to refer to the comments of Mr. Alex Paterson, Co-President of the Positive Action Committee, before the special joint committee. He said:
We have seen what happens when a province like Manitoba wishes to take the fate of its minorities into its hands. It will wipe out with a stroke of the legislative pen a protection for its minority. Everything we can do to strengthen these protections for minorities by entrenching them in the Constitution will give more reason for the minorities to feel secure and expose them less to the mercy of their provincial governments.
It cannot be left to the discretion of the individual provinces to decide. This is a right we wish every Canadian to have no matter in what province he resides. For that reason we think it is essential that rights of these kinds be entrenched and it is not in fact an invasion of the powers and competence of the particular provinces.
Now I should like to turn for a moment or two to the area of equalization. First and foremost, 1 suppose one should ask the following question: Why should the principles of equalization and regional development be enshrined in the Constitution of Canada? The commitments stated in Section 34(1) of the proposed resolution-to promote equal opportunities, to reduce economic disparities and to provide essential public services across the country-capture one of the most important elements of what it means to be a Canadian: a willingness to share our good fortune and our opportunities so that we can grow strong together.
I should like to remind hon. members that this commitment applies not only to Parliament and to the Government of Canada, but also to the legislatures and the governments of the provinces, although I emphasize this commitment does not alter the legislative powers of the two orders of government.
There is great merit in enshrining in the Constitution the concept of equalization so that sharing will be an important ingredient in the future of our national life, but there can be no doubt about the current commitment of the federal government to the principle of equalization. All provincial governments have supported enshrining the principle of equalization in the Constitution. Not only do all provincial governments in Canada support the principle of enshrining equalization in the Constitution, and not only has the federal government agreed to amend Section 34(2) in line with the preferences of most provinces, but I believe there is agreement among the three parties in the House for Section 34.


Walter David Baker: You are absolutely correct.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: When the joint committee considered this section of the proposed resolution on January 30, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) commended the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) for the amendment he introduced to Section 34(2). He said:
But now what he has done is he has enshrined the principle of equalization payments. I commend him for that; it is a wise move; something that has been going on in this country for a long time; a good thing-

February 26, 1981
The Constitution

For his part, Senator Tremblay stated: "I would just like to say that for once I am pleased with a government proposal, without any reservation".

I was glad to see the nods of agreement of members of the official opposition when I indicated that they agreed with section 34 of the resolution.
The importance of the equalization transfers varies from one receiving province to another, but with the exception of Saskatchewan, it represents a large share of total provincial revenue. This share is around 25 per cent in the Atlantic provinces; more than 15 per cent in Manitoba; more than 10 per cent in Quebec; around 2 per cent in Saskatchewan.
So, we ask the question: Why are these rights necessary? I am referring to both language rights and equalization. They are necessary; first to maintain and enhance the special character of Canada; second, to guarantee that no Canadian who finds himself in a minority position will become a second-class citizen, and they are necessary in New Brunswick, for example, to ensure that Acadians have the same rights, privileges and opportunities as the rest of us. They are necessary to ensure that the valiant struggle of our Acadian brothers and sisters over more than two centuries, will not have been in vain.
[ Translation]
For two centuries, the Acadians had to fight for their rights, especially for the right to be educated in French. For example, they had difficulty finding text books in French. That was the situation up to recently and it certainly was not acceptable. With this charter they will have the right to be educated in their mother tongue without having to experience the adverse conditions of the past.

The basis for this solution lies in this charter but it is not in and of itself, the solution. The real solution lies in education and job opportunites, in the sense of justice and fairness of those, like me, who belong to the linguistic majority. In vain shall they struggle if we pay only lip service to principles. In vain shall we all struggle if dedication to principles is not translated into determination for action to eradicate economic disparity and to promote-with our money as well as our mouths-equality of opportunity. For as long as an Acadian must learn English to find employment, so long shall he be chained. For as long as he must move from an Acadian community to find a job in Fredericton or Saint John or even Moncton, so long shall he and his children be assimilated, just as surely as if he had moved to the U.S.A.
I commend the government and the Premier of New Brunswick for the right decision they have made on linguistic and minority rights. I regret that the government and Premier of Ontario do not have the same sense of justice. But espousing principles is not enough. I now call upon the government and
the Premier of New Brunswick to ensure that those areas of New Brunswick where the minority lives will receive a fair share of the economic activity and growth of the province. And I pledge myself anew to that goal and to work for its achievement.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say how happy I am that native and aboriginal rights will be enshrined. Our past treatment of our original peoples is perhaps our greatest national shame. We must endeavour to eradicate that shame and restore their pride and sense of worth, because in a very real sense they did not lose these characteristics, we have destroyed them. Our paternalism was never justifiable and can no longer to tolerated. Our past insensitivity and arrogance must end now. I want to live to see the day when our Indians, Inuit, and Metis will once again be able to proclaim their pride of citizenship and sense of human worth and dignity in this great land of ours.
Let us look at the positive side of this Constitution as far as this country is concerned. All great and united countries have their own constitution. It is the guiding light of all true democratic nations.
The opposition and certain provinces have been saying that our attempt, as a government, at patriation is creating disunity. They must realize that it is their negativism toward the resolution and personal attacks on the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that are causing disunity in our country. I hope they will forget partisanship and join with us in making this a glorious event for Canada; a unifying force.
It is time for Canadians to stand up and say they are Canadians first-not westerners first, not Quebecers first, not Acadians first, not British subjects first, but rather Canadians with a rich heritage-Canadians first. The Constitution will go a long way to ensure this; it is the real key to national unity in Canada.
And so, Mr. Speaker, let us here resolve to get on with the task; to end the acrimony and division so that, in a spirit of brotherhood, and with the help of divine providence, we may achieve our natural potential to become the greatest, the freest nation on earth, and the model by which all others will have to judge themselves. If we have that resolve, that determination, then in the words of Tennyson, "Some vork of noble note, may yet be done."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I want to recognize the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) but, before I do so, I have to confess that unfortunately the Chair made a mess on its own doorstep and has to clear it up.
During the last few moments I have reviewed the statement I made earlier about the rights of hon. members to continue their access to the floor and debate if there has been some time intervening beyond the normal hour for rising at dinner or at ten o'clock. There is not even a vestige of a doubt; it would not be possible for me to have been more wrong than I was. Consequently, by the process of rubbing both digits of my I.Q.

together, I want to assure the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) that he has lost his opportunity to seek the floor again. I regret that 1 misadvised hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the riding of Simcoe North to take part in this historic constitutional debate. Simcoe North was one of the ridings represented in the House of Commons at the time of confederation, 114 years ago. At that time it was called North Simcoe and was represented by Thomas D. McConkey, a resident of Barrie. The original copy of the British North America Act which is lodged in Britain was handwritten by Robert A. Kent, a resident of Medonte township in Simcoe North. At that time he had a dual function as a clerk of this House and also the legislature of the province of Ontario. He had a reputation for outstanding penmanship.
I appreciate this opportunity to speak to the proposed resolution because I was one of the members not permitted to speak at second reading when the Liberal Party invoked closure, cutting off debate in this House. It will not be forgotten by the Canadian people that the Liberal Party cut off debate at a point when more Liberals than Conservatives had spoken. In any event, the proposed resolution has now come back from committee, somewhat improved from the original disaster, but far from acceptable.
1 wish to pay tribute to the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal) who handled his duties with dispatch and fairness. The disaster from the other place who served as co-chairman shall go unmentioned in recognition of his contribution.
Our committee members, under the leadership of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), made a noteworthy contribution to the proceedings. Canada and the Progressive Conservative Party were well served by their efforts. I also compliment the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) who represented his party so well and in the final analysis proved to be a man of principle. His partner, the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), the Emile Zola of the NDP, needs no further recognition, much as he may crave it. We on this side were pleased that we were able to bring television to the committee hearings. We regret what it did to the Liberal members of the committee.
Confederation is a partnership entered into freely by the partners operating in accordance with a partnership agreement known as the British North America Act. Partnership decisions are reached after consultation and discussion. They may not need the consent of all partners but they do need a majority. It is normal that no one partner should have a veto over decisions unless at the time of the decision that partner holds over 50 per cent interest in the partnership.
It is not unusual for one partner to have certain decisionmaking powers which he or she exercises in the interests of the partnership. That type of decision-making power must be exercised wisely, after consultation and an effort to reach a decision. Arbitrary decisions without consultation invariably
The Constitution
lead to an unhappy partnership and dissatisfaction with that one partner.
May I call it seven o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being seven o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until eight o'clock this evening at which time, if he is present, I will recognize the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis).
At 7 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The debate was interrupted at seven o'clock. The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) had the floor.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, before the supper hour, I was drawing an analogy to the British North America Act and the Government of Canada as a partnership. I would like to carry that argument on, if I may.
In this case, the federal government is suggesting that it is legally, morally and politically proper for the federal government, acting alone, to amend the partnership agreement without the substantial agreement of the provinces. With respect, I disagree. I suggest it is legally improper for the federal government to decide on its own to patriate the British North America Act without the substantial agreement of the provinces.
The Manitoba court of appeal was asked if it was constitutional convention for the federal government to request that Britain amend the Constitution of Canada, as affecting federal-provincial relations, or the powers, rights or privileges granted or secured by the Constitution of Canada to the provinces. The court decided that there was no constitutional convention requiring that the federal government seek the agreement of the provinces.
I suggest that the court applied itself to the situation surrounding individual amendments, such as the unemployment insurance amendment of 1940, and the 1951 amendment regarding old age pensions. In these cases, there was general agreement that these were social measures which would benefit all Canadians. I suggest that the court does not address itself to the fact that the resolution which we are now debating completely revamps the British North America Act. It contains changes and additions such as a charter of rights and freedoms, referendum revisions, mobility rights, equalization payments, and an amending formula.
I am not debating or promoting the merits of some of these provisions, but I suggest they produce such sweeping changes that they will completely change the nature of the partnership, which is confederation. There is no legal justification to allow the federal government to rewrite the British North America

February 26, 1981
The Constitution
Act completely or substitute something which is entirely different. Surely, the partners; the provinces, must be consulted.
I suggest that it is morally improper for the federal government to decide, on its own, to patriate the British North America Act, without the substantial agreement of the provinces. The federal government hopes to pass this with a majority in the House and with a majority in the Senate. Britain will then be asked to approve a piece of legislation, when it comes back to Canada, which cannot be changed by Parliament using the same method. Other legislation passed by the House and the Senate can be amended or repealed by a civil majority.
There is no moral justification or principle for what the Liberal Party suggests. I am not surprised by the lack of moral justification for what they are doing, but I suggest to them that the end does not justify the means. By its actions, the Liberal Party is guaranteeing bitterness and acrimony across Canada.
1 also suggest that it is politically improper for the federal government to patriate the British North America Act on its own. The Liberal Party has no political mandate on its own. A political party achieves a mandate as the result of campaigning on a platform, or making a promise and then being elected to office. Once elected, that party has a political mandate for the people to do what it promised to do.
The Liberal Party was elected to office on the promise that it would not raise the price of energy. One year and eight price increases later, the price of gas has gone up 28 per cent, and the price of home heating oil has gone up 36 per cent. The Liberal Party forgot about the promise the day of the election, if, indeed, it ever believed it.
How does that promise, followed by that performance, translate into a mandate to completely change the British North America Act? The Liberal Party proposes to change the very foundation upon which this country has grown and prospered for 114 years. Such a proposal demands more than a mere five-vote majority in the House of Commons. It demands a substantial agreement of the elected representatives of Canada, federally and provincially. It demands a consensus throughout Canada, from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, B.C.; from Windsor, Ontario to the Arctic Circle.
The Liberal Party is proceeding with its rock-hard, "My mind is made up, don't change my mind with facts" majority of 74 seats from Quebec, joined by what might best be called "political groupies" from Ontario and the Atlantic provinces; and two lonely members from Manitoba, representing the west. Stick around, they are dropping like flies.
How does it pretend to represent Canada? In fact, public opinion is running 64 per cent against what the Liberal Party proposes for Canada. This brings me to the subject of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) actions with reference to this bill.
The Prime Minister berated the provincial premiers for their failure to deal with the patriation of the Constitution and the bargaining which went on. Who will forget his manufactured indignation when he suggested with disgust that the provincial premiers are bargaining fish for rights? Since he made that statement, he has made a few bargains of his own. He bargained for Saskatchewan's support by allowing his partner, the Leader of the NDP, to introduce an amendment respecting natural resources.


Walter David Baker: The little red rump.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Unfortunately, he did not cut too good a deal because the Premier of Saskatchewan has rejected this legislation. He bargained for Senate support by allowing an amendment giving this appointed body veto power when he was faced with Senate revolt. I want to be here when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stands on principle and votes for that. But none of his bargaining looked as bad as the treatment of his Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan). Speaking for the government on a Friday, the Solicitor General gave a commitment to support an amendment enshrining property rights in the charter of rights and freedoms. The following Monday, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) reneged on that promise. As a result, the reputation of the Solicitor General was sullied and shattered and members on all sides were saddened to see what happened to this minister of the Crown.
On various occasions it has been suggested that the Liberal Party was fulfilling a campaign promise made to the province of Quebec during the referendum campaign by bringing forward this bill. If this legislation was supposed to fulfil that promise, it is indeed strange that the Parti Quebecois, the Union Nationale and the Quebec Liberal Party are all opposed to what the federal Liberal Party are doing.


Walter David Baker: So are the polls.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I understand the polls today reflect that same sentiment in the province of Quebec.
Be that as it may, I would point out that this House made no commitment during the referendum campaign. During the time of the referendum, this House and the country were treated to the spectacle of Liberal cabinet ministers from Quebec reciting the litany of things they were doing for that province, and the governing of Canada ground to a halt.
The Liberal party has a duty to all the provinces, not just one. It has a duty to all of the people of this country, not just the people of one province. It has a duty to create a positive attitude in this country, but its actions have poisoned provincial relationships. I implore the government to think of the future of this country and not of the magnificent obsession of one man. I implore the government to seek the approval of the majority of the provinces before it proceeds.
Patriation of the British North America Act has been stalled because no agreement has been reached at first ministers' conferences as to an amending formula. I say to you, Mr. February 26, 1981

Speaker, that prime ministers and premiers of every political party since confederation are to blame for not coming to grips with this issue and deciding it once and for all.
The amending formula which this act proposes provides that amendments may be made by the House of Commons and the Senate which are approved by six out of ten provinces including: every province that at any time before the issue of the proclamation had, according to any previous general census, a population of at least 25 per cent of the population of Canada;-that might just as well read Ontario and Quebec-two or more of the Atlantic provinces and two or more of the western provinces that have in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, a population of at least 50 per cent of the population of all the western provinces.
The amending formula proposed by the government enshrines a hatred for Ontario and Quebec throughout Canada. What relevance does the general census of 1870 have to the 1980s and the future of Canada? Having 25 per cent of the population of Canada in 1870 is a pretty flimsy excuse for giving a perpetual veto to Ontario and Quebec. The people of Ontario seek to influence the affairs of Canada but we want to do it based on reason, not on the 1870 census. The people of Ontario seek to travel throughout Canada, to work and to live everywhere in this great country. We do not need a perpetual veto based upon the 1870 census. We do not want special status. We seek to go as equals, not preferred people. We want to go in peace and in harmony.
Let us look at what the United States does. In the United States amendments to the Constitution require the approval of Congress, the Senate and three quarters of the States. That amending formula allows for, expansion, for growth and for population shifts without giving veto power to any one state. It is positive in its thrust whereas the formula proposed by the Liberals for Canada is negative.
In 1790, the first census in the United States showed that Virginia, the largest of the 13 states, contained 20.5 per cent of the population of the United States. If Virginia had been given a veto in 1791 it would today control amendments to the Constitution with 2.3 per cent of the population of the United States, although 13 states now have larger populations.
The Vancouver consensus provides for amendments to be made with the assent of Parliament and two thirds of the provinces, with at least 50 per cent of the population subject to an opting out proviso. That amending formula makes much more sense. All provinces are treated equally. No one province is singled out for special treatment. It is positive in its thrust. I agree that the opting-out formula may result in some checkerboarding but, as has been so ably pointed out in this House, Canada is a diverse country and checkerboarding is not new. Besides, the Vancouver amending formula, by definition only, allows for three provinces to make such a decision. It is my opinion that the Vancouver formula will allow us to change the Constitution more readily to meet the demands of the future.
In an excellent article entitled, "The Living Canadian Constitution" by Alan C. Cairns, published in the Queen's Quarterly Winter Issue, 1970, the author made the following point:
The Constitution
A constitution is not merely a piece of paper. It is a set of relationships between governments and between governments and peoples which has become embedded in the evolving habits and values of successive generations of Canadians.
1 submit that we need an amending formula which recognizes the evolving habits and values of successive generations of Canadians and can react to them.
Finally, speaking as a Member of Parliament from Ontario, I would make one further point with respect to the amending formula. If this government intends to plunge ahead with the unfairness of th; amending formula contained in the bill, I say please spare Ontario the grief of special status and, change it to read: the province of Quebec; two or more of the Atlantic provinces and three of the five provinces west of Quebec. We in Ontario believe in the equality of all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The people of my riding, Simcoe North, want a constitution made in Canada by Canadians. We reject the theory that the Liberal Party, without a mandate, should be asking Britain to amend Canada's Constitution. We reject this government's effort to make Britain a fall guy in this affair. Since the passage of the Statute of Westminster, Britain has been the trustee of the British North America Act. It has not had the right to amend the act except at the request of the Parliament of Canada.
It is a fundamental concept in law that a trustee shall conduct itself in accordance with the terms of the trust and that the trustee shall not suffer personal harm from acting as trustee provided it conducts itself in accordance with the terms of the trust.
Thanks to the diligence of the media and questions pursued in this House by our party, it is clear that the government told Britain it would do one thing in June and then did something else in October. If anyone is to suffer from deception, surely it should not be the innocent party.
Britain should not be embarrassed internationally because of Canada's internal differences. That is hardly fair. It is a traditional course of action for the Prime Minister to cover a failure of reason by picking a fight to divert attention. He has been doing it to the west for years. Now is the time to take the course of honour, not deception with Britain and with Canada.
The concept that Canada should not embarrass Britain internationally goes hand in hand with another theory. Canada is a sovereign nation. If we manage our own affairs, we control our own destiny. Whether or not we agree with what the Liberals are doing, I join my colleage, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), in suggesting there should be no meddling in our affairs. When the Constitution gets there, it should be passed as presented, quickly, with no amendments.
Briefly, I wish to discuss the charter of rights and freedoms. I want to talk about the concept of such a charter, the content of the proposed charter, the mechanism for change and two specific improvements.

February 26, 1981
The Constitution
My ancestors and the ancestors of many of my constituents fought the lords and kings of England to establish their rights. They came to Canada as free men and women. They did not consider it necessary to draft a bill of rights. They considered that the individual had all the rights and freedoms necessary. They were prepared to delegate away certain rights and freedoms to the government in order to operate an orderly society.


Mr. Blais:: Tell us about Penetanguishene.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The minister asks me about the town of Penetanguishene. The situation there has split the community. The minister is not in agreement with many members of the Liberal Party in that community who feel that the community does not need a school which is going to split the community. The riding president of the Simcoe North Liberal Association told me that. I appreciate the minister raising the matter.
The Criminal Code is an example of such a delegation. It defines crime and stipulates punishment for citizens who commit crimes. Elected representatives of the people decided to take away an individual's freedom if he or she could not live within the rules of society. In certain other instances, rights were affirmed by documents such as the Magna Carta written in 1215 which enshrined the writ of habeus corpus confirming that the state must appear in open court and show just cause why an individual should be deprived of his or her freedom. I submit that the individual has all the rights and freedoms and, through his or her elected representatives, may delegate away certain rights.
I understand the concerns of my constituents who have come to Canada from other countries where the individual's rights and freedoms are not as sacred as they are in Canada. These people are concerned about the protection of their rights because they were deprived of them, in some cases by governments in countries which have a bill of rights. In no way should they feel that any individual right is threatened in Canada. There should be a certainty to rights. For that reason, I am personally prepared to support a charter of rights and freedoms.
If we enshrine our rights and freedoms as defined in 1981, we must be sure that the charter contains all the rights and freedoms now considered to exist and allow for quick, easy amendment to improve the charter. No one in this House is a Solomon who can state unequivocally that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains all the rights and freedoms that presently exist or should exist. The values and attitudes of society change. That is the nature of things. I have suggested to many audiences that anyone writing a charter of rights and freedoms in 1900 would not have included the proviso that women have the right to vote. Would such an amendment have passed in later years if it had to go through the government's proposed amending formula? If the amendment was considered premature by one province or another, it would have failed. Rancour, disappointment and discontent would prevail.
I am also bothered by the fact that my rights as an individual are to be determined by a judge, not an elected representative. As a lawyer, I have great respect for the
judicial system, the judiciary and the rule of law, but I do not want to tell a citizen that a constitutional amendment is required to assert the rights which he thought he had. Government should be of laws, not of men. Rights not defined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be capable of definition or improvement by elected representatives, not judges.
I appreciate that the point I am now about to make is not constitutionally fine tuned. I ask the government to consider some method whereby the charter of rights and freedoms could be amended by a vote in Parliament, improving and expanding the rights contained in the charter by a simple majority of Parliament. But if rights or freedoms are being reduced, they must be subject to the amending formula.
In the spirit that it is the duty of the opposition to suggest improvements, I wish to comment on two possible amendments to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It is a glaring deficiency for the proposed charter of rights and freedoms not to contain a guarantee of an individual's rights to own property. The Progressive Conservative Party has proposed that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
The Liberals and NDP have rejected protection for an individual's property rights. That is a glaring error. The right to own property and not have it taken away except by natural justice is a fundamental right of all Canadians. That right should be enshrined. We do not seek to prevent government from expropriating a citizen's property where it can prove a specific need that is fair and in the interests of society. But we are concerned that by omitting entirely any reference to property rights, the Liberals will be inviting a judicial interpretation that citizens have no right to own property. Socialists will rejoice.
I wish to put on record a letter I received from the Midland-Penetang District Real Estate Board. I quote:
Our board and its 86 members cannot condone and further condemn the Liberal government's action of refusing to entrench property rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Property rights as presently provided for in the Canadian Bill of Rights should be included within any Canadian charter of rights and freedoms.
We do acknowledge and commend the efforts of your party regarding the necessary inclusion of property rights within the charter of rights. Our board further endorses the Conservative party's wording of this proposed amendment.
In today's society, a person's privacy faces countless intrusions. Property ownership preserves a feeling of privacy. It allows us to "get away from it all" with a sense that we are retreating to something which is "ours" and cannot be confiscated by the state. That concept is precious to Canadians. It is a concept of personal independence. It also fosters a sense of permanence. Mark Twain once said, "Buy land, they stopped making it".
Surely the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be expanded to include this basic concept enshrining the right of every Canadian to own property.
February 26, 1981

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret that the Liberal Party and its members do not understand the necessity for an affirmation of the principle of the supremacy of God in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; because it is God, and it is not one political party, not any one man, it is not a charter of rights and freedoms, to whom Canadians should look for guidance. Faith in God gives meaning and purpose to human life. That principle should be enshrined in the charter of rights and freedoms.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on the unseeming haste of the government in this matter. 1 reject the suggestion that there has been a 54-year delay in settling the matter of constitutional reform, just as I earlier criticized the premiers and prime ministers who have not applied themselves to this important subject. I am, however, in favour of telling the provinces to get on with their proposals. Instead of press conferences and premiers' meetings, they should decide on an acceptable amending formula, introduce the appropriate resolution in the provincial legislatures and give some finality to those things which they are so free to talk about at press conferences. There should be some finality to the provinces' position.
I would also suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if they applied a similar process to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all Canadians would benefit and we would then truly have something of which we can all be proud.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) has stated, we in this House of Commons cannot play the role of Solomon. We all come here with different perceptions of Canada, and I think it is time for each one of us, in his or her own way, to share with the others his or her vision of Canada.
I remember from the play "Cyrano de Bergerac" where the hero was once asked to write something which was flattering but untrue, and he stated in the play: "A man should neither utter nor write a word which he first has not heard in his own heart." Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I share with all of my colleagues in the House words that I have heard for the first time in my own heart.
With the return of the landmark constitutional resolution from committee, it is at last appropriate to speak of Canada entering the early minutes of a new era; in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, a splendid new era. The yeoman work of creating a new constitution has now been completed. Oh, there will be more debate and perhaps some important amendments; but with this major body of philosophical and technical work complete, it should now be possible for all of us to begin exploring the vital prospects that flow from constitutional renewal.
In our quiet moments, Mr. Speaker, many of us have wistful yearnings for a new way to articulate our nationhood. There are ordinary people everywhere in this country who feel some-
The Constitution
thing for Canada. They have been seeking a way to describe vague, but powerful, stirrings virtually bursting for release and each, in his or her own way, has wished to pay this amazing country its full due. But, somehow, in 113 years of confederation, we have not quite found the right words.
The Canadian nationalist, the person moved by an explicit love of this country, has been the exception, rather than the rule, through much of our history. Since the first European explorers staked claim to this part of North America, people living here have been inclined to focus attention outside of Canada. We have been shaped by foreign symbols and events, many of them from the distant past. With each generation, this focus has been less appropriate; and with each generation a sense of unease has increased for the substantial body of Canadians, like me, with deep roots in this country.
There have been no words to describe our place, those of us who were born here, maybe two or three generations of us. This is our land. There have been few symbols to which we could attach our meanings; the 69 years before we could proclaim our Canadian citizenship; the 97-year wait for our own distinctive flag, which is to your right, Mr. Speaker; and the 113 years without an official anthem served as much to underline this point as to correct it.
I have discovered, Mr. Speaker, that the stirrings that I feel-the stirrings that I share with so many Canadians-are those of the nationalists. I am a Canadian nationalist. I am not an Ontario nationalist, or a Quebec nationalist. I am not a western nationalist, and I do not put the maritimes before everything else.
My nationalism is reserved for what distinguishes all 23 million of us, from Swedes, or Frenchmen, or Britishers, or Americans. I am not talking here about the sort of nationalism that isolates a people, that makes them arrogant or narrowminded or exploitative. That is the nationalism of ideologists. I am talking about the sort of nationalism that makes it possible for a people to reach out, to be magnanimous, secure in the knowledge that they have something unique and precious to give to the world.
This nationalism flows from a feeling of belonging, from a sense of national commitment. It hinges on the ability of thoughtful citizens to capture the inspiring essence of nationhood in words and in symbols. Without a sense of national commitment, without a pride that rises above local boundaries, what remains? The answer is painfully clear because it is currently being demonstrated in our beloved Canada. What is left is competition for spoils fostered by wealth that has not been committed to greater common ends. Without a sense of national commitment we could vigorously exploit our material treasure for a thousand years, and still be impoverished.
I want Canada to excel in spheres in which we are particularly gifted. I want us to produce goods better than anyone else. I want us to celebrate the forms of artistic expression that best reflect our soul. I want us to pioneer new branches of knowledge and to develop an even more humane social system.

February 26, 1981
The Constitution
The principles that will make those ends possible are now clearly stated in a constitution that will soon be entirely our own. 1 believe that the great symbol of a home-forged constitution embodying our most cherished conceptions, our most prized rights, is a great breakthrough. In swift chain reaction, it will urge us toward a quiet but a profound revolution of spirit. Let me look briefly at the elements of the constitutional resolution that I believe will be the active ingredients in this revolution of spirit.
[ Translation]
To my mind, one of the most important aspects of this resolution is that it guarantees that all Canadians will be free to settle where they want in this country. How can we have a nation if its citizens are not free to move around as they wish? Only if we can look for work, put our children in schools where they will not feel out of place and become home owners and build in any area of the country will we consider ourselves citizens of a great nation. Otherwise, we shall only be residents of hostile and restricted feudal kingdoms.
Physical obstacles to travel have virtually disappeared. We can go nearly everywhere in Canada in a single day, and in most cases, much more quickly. The only real obstacles are psychological and legal. The psychological obstacles reflect fear, apprehension and uncertainty, fuelled by perceived regional divisions. The Constitution we have been offered can only eliminate such perceptions by guaranteeing unequivocally the freedom of movement and communications. The legal obstacles are those which give special employment and ownership rights to local residents. These are certainly the most insidious obstacles, as they discriminate between citizens from one area and those from elsewhere. This can be the cause of serious divisions and great bitterness. Without mobility rights, there can be no question of the national commitment to which I referred earlier. For this principle to prevail, all Canadians must feel at home everywhere in Canada. This will promote an enlightened nationalism.
The ideal with regard to language rights would be for each person in any part of this country to choose freely which of the official languages he or she wants to use, but in reaching this ideal there must be no hint of compulsion. This, as much as anything, will be the test of our wealth of spirit in the post-patriation period. If some provinces object and say that meeting this challenge of spirit will be inconvenient, that it will involve extra expense or that it may enrage some sections of the community, then that too will be a measure of our spirit.
The third principle, that of equalization, is also to be formally recognized in the Constitution. This is a mechanism operating largely outside the glare of publicity, but it too mirrors and emphasizes the principle of mobility, in this case a mobility of opportunity. You see, the freedom to move from one place to another is the flip side of freedom to remain in one's ancestral home without penalty.
Some have argued that without protection against movement each new discovery of wealth will mean a disruptive migration of Canadians from one region to another, but this need only be a fear if Canadians do not share equally the riches they jointly own. Equalization ensures a fair distribution of wealth through the mechanism of transfer payments. This enables Canadians with strong emotional attachments to their homes to enjoy continued residence without punishing tax burdens or confined horizons. To such Canadians equalization is the tangible evidence of the neighbourly concern of their compatriots in other provinces.


Walter David Baker: That is well said.


Gilbert Parent: In my view it is right that individuals should have rights which cannot be arbitrarily tampered with by government.


Mr. Epp:: Hear, hear!


Gilbert Parent: In a sense this puts the individual above government, but it also gives the individual greater responsibility.
Responsibility and spirit are linked. What person could freely declare himself in love with his country if it offered him no fundamental rights and gave him no personal responsibility for exercising and protecting them?

I am therefore in favour of entrenching basic rights in the Constitution. I am also in favour of an amendment procedure which ensures the participation of a great majority of Canadians to any constitutional reform. Indeed, as far as the Constitution is concerned, as it is so essential to the articulation of our national spirit, the greatest number possible of citizens must be involved as directly as possible. When we have finally patriated our Constitution, we shall have a solid legal instrument to protect and promote our rights and freedoms. However, as I said earlier, it is perhaps the symbolic aspect of the Constitution which is the most important.

This is not to say that we are currently without home-grown symbols. As I mentioned, our flag and anthem are now recognized around the world as distinctly Canadian symbols.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Hear, hear!


Gilbert Parent: Niagara Falls, the Centre Block we are in now, Lake Louise, the old quarter of Quebec, the Vancouver skyline: all of these have high recognition value and symbolic content. Our current leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) are all three united by a vision of a fully independent and responsible Canada. They differ on details.
With the patriation of our Constitution it is my belief that we will draw more fully on symbols and visions like these in forging our very own identity as Canadians. A Canada trans-
February 26, 1981

formed by a revolution of spirit will not be a Canada without disagreement. Passionate argument in the open over matters of consequence and aimed at peaceful resolution is one of the glories of our system here in Canada. Indeed, 1 see the vehemence of the debate over the Constitution as an awakening of passions rooted for all of us on all sides of this House in a deep love for this country. Who would want to argue in so lively a way over something worthless? And, to be sure, argument will not end with the passage of this resolution. Circumstances change, attitudes change and constitutions change. Nothing that is truly alive is cemented immovably in time.
The hon. member for Simcoe North mentioned that in 1790 the state of Virginia had 23 per cent or 25 per cent of the population of the 13 colonies. He pointed out that in subsequent years all the other 12 states became more populous than Virginia and that under our Constitution "Virginia" would always have a veto power. I believe this Constitution will change before 200 more years pass. It took us 114 years to get this one turned over.


Mr. Lambert:: Why put it in there?


Gilbert Parent: I believe what we should be looking at is not only a country that is growing but also a country that is flourishing, a country of which we and our children can well be proud of being part.
Argument will be required to establish the shape of that document in the years to come, but we must remember that argument is not the heart of the matter; it is merely the mechanism. Commitment and respect and love of country are the heart of the matter.
Outside this country there are no hyphenated Canadians. There are simply Canadians. There are no French Canadians, English Canadians, Hungarian Canadians or Japanese Canadians, but Canadians. That is how we are looked upon outside this country.
Is there a separatist sickness stirring in the west? I was out west, and I can tell hon. members that there are feelings of anger and frustration. I experienced them first-hand, but if there really is this separatist sickness, as our global neighbours look on us what is this compared with our united pursuit of excellence in all fields?
Is there a premier in Quebec who would like to build a fence around his portion of Canada? Outside this country he barely merits mention compared to the heroes and remarkable people who live here; the Ken and Pat Taylors, the Terry Foxes, who right this minute is fighting for his life, the Karen Kains and the Legers of today, or the Frederick Bantings, Norman Bethunes, Billy Bishops, Marshall McLuhans, and the Nellie McCIungs of yesterday.
Where are the Rocky Mountains; not in British Columbia or Alberta but in Canada. Where is Niagara Falls? It is in Canada. Where is the Beaufort Sea, the St. Lawrence Seaway
The Constitution
and Louisbourg? They are all in Canada. They are in provinces, but they belong to all of us. They are here in our Canada and, by God, they are ours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gilbert Parent: Inside this country it could be the same. There is no need to reduce our cultural richness to averages. We do not all have to sing the same song. There is good reason to acknowledge the qualities unique to Canada which transcend political boundaries and political parties and make us one with our fellow citizens. Such are the qualities of the enlightened love of nation of which I speak. We perhaps back away when we speak of love of country. Perhaps these are words which should not be used by parliamentarians. Perhaps we should use the jargon of the bureaucrats in order to hide our feelings and not let anyone know what this land means to us. For me this love of which I speak, this nationalism, this love of country, is a statement which I have carried with me all of my adult life.
Each and every Canadian has the power to contribute mightily to this revolution of spirit. Let us not waste such potential by dividing our energies and battling among ourselves. Such is the importance I place on the constitutional resolution. It has been the unique opportunity of this Parliament to give it shape. Now it is our historic duty to give it a permanent place in the very soul of the Canadian nation.
Some three years ago, Mr. Speaker, I was at a dinner which was attended by the present Speaker of the other place. I take the liberty to name him-the Hon. Jean Marchand. At that dinner he was asked if he had his whole political career over again what changes he would make. He said if he had it all to do over again he would take one hour out of every week and he would speak to one of us, one of his colleagues, and we could tell him about our Canada and he could tell us about his. Perhaps if we did take one hour out of every week, we did talk about our Canada together, sharing our Canada without yelling at one another, and if we could truly sit down and listen to one another, perhaps then there would be the Canada that all of us visualize. After looking carefully into my own heart and to my own soul this is the significance I have of Canada, a Canada founded and growing and flourishing under God. Indeed, I believe that God is watching over and looking after Canada. I now ask myself a rhetorical question after these few minutes of sharing and 1 ask you, all of you, my colleagues, is my vision of Canada so very much different than yours?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent). He ended on a note which many of us on this side in the official opposition subscribe to. In the few remarks he made toward the end of his speech he recognized that there is a God. We in this party believe in the supremacy of God. We believe the concept should be entrenched. We will welcome him to join with us in opposition when the final vote is taken on this constitutional resolution which is not complete.

February 26, 1981
Abolition of the Senate
Practically everyone in Canada is in favour of patriation. Not everyone, indeed a vast number of Canadians, are not in favour of unilaterally entrenching this particular bill of rights in the way this government is proceeding. The entrenchment of the Senate veto and the formula for amending the Constitution by the provinces are matters which I oppose. I oppose the referendum proposal in the constitutional resolution. I oppose the veto to be given to the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec. It is a fence those two provinces are building around themselves. If you lived in any one of the other provinces in Canada, Mr. Speaker-and we have eight others-you, too, would subscribe to the theory that somehow we are secondary Canadians by the entrenchment of that veto for the two provinces. The failure to recognize certain Metis organizations, the failure to put the property rights, in fact, the failure to meet with and consult with the Metis and the insistence that certain Metis organizations and certain Indian organizations must belong to particular organizations before they will be heard, causes me to stand and oppose this resolution.
The absence of the supremacy of God is another reason which causes me to be in opposition to this particular bill of rights. In fact, I see nothing in this constitutional resolution but a divisiveness which will be in place forever and a day. Nothing short of separation or revolt will extricate Canadians from the mess we are in today.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it nine o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being nine o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to the Chair's decision of Thursday, February 19, 1981.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, February 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles, that Bill C-243, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (abolition of the Senate), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hour has come.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is time for the senators to realize that they have had their day.
The debate we have just interrupted, because it is time for private members' hour, is one in which, despite the differences we may have, we are all agreed that we want control of our own affairs here in Canada. One way or another, we hope we will soon enjoy that situation. It is perhaps significant we have turned from that debate on the patriation of the Constitution to another question which relates to the desire of Canadian people to control their own affairs. We do that in this democratic country by having a Parliament representative of the people in which we speak for those people and make laws on their behalf.
However, I suggest, as I have suggested a good many times in the last several decades, that it is not a democracy as long as there is a part of this Parliament-that other place-in which there sit men and women who have not been put there by the people of Canada, are not responsible to them, and in that sense do not represent the people of this nation. They are fine men and women. I number many of them as my friends, and some of them manage somehow to treat me as their friend. After one has said that, and after one admits they do good committee work, that they have produced some excellent reports on a number of subjects, and that about 25 of them work pretty hard at the job-


An hon. Member:: Twenty-five?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am being generous. It is still a fact that according to the estimates tabled today we are spending about $20 million a year to maintain an institution which is completely undemocratic.
Every member of that other place is appointed to it on the recommendation of the prime minister of the day. Once a person gets into that place, he is responsible to no one. Certainly he is not responsible to the people of the province from which he comes. He is not even responsible back to the prime minister who recommended his appointment. I think the time has come for us to take the position that we are a grown-up democracy and, just as we want our Constitution in Canada, not residing in some other country, we want a Parliament which is thoroughly democratic.
Of course there are arguments on this subject both ways. I have presented the arguments on our side of the proposition a good many times. The bill usually gets talked out. One always hopes that maybe this is the night it will not be talked out. I see my friend over there. Where did you come from?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 ask the hon. member to address his remarks to the Chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are quite right, Mr. Speaker; I know where you came from. I noticed my friend across the way who usually defends the Senate; I see he is here tonight. Maybe he has had his say and there might even be a willingness on the Liberal side of the House to let the subject matter of this bill go to committee to see if we cannot find some better way than letting a group of unelected people have a continuing veto over the decisions made by elected members of the House of Commons. Of course there has been the notion that there
February 26, 1981

needed to be these elderly people to have sober second thoughts in case the democratically elected people made mistakes.


An hon. Member:: We do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We do; we can make mistakes in this House, but when we make mistakes, we have to go back to the people and let them be the judges. But their honours in the other place do not have to go back to anyone. They are there; it used to be for life, but now it is until age 75. There is just no way I can buy that as consistent with the principle of democracy. I hope, in these days when we are thinking about the constitutional set-up of our country, we will give serious consideration to the proposition that the other place ought to be abolished.
1 know there are some who say it would be a reform to put it on an elected basis. That is something which can be considered, but in my view we have enough conflicts in this country already between the executive and Parliament, between the federal government and the provinces. This makes me feel that if we had two elected Houses, each with full moral authority, the chances are we might never get anything done. I go all the way and say let us abolish the Senate completely.
I used the word "reform" a moment ago. There have been some attempts to reform the Senate. Supposedly it was an important reform a while ago when their honours were given terms to the effect that they had to retire at age 75 instead of being there for life. That was really no reform. In fact, it cost us more money. Now we have to pay the ones who retired their pensions and then pay the new ones their full senatorial salaries. But, there has been kicking around for a number of years a proposal which was a bit of a reform, namely, a proposal that the senators have only a suspensive veto, that they not be permitted to veto a thousand times what we might pass in this House. That idea of a suspensive veto actually got into the constitutional resolution which we have been debating in other hours. It was Section 44 until it was put out. 1 want to register my strong objection to the government's action in yielding to the blackmail from some senators and cutting that Section 44 out of the constitutional package; it ought to have stayed. That is, indeed, another reason why we should abolish the Senate tonight. Let us show the senators what we think of the blackmail they gave the Government of Canada.
1 do not want to take too long because I want a few others to have a chance to speak before we do the trick and finish off the Senate. That leads me to something I would like to say is very important at this juncture. With the removal of Section 44 from that other resolution, there are some people who are saying-some of them are some of our friends-that the Senate is being put in a position to veto its own reform or veto its own abolition which is a stronger position than it has ever had before. When that idea was spread around, of course some people asked me how I could agree to the constitutional package since I am so strong for the abolition of the Senate. I want to take a moment or two to point out that there is no truth to that assertion at all.
Abolition of the Senate
From the year one, which happens to be 1867, the Senate has had the veto over any bill put through the House of Commons. Even with respect to my bill we are debating tonight, if we were to pass it and send it to the other place, they would have the right to say yes or no to it. You heard what they said to the government about Section 44 in the package. They would probably say no. That has been the picture since the beginning of our nation's history. The Senate has a veto over any bill.
There is another way in which the Constitution gets amended. That is the one with which we are very familiar these days; that is, by the sending of a resolution from the Parliament of Canada to Her Majesty to be placed before the Parliament of the United Kingdom. I emphasize that what has to be sent is a resolution from Parliament, and that means a resolution from two Houses. That means that there is no chance at all of our sending a resolution, from this House of Commons alone, to Westminster asking for the abolition of the Senate.
That has been the case from the beginning of time, so their newly stated opportunity in the proposed Constitution to veto anything that is desired by this House, or desired as an amendment to the Constitution, is not something new.
I also point out that since 1931, when the statute of Westminster was passed, it has been clear that the Parliament of Westminster agrees to a resolution to amend the British North America Act only if it has the request or the consent of the Parliament of Canada. I heard those words just a few moments ago from another member who was speaking, and those words are there. It has to be on the request or with the consent of the Parliament of Canada. The Parliament of Canada consists of two Houses, so there we are.
From 1867 to the present, and particularly since 1931, the Senate has had a veto power over any move that might be made to reform it or to abolish it. The slightly different wording which appears in the constitutional package is not an increase, by one iota, of the strength and the power of the Senate. I have heard it said that surely if the House of Commons and ten provincial legislatures or governments wanted the abolition of the Senate, Westminster would do it; and that is a pretty far-out hypothesis, that the ten provincial governments would take that view and the House of Commons as well. But I submit that even then, the Parliament of Westminster would have to look at the statute of Westminster and say to itself, "This resolution came from one House, not from the Parliament of Canada".
When I talk in these terms, some people say, "Well, can we ever get rid of the Senate?" We can, when we have a government that has the will and the guts to do it. In this very country, we abolished, long ago, the Upper House of the province of Manitoba, we abolished the Upper House in Nova Scotia, and not many years ago the Upper House of Quebec was abolished. In none of those cases did those who were the members of those Upper Houses like it, but it was the will and determination of the government. Sometimes it was a life pension for those who held their positions; but when a govern-

February 26, 1981
Abolition of the Senate
ment has wanted to get rid of a second chamber it has been possible to do so. I think that is what we need in this country: a government that believes in democracy to the extent of saying that all of our law-making, all of our representing of the people of Canada, shall be done by men and women elected by the people of Canada, sitting on their behalf in a representative democratic institution.
As I say, that was a bit of a digression, but I thought it was important to make it. I regret very deeply that Section 44 was struck out of the resolution. I regret very deeply that the government yielded to the blackmail from the Senate; that some of them might vote against the package. I do not believe for a moment there would have been enough to do it, but the government was too scared and backed down. 1 regret all of that, but 1 want to make it clear that if the present constitutional changes are made, we will still have the right to fight for a totally democratic Parliament, we will still have the right to work for the abolition of the Senate; and if we do not make it in the next 45 minutes, I shall be back at it again next year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, will you permit a very brief question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) accept a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Gladly.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I wonder why the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made no reference to Bill C-60 and the Supreme Court decision when he said a government that had the will to do so could do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought the hon. member was trying again to raise the point of order he raised the last time; but with respect to that question, if he argues that two years ago the government had the guts, I will go along with him, at least to make my point. If the government had the will two years ago to try to change the Senate. What has happened to that will today? Why has it backed down, with respect to Section 44?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Blackmail.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, 1 enjoy the opportunity to speak on this particular bill. When I made my maiden speech in Parliament back in 1974, I spoke on this very same bill as introduced in the Thirtieth Parliament. I must admit that I have matured in my views over the years, and I have gone away from the blatant defence of the status quo that I presented when I made my maiden speech.
However, in saying that I believe my views have matured, I must say that I completely disagree with the bill before us which requests total abolition of the Senate.
In beginning my remarks, let me suggest it is certainly impertinent to discuss this question, at a time when we have a constitutional resolution before the House; a resolution which has an impact on the structure of government, the powers of the legislatures, of the fundamental constitutional direction of this country. But I realize there is no malevolence on the part of my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It is the luck of the draw. You, Mr. Speaker, ruled last week, that it was very much in order to proceed with this bill at this point in time.
I would like to underscore one serious point the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has made tonight, which does have some bearing on the constitutional revolution- resolution-


An hon. Member:: Revolution.


David Michael Collenette: A slip of the tongue.


An hon. Member:: It is an important bill.


David Michael Collenette: -before the House, and that is on the powers of the Senate, as they may be, after the deletion of Section 44 in the resolution on the Constitution, because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is absolutely correct. What the government has done by deleting that clause in the resolution affects or it enhances, in no way the power of the Senate. The power of the Senate, under the British North America Act, is total and is absolute. I think very few people in this country realize the full dimensions of power that the Senate has at its disposal. Unlike the House of Lords in the United Kingdom, which saw its power limited by the Parliament Act of 1911, when, as you may remember, the prime minister of the day might have been Lloyd George, Henry Campbell Bannerman-I am not so sure. 1 think it was Lloyd George.


An hon. Member:: Asquith.


David Michael Collenette: Asquith. My friend for Broadview-Green-wood (Mr. Rae) is a great historian, so he knows the facts.
Mr. Asquith, the prime minister at the time, went to the king and said, in effect, "Look, Your Majesty, if we are going to have the power of the House of Lords continue to frustrate general social legislation"-and you must realize that that was the period of the great Liberal social legislation which heralded old age pensions, which, incidentally, the CCF, in this country, and the Labour parties stole from the Liberals in Great Britain; "if the House of Lords is going to impede that legislation, then, Your Majesty, we feel this is wrong, and that the power of the House of Lords should be circumvented." The king said, "Yes, I agree with you," and used the royal prerogative to threaten the creation of more peers so there could be a different colouring to the House of Lords. As a result of the Parliament Act of 1911, the power of the House of Lords was significantly curtailed.
February 26, 1981

In fact, today the House of Lords enjoys more of the suspensive veto powers that we have been proposing in this House for many years. We proposed it in the Thirtieth Parliament with Bill C-60. We thought it would be wise to limit the absolute power of the Senate and to institute a six-month veto, as well as change the method of appointment of senators.
There is a little bit of mischief going about in the country, perpetrated by the Premier of Saskatchewan, to the effect that what the government has done with the constitutional resolution, in deleting Section 44, somehow enhances the power of the Senate and encumbers Canadians with some anti-democratic demagogue. That just is not the case because what the government has done is to maintain the status quo.
My friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre may deplore that. At least he is a man principled enough to stand in this House and say that is the truth. I admire him for that because in a sense he is challenging the assertion made by the Premier of Saskatchewan who is a member of his own party.
The one aspect of Senate reform that I should like to deal with briefly is the fact that senators themselves have advocated reform. When I sat on the special joint committee on the Constitution that studied Bill C-60 in the Thirtieth Parliament I did not see an obstructionist Senate that wanted to preserve its absolute veto for all time. Indeed, I found a group of eminently respected individuals who cared about this country and felt that perhaps their absolute powers should be curtailed to within a general scheme of parliamentary reform.
Incidentally, they disagreed with the procedure I described last Thursday when we debated the procedural aspects of the admissibility of debating this bill tonight. They disagreed that the House of Commons had the right to initiate a bill to amend an appointment to the Senate and, of course, the Supreme Court agreed with their assertion and struck that down.
At the time, the senators agreed that there should be significant reform of the upper chamber. I find it rather ironic that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, coming as he does from the great CCF populace stock of western Canada and having been in this House since the early forties, should take the position that he does, given the fact that one of the great historians of the CCF and the NDP, Mr. Frank Scott, has matured in his views, as I believe I have in my views. He started, like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, many years ago from the position that the Senate should be abolished. In 1970 when another committee was studying the constitution, he said:
There have been about sixty new constitutions written since the end of World War II and in a great many of them there is a second Chamber ... it is not an idea which is fading away gradually and I would think that there could be now some legitimate place for a Senate that had some regional representation.
That was the genius of Bill C-60 which, unfortunately, has not been fully appreciated by the public. In order to give the regions a better balance, a better impact upon national policies, the government proposed that the Senate would be
Abolition of the Senate
appointed according to proportionate representation. Half the Senate appointments would be made by the federal parties represented in the House of Commons-not by the incumbent prime minister as is the case at present but by the leader of the opposition or the Leader of the NDP if they were ever to divest themselves of their emotional, philosophical hatred for the Senate and agree to work with a reformed senate. The other half of the appointments would have to be made by parties in the provincial legislatures; not the premiers of the provinces but the parties themselves, the leaders of the opposition; the Liberal, the New Democratic Party, Socred and all oppositions, perhaps even the Parti Quebecois. It would be based on the strength those parties had in the legislatures.
I believe that was the real genius of Bill C-60. It got around the very dicey problem of proportionate representation in the House of Commons, a proposition which may be resurrected. The government is fully committed to electoral reform, as was stated in the Speech from the Throne last year. I hope all members will contribute to that debate.
I should point out that when we talk about electoral reform we are not just talking about proportionate representation in this House. Proportionate representation can be achieved in the upper house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you still committed to Senate reform?


David Michael Collenette: Despite the abhorrence of my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I think the Senate has historically discharged its responsibilities with great dignity and wisdom. The Senate, which has the right to reject any bill whatsoever as often as it sees fit, has very rarely used this power. In fact, I believe it has not declined to pass a bill unless it has been endorsed in a general election. This was done with a naval bill in 1915. If I have my facts right, the Senate pronounced upon that bill.
There is great arbitrary power in the Senate but it is used sparingly. I would say that we are doing senators an injustice if we rile against the privilege which they have had for years but which should be changed. We all recognize that it should be changed but for other reasons, not the rhetorical, philosophical rantings and ravings of members of the NDP who approach this subject from an emotional rather than rational point of view.
Today in Canada we have need of another chamber that can review legislation at a more leisurely pace. Every day of the week we hear members speak of the pressures that we in this chamber are under to deal with the Constitution, the energy program and economic issues. Members of Parliament come before the members' services committee saying they are overburdened and that they need more staff. That may be the case. I am sure there is an element of truth in it but I think there is a need for another body that can be more reflective of the regions. I do not mean a body appointed solely by provincial governments. I do not want any bundesrat in this country. That was the proposal made by the official opposition and I remember the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) speaking at great length and with vigour

February 26, 198!
Abolition of the Senate
on the positive aspects of the German system with the bundesrat.
I would take great umbrage at the kind of provincial governments we have in this country today, provincial fief-doms, appointing senators who would then have a veto over the work of the House of Commons. That is the real danger in Senate reform. We must be sure that this blatantly and patently false decentralist theory of confederation is not perpetuated by a Senate which becomes the mere puppet of provincial governments.


An hon. Member:: It is a puppet of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) now.


David Michael Collenette: I shall not go on at length Mr. Speaker, -except to say that-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought you said you had matured.


David Michael Collenette: I think I have matured but obviously that is a very subjective viewpoint. I will leave it to other members to make their judgment on that.
In November, 1980, the Senate itself issued its report on certain aspects of the Canadian Constitution. This report was the work of the people who are in that place now, the people who will be asked to pass the constitutional resolution. In viewing Senate reform they showed a remarkable attitude of self-sacrifice. They are willing to give of themselves, to reform their chamber in accordance with the realities of modern-day Canada. In no way do I subscribe to the almost despairing view of some hon. members opposite, especially those in the New Democratic Party in western Canada, who say the Senate will never allow any constitutional amendment to pass which will have an impact on its own future. I reject that quite forcefully, Mr. Speaker.
In conclusion, I should like to welcome the sentiments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. This evening he made a very bold intervention which has an impact on national politics, and I hope that impact will not be lost on members here. He disagreed with the statements made by the Premier of Saskatchewan who has been dillying and dallying about supporting our constitutional resolution for these many months. But I do take exception to his almost irrational view that this federation, made up of a number of constituent parts, can only be served by the members of this House. That was not the intention of the Fathers of Confederation and hopefully it will not be the intention of all of us who are working together, irrespective of party, toward building a better Canada through constitutional reform.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate tonight about abolishing the Senate and, although I am not the greatest protector of the Senate, I think we can say thank heavens we have the Senate today, we now know there are some responsible Liberals in this country. They are speaking out in the Senate and will oppose this Liberal-NDP coalition constitutional package. I will go into details
about that in a moment by putting on the record some comments made by these responsible Liberals in the other chamber.
I do not support the way the Liberals have run the Senate over the last number of years. Their full-time national party organizer is a member of the Senate. I do not approve of that at all. There are members in the Senate of other parties who work for their particular party when an election is on, but they are not there full time working for their party as are certain Liberals.
I must give some credit to the Senate for the work they do in their committees, some of which travel across the country. One study in which I have taken some interest is the one on the economic conditions in Canada. The Senate committee involved went into great length about the exodus of capital from this country and our political climate. Their report showed that starting in 1975 there was a massive exodus of capital from Canada because of the nationalization of the potash industry by an NDP government and outlined the damaging effects that had right across the country. It set off a signal in the United States for people to be very careful sending money up here for investment purposes. The trend of investment money leaving Canada started in 1975. Many people think that nationalizing an industry is a wonderful thing. It is not a wonderful thing because it scares investment out of the country; it does not attract investment. This study on what happened when an NDP government nationalized an industry in Canada was excellent.
Very good studies have been done on the poor and the aged by the Senate. Although these excellent studies have been done, it is unfortunate the Liberal government ignores most of them. They just gather dust on shelves. If the Liberal government would just pay a little more attention and read some of the works which different committees of the Senate have compiled over the years, we would probably be a lot better off in this country. Not all senators are party hacks.
The Bank Act has been strengthened because the Senate finance committee did excellent work in that area. There is a lot of brain power in the Senate, Members of the Senate pick up a lot of things we miss. They are not all sitting there gathering cobwebs. Many of them are men with high principles.
It is interesting to note that Senator Lafond and Senator Mcllraith are sounded out as opposing the government's constitutional package. However, I want to quote from the Senate Hansard for February 24, 1981, when the Hon. Eric Cook spoke. He is a lifelong Liberal who can no longer stomach what is going on in this country. What he said was this:
I am opposed to the resolution because I am opposed to the federal government's unilateral action notwithstanding the disapproval of the majority of the provinces and the majority of Canadians.
Of course, we thank heaven we have about four NDP members here who have seen the light. The news media says they are men of principle. They are now going to vote against the government's package. I do not think it has anything to do with principle at all; they got a message from the electorate
February 26, 1981

back home. More power to them that they read the message from the voters. I fully support that.
Senator Cook went on to say:
I quote from Professor Peter Browne, a distinguished member of the Department of history of Carleton University:
"Most of the witnesses before the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution concentrated their criticism on the provisions of the proposed charter of rights. As a result, some of the ambiguities, contradictions, restrictions and omissions have been identified, and may be remedied. What has still not been adequately discussed, however, is the underlying question of whether the ultimate responsibility for defining our basic social values should be transferred from the federal and provincial parliaments to the Supreme Court."
As a matter of fact, I was just discussing this very subject with my colleague, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) who happened tonight to be in the company of some judges who gave him a real insight into the dog's breakfast we will get into if this is left up to the courts. That is the point Senator Cook made in his speech. He went on to say:
There are, indeed, many good and sincere people who seem to fell that if we have a charter of rights, and pass over to the courts the duty and responsibility of enforcing and interpreting it, this will prove to be a panacea, a universal remedy or cure for all our ills. Furthermore, they feel that the charter of rights must be placed beyond the power of Parliament, a legislature or the elected representatives of the people to repeal or amend. Those who subscribe to this theory argue that the court can and will do all that is necessary to protect and safeguard all our rights. Will this indeed be the result?
He gives an example of a Supreme Court case of a number of years ago. Canadian people do not realize what will be involved to protect their rights. People will have to fight in the courts for years. It will be great for the legal profession. Mr. Justice Berger in the United States has pointed out that because their bill of rights was entrenched in a charter the United States judicial system today is an absolute jungle. Lawyers are getting smarter and smarter all the time and are finding more and more loopholes in the law. It goes on and on and on, and lawyers are making hundreds of thousands of dollars handling these cases. It does absolutely nothing at all for the person on the street. I shall now read the example which Senator Cook gave in the Senate of February 24. It just goes to show how involved and complicated it is when these things get into the courts. He said:
The last time there was a case before the Supreme Court of Canada dealing with human rights under the Constitution was in the year 1928. At that time the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to decide the meaning of the word "persons" in section 24 of the British North America Act, and whether "persons" includes women. The court ruled unanimously, with not one dissenting voice, that "women are not 'qualified persons' " within the meaning of Section 24 of the BN A Act, 1867, and, therefore, were not eligible for appointment by the Governor General to the Senate of Canada.
Did the court endeavour to reflect public opinion in 1928, and did it look to the future in order to decide this question, or did the judges look to the past to find some legal precedent on which they could hand their hats? Did they look at the state of public opinion in 1928, and did they endeavour to decide what should be the best decision for the future? A reading of the judgment indicates that they searched the past, and Chief Justice Anglin quoted with approval the words of Lord Esher of England, spoken in 1889.
Lord Esher had quoted with approval the words of Mr. Justice Willes, which Mr. Justice Willes had written in 1868, as follows:
I take the first proposition to be that laid down by Willes J., in the case of Chorlton v. Lings. I take it that by neither the common law nor the constitution of this country from the beginning of the common law until now
Abolition of the Senate
can a woman be entitled to exercise any public functions. Willes J. stated so in
that case, and a more learned judge never lived.
Can you imagine an ordinary person going into court, fighting for his rights and having to listen to a legal harangue like that in order to explain his rights. I look after people's rights every day of the week, as do all members in this chamber, without having to hire lawyers and go to court. I can take a matter up with a cabinet minister, speak on someone's behalf here or in committee. I do not have to go to court and have a bunch of judges deal with it.
Senator Cook went on to say:
In view of this record, why should we think that the courts will be pioneers in safegarding human rights?
We need to keep the Senate, at least for the time being. As long as we have this group of Liberals and New Democrats, we need some responsible Liberals in the other place to look after our rights. Thank heaven a few more of them are speaking out. Senator Cook went on to say:
Fortunately, the women's rights case had a happier outcome. The judgment was appealed to the Privy Council in London and the court held:
Of course, that went on for years and years in the courts. May I check one thing, Mr. Speaker. Is ten o'clock the cut-off?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: To put it more accurately, the hon. member's personal cut-off time is ten minutes to ten.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Speeches are 20 minutes in this hour. In the Senate they have unlimited time.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Before I close I want to put a few more of these juicy quotes on the record. The senator takes our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) to task for threatening Britain with grave consequences. I quote:
Also, I have to point out to Prime Minister Trudeau that there are many Canadians who still have a deep affection and regard for the British, and we do not appreciate Mr. Trudeau's quite uncalled for rudeness. This conduct might ensure that Mr. Trudeau will get attention in the media, but he does not speak for many Canadians when he seems to try to be rude and to browbeat Westminster.
Three cheers for that Liberal in the other place.
So I say to the Prime Minister: Please, please, speak more kindly, out of respect for our feelings, if not for the feelings of the British.
Senator Cook gives many other examples of why the Liberal package will not work. While it is nothing but windowdressing, if any Canadian thinks his lifestyle will change because this bill of rights is passed, he had better think again because Liberals are politicians first.
I will give a classic example of what will happen. The contract for the new fighter aircraft will not be divided equally across the country. The Quebec and Ontario Liberals are already squabbling among themselves as to who will get the bigger part of the contract. Quebec will receive 48 per cent,

February 26, 1981
Abolition of the Senate
Ontario 39 per cent and the rest of the country 12 per cent. Will the bill of rights change that? Of course it will not.
1 am glad to see the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) in the chamber this evening. I will be dealing with them in committee in the near future to try to get a little more justice across Canada. They talk about human rights and protecting the individual. They are not kidding me. They will look after their votes before looking after anyone's rights.


Jean-Jacques Blais: How about Bristol Aerospace? How about the increase in Manitoba over the last year?


A. Daniel McKenzie: Bristol Aerospace is one of five aerospace firms in Manitoba to receive any part of the NFA contract to date, and it was a very small portion. I recently met with members of the other aerospace firms. They are very concerned that they will not even get a slight smell of any contract. The bill of rights is nothing but windowdressing.
In conclusion, thank heaven we have some responsible members in the other place to protect us from the Liberal Party and the half dozen or so remaining NDP who support them in trying to ram this thing through.


Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat reluctant to speak about the abolition of the Senate because I have not been a member of this House for very long. I would be tempted to share the views of my colleague for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) because when we are outside the House and hear people talk about the Senate often enough the impressions they give us are rather incomplete and somewhat tinged with negativism. I know that when people in my riding talk about the Senate the general impression is often that perhaps it is the most magnificent golden age club in the country, enjoying as it does permanent New Horizons projects and rather plush precincts. But people think like that because they are on the other side of the fence.
I think that perhaps the Senate is an institution whose operations ought to be completely overhauled because the fact is that it was established or at least set up at a time when institutions were very different from what they are nowadays.
We know that in the early days after the establishment of the Senate-and I have no intention of giving a lecture in political science to my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre who is probably much better informed than I am in that field-but at the outset the purpose of the Senate was to cool down the zeal of the elected representatives before the courtesans of kings and what not, so that now the role of the Senate compared with that of the elected House surely needs to be modernized if senators really want to meet contemporary requirements.
In that sense I suggest that the Pepin-Robarts report does make significant and challenging distinctions. Instead of endorsing outright the bill introduced by the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre, instead of abolishing the Senate altogether, perhaps it would be interesting to see what could be done with that institution. Of course the problem there now may be that the senators are usually appointed by the parties.
Because of this, there might be a power imbalance. However, one might view senatorial appointments more objectively if senators were chosen among outstanding men and women in various fields in Canada and appointed for five or seven-year periods like appointees to certain Crown corporations. It would probably be interesting to see some kind of continuity between the work of elected legislators and related studies made by those appointed rather than elected.
In other words, it would be quite easy for the House of Commons to agree unanimously to the appointment to the Senate of some well-known men and women for a given period, which is how some provincial legislatures appoint an ombudsman. Such appointments would have to be approved by a simple majority or else by two thirds of the members of the House. These people would act as senators for a given period, whether it be five, seven or ten years, and try to improve the bills that we often pass rather hastily because, in this day and age, we have a tendency to legislate quite a lot and very regularly, which may be overlooked, and it would be a good thing to have such a regulatory mechanism. When we consider the role of the Senate and the critical review of legislation, this could be a great improvement. First of all, there would be more time to analyse measures, and second, this could lead to better legislation, as we have seen in the past.
The second important point concerns investigations. Because of the nature of its responsibilities and its role, the Senate could be asked to conduct investigations. Even among present senators, there are some, as the previous speaker said earlier, who have a great experience of life, and it is wrong, in my opinion, to condemn them offhandedly by saying that they are just a club of senior citizens and that they are not effective. What is not effective is the operation of the Upper House, and the same can be said about the House of Commons, where all members have been elected, because many changes certainly need to be made. The operation of this House is certainly not really effective if we consider the work that our constituents expect of us. We should take it for granted that those who have been elected have some experience and give them very specific responsibilities.
The First definition that I gave earlier is the possibility to make critical analyses of measures with a view to improving them, the second would be the capacity to conduct investigations, and the third would involve regional representation, a most important aspect. Proportional representation was mentioned earlier. This is an extremely bad idea. The philosophy behind it is quite valid, but I believe that we should go further than proportional representation as concerns the Senate. I come from an extremely vast territory. I am the only member for an area of 600 miles by 1,250 miles. It seems to me that it
February 26, 1981

would not be a bad thing if we had a senator to represent us, as long as it was a hard-working and useful person, well regarded by this House as a whole. I believe that even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who also represents a very large region, would like to have senators who could represent his constituents and his region. This would make exchanges here in Ottawa possible and would also double, I think, our work and action.
For instance, considering the amount of work which would be needed to develop ridings the size of the Manicouagan riding, I think that regional senators would be helpful, because they would greatly increase the amount of work done. That is a factor which would need being looked into as far as representation in the Senate is concerned. Another factor is the need to protect the rights of our minorities, those of the handicapped and those of people with a difference. I suggest that the Senate could play an interesting part in this respect, because I realize, having been here for the past two years, that when we legislate, we proceed in a piecemeal fashion. There is, of course, a logical follow-up with regard to the various bills based on centres of interest; on commitments in certain areas; this is why the senators could be responsible for an over-all view of the legislation. And also have as a main task to check some very specific aspects of our Canadian life, and in that sense, the protection of minority, native and handicapped people's rights could become part of their job description. Of course, we might look more fully into the whole matter, but that is not to say it would be better to abolish the Senate than to try to give it a much more worth-while role.
A well-conceived and modernized function of the Senate would include another important role, that of ambassadors of the Government of Canada: they could go out in the field to see what is going on, they could help with research, they could complement the members' work. I, for one, think that in the other place we have extremely valuable resources that could be maximized if we gave them in fact the means to do a good job and provided, of course, they wanted to use them. In the Senate, as elsewhere, there are people who are more or less effective, and it rests with them to enhance their prestige and make their work outstanding.
Some senators-I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will recognize that-have accomplished rather outstanding work throughout the years, and have produced very satisfying work from the point of view of giving it careful thought; they certainly improved some bills and without their contribution we could not have reached, I feel, the same degree of perfection.
After two years of experience in this field, taking into account the speed with which we legislate, the number of bills we study and introduce, 1 think it is not a bad idea to have a second house whose role it is to analyse, to reflect upon and to put those bills into perspective, acting, of course, as an extension of our own House. On the other hand, the interesting
Abolition of the Senate
aspect of the proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is that, as he said so aptly sometime this week, he managed to witness the exodus of, I believe, two thirds of the senators who were sitting in the other place when he first came here. So, without abolishing it, to some extent the hon. member did, in fact, see the disappearance of two thirds of the representatives or-


Stanley Howard Knowles: All but for two.


André Maltais: Oh, very well, it is more than I thought. So, as can be seen, he succeeded as an elected representative in superseding the institution itself, because from the time he came here to the time he still has to do, I suppose that the whole Senate will have been reformed in its own elements. What remains to be reformed now is rather the operation. So what has to be done, as a chamber, is to find formulae that are interesting and satisfactory to Canadians as a whole. Mr. Ryans' tan book also proposed the abolition of the Senate, but those measures in my view are too drastic for the time being. What we have to do here is to find a genuine role for that institution. I know that basically the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre probably asks us to have the political will to change the Senate. I rather feel that his proposal is put forward with the real intention of asking legislators here to work out a real change in the operation of the Senate, and then he will most .probably recognize it would be an error to abolish the Senate now. And for all those reasons, I feel rather inclined at this stage to vote against the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in order to ask for a further study of the Senate as it now stands, and as it could be, and what real benefits we all could derive from it, we as legislators here and Canadians as citizens. My feeling is that the nation would be the better for it, and at this point in time where we are discussing the institution, the hon. member's proposal may be either too early or too late. However, this will be a most interesting discussion to consider at the conclusion of studies, to see what can be done with that institution.
I referred earlier to specific roles that could be given to the Senate, and I would like this discussion be taken up in committee with the hon. member, as well as with other members, to see what could be done. Certainly there are people in this country with tremendous experience that we should select in terms of the House rather than in terms of a party. And if they were given a specific role from the start, those people would be an asset to us, and everyone would benefit. Mr. Speaker, it being ten o'clock, I will conclude here.


An hon. Member:: It is not ten o'clock.

February 26, 1981
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair has no choice but to admit that it is not yet ten o'clock. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen).


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one very short point, and then I will turn the floor over to the parliamentary secretary.
The point is that in the six and a half years I have been here 1 have listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on, 1 think, almost any subject which could be raised in this House. He is the acknowledged expert on rules. 1 have enjoyed listening to him. He has raised this matter of the Senate before.
What puzzles me is that there has been almost deafening silence from the hon. member on the Constitution. He has taken one aspect of the Constitution-namely, the Senate- and has talked and talked and talked. He has not talked about how the rights of Manitobans would be denied by the constitutional proposal or about how the rights of Manitobans would be emasculated by the constitutional proposal. He has not talked about the fact that the New Democratic Party in Manitoba is against the constitutional proposal. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has spoken in this House on almost every topic, but he has maintained a deafening silence on that particular topic. I look forward to hearing a 40-minute speech with regard to his views on the constitutional package.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That debate isn't over yet.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: On the matter of the consideration of the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) with respect to a bill to amend the British North America Act, the fact is that the hour provided for private members' business has now expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The senators can sleep another night.


David Michael Collenette: They will never expire.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
["Regardless of their purpose and affiliation, they constitute the very elite of Canada, and we welcome them.\nThis House stands adjourned until Monday at two o'clock in the afternoon.\nAt 10.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Monday, March 2, 1981']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), I note there is a possibility that some hon. members might be convenienced if the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) were to debate his matter first.


Benno Friesen: I am a very tolerant person, sir.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In that event I recognize the hon. member for Halifax West.



Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, on February 17, 1981, I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) when we in Altantic Canada, and particularly those of us on the east coast and in Nova Scotia, could expect to see the implementation of the National Energy Program and its various projects and programs listed in the document introduced in this House on October 28, 1980. The minister assured me in a very quick response that the government would implement the National Energy Program. I was not at all satisfied with his answer, and I am sure the people in Nova Scotia and on the east coast of Canada would not be satisfied with his answer because, since the National Energy Program was introduced in this House on October 28, 1980, we have seen not one tick of action on the part of the Government of Canada in the energy field.
We on the east coast have been well aware for some time of the energy problem because we were the first to experience the bad effects of shortages of supply and increases in price. The reason for that is that a great amount of our energy supply is foreign. As a result of the actions of OPEC, prices increased very dramatically in the period following 1972. We have lived with the problem of increasing costs of energy supplies for almost a decade. It was only in October of 1980 that the government finally came up with some attempt to solve the problem.
However, in the few months which have elapsed since October of 1980 we have not seen any action, so my question to the minister was then, and is now, what specifically the Government of Canada is doing.
In the weeks before the question was raised by me on February 17, 1981 we heard complaints that oil rigs were leaving Canada, jobs were being lost in the energy industry and that the government's program of Canadianization of Canada's oil industry was a failure. We heard denials from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources time and time again in this House with respect to the reduction of the activities of energy producers. In fact, quoted on many occasions statistics were to show that the level of development activity in Canada was just as great in January of 1981 as it was in January of 1980. But, in point of fact, in Nova Scotia we were informed that those graduates of job-training programs who were intended to be absorbed by this great development in the oil industry in Canada were finding that there were no jobs available to them. In fact, the director of manpower training programs on the east coast publicly admitted that the job training programs had been deferred because of the cutbacks in activity on behalf of the companies and industries engaged in this development. Indeed, this was proof positive that there was a dramatic effect on exploration and development as a result of the National Energy Program. We wanted to know, and we still want to know, exactly what the government is
February 26, 198

doing in terms of specifics to implement the National Energy Program.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, very clearly, that there is great difference between the energy program as it applies to eastern Canada and as it applies to western Canada. In western Canada it is the problem of the effect of the National Energy Program on the activities of the oil industry which has played so vital a role in the development of that part of Canada. On the east coast, which is supposedly the beneficiary of the program, we have found that the consumer is no better off now than before the program was announced.
There are a number of items of very special interest to us; first, the natural gas pipeline extension to the east coast which is tied up in National Energy Board procedures. We were told that the matter would be heard in January. It is now near the end of February and the matter has not yet been heard. No approval has been granted and not one inch of pipeline has been constructed to the east coast. We were told there would be coal development under the National Energy Program. It is the end of February and the assistance for the development of the Donkin and Prince mines in Cape Breton, which have been delayed for almost three years now, is only now being announced. Tidal power, which is so important to the longterm future of east coast energy supplies and our ability to export energy to the very important regions of the northeastern United States, is not even mentioned in the National Energy Program.
The very day I asked the minister a question he expressed interest in tidal power. I am not sure he knew just what it was but I hope he will find out, since tidal power is very much a part of the future of the east coast. We have the offshore development, which I have mentioned many times in this House. In fact, the federal-provincial dispute is impeding the development of offshore resources. I have no better proof than an article which indicated an exchange between the Newfoundland representatives and representatives of Mobil Oil. I want to know some of the answers. I want to know how the government will implement the National Energy Program.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, these nocturnal exchanges with the member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) are becoming something of a tradition in this House. I am glad to have a further opportunity to discuss with him measures being taken in the Atlantic region under the National Energy Program.
Of course, we recognize that the Atlantic region is totally dependent on offshore oil supplies. The National Energy Program, therefore, provides this area with a variety of special measures over and above those available to other regions of Canada.
For example, the federal government is prepared to act to resolve regulatory issues in an expeditious manner so that construction of the natural gas pipeline to the Atlantic region
Adjournment Debate
may begin as soon as possible. In the National Energy Program the hon. member opposite will recognize that the federal government has clearly stated it supports the gas pipeline to the maritimes. To ensure its financial feasibility the government has initiated the following measures: One, the city-gate price of natural gas in maritime communities will be the same as in Toronto; two, a contingency fund of up to $500 million will be available to assist in financing the pipeline if it is necessary; three, grants of up to $800 will be available to consumers converting from oil heating to gas heating; and four, grants will be available to distribution companies to assist them in developing gas markets.
In the area of conservation, special programs for the Atlantic provinces will provide grants to industrial and commercial firms to help finance the operation of their energy conservation investments.
Another important initiative for the Atlantic provinces is the utility off-oil program designed to reduce the amount of oil used to generate electricity in the Atlantic region and, consequently, reduce current and future electricity costs. The lowest cost alternatives are conversions of some existing oil-fired plants to coal, increased use of hydro power from Quebec, and regional use of power from the Point Lepreau nuclear station in New Brunswick.
Another program will be directed toward the increase of coal for the energy supply of Atlantic Canada by supporting the development of new coal utilization technologies up to the commercial application stage. Closely associated with the coal utilization package is a coal research and development program.
I could cite a number of other examples of initiatives under the energy program which will ensure a secure energy future for the people of the Atlantic region.


THE CONSTITUTION-QUERY RESPECTING TELEGRAM FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA ECCLESIASTICS
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I rose in the House to ask a question on the Constitution as it affects group rights. I pointed out to the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien) that he had received a telegram from the archbishop's office of the archdiocese of Vancouver signed by all the bishops of British Columbia and the Yukon. In part it read as follows:
In our opinion the imbalance between individual and collective rights in the proposed Canadian charter poses a threat to many groups and societies including the church and church-related societies such as schools, hospitals and social agencies.
The point, in fact, is that these people are correct in their view of this major omission in the Constitution. I think it points out the fact the government, in its haste to try to ram this Constitution through Parliament, made certain that many of the groups would not be able to appear before the committee. There were probably hundreds of groups and individuals

February 26, 1981
Adjournment Debate
that did not even bother to apply to appear before the committee because they knew there would not be time and, therefore, they would be rejected.
But, the group was right, the major focus of the Constitution is on the individual. It sounds very democratic to focus all of one's attention on the individual, but if one looks very carefully at that document, the focus is on the individual as an existential entity, as though he is a little island separate from every other individual in the country. The fact is that seventeenth century writer John Donne was absolutely right, that no man is an island. We are all part of the main; we are all joined to each other. If one tries to separate or divorce one individual from every other individual in society, to focus only on the rights of that individual and to emphasize his rights as an individual only, one ends up with chaos; one ends up with anarchy. If every individual in the country demands and demonstrates on behalf of his individual rights, he will override the rights of the group; it ends up in chaos.
The constitutional proposal does nothing, not even in Section 2. I point out to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Irwin) that not even Clause 2, which supposedly gives rights to an individual to belong to associations, does anything.
It just will not work. It will not wash. If we are going to have this kind of a constitution, there must be an entrenchment of the rights of the groups in our society. Ironically, the proposal allows individuals to vote, but gives no rights to the association.
The most important institution we need to protect in our society is the family. Take a look around the world. Any totalitarian society you look at makes certain that it can disintegrate the family wherever possible. They take children away from the family as soon as possible so there are no family loyalties of any great depth; and thus the disintegration of that society begins. This proposal rejects entrenching the rights of the family.
My colleague, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) introduced a resolution in committee to include the rights of the family in the Constitution. It was rejected by the Liberal-NDP alliance. Second, all other institutions in society, whether they be churches, independent or public schools or hospitals, are support-systems to the family. It is through the family, and through these group institutions, that we pass on to our children and our children's children those values which we think are important. If there is no provision in these proposals to entrench the rights of these institutions, then we are in deep trouble. Other provinces have done so. If the minister will read the telegram from British Columbia, he will find that the British Columbia bill of rights has provision. I would read the Saskatchewan bill of rights:
12. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) (freedom of education without discrimination) prevents a school, college, university or other institution or place of learning that enrols persons of a particular sex, creed or religion exclusively, or that is conducted by a religious order or society, from continuing its policy with respect to such enrolment.
Why is there so much hurry? We have time. We do not have to get it done by the end of March. We should take enough time to entrench everything in this Constitution that ought to be entrenched. Thank you.


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Mr. Speaker, my one regret tonight is that I do not have an hour. I heard the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) telling us all the things we should entrench in this Constitution; yet the position of his party is to support nothing. They support patriation; at least, in October, they had the courage to say, "Patriation with amending formula". As of last week, they did not really have the courage to support an amending formula.


Benno Friesen: Be honest, Irwin.


Ron Irwin: I will be honest. Go to the speech of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). He says we have a package; the first is a Canadian package and the second is the patriation package. The patriation package is the amending formula. The Canadian package is everything else.
Freedom of association does not talk about the collective rights of the union. When you vote against freedom of association you are taking away their rights-aboriginal rights, collective rights. Talk to the natives, when you vote against their rights. Talk about the English and French, minority language rights in the schools. Explain to the Francophones of New Brunswick, Ontario, the Anglophones of Quebec, that you will vote against their collective rights.
I say that the hon. member does not have the courage to vote collective rights or individual rights. I think we should put this to rest.
I have heard the name of God mentioned today, all day, by the hon. member. The fact is that it was a Liberal who put the name of God in the National Anthem; it was a Liberal who put the name of God in the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights at the parliamentary committee, on the last day, as mentioned by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). It was God-it was a Liberal who put-


Benno Friesen: A Freudian slip.


Ron Irwin: It was the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who put the name of God in the preamble to the Constitution, and that was turned down by all the other premiers this summer.
You say you are going to support God. Where do you say that, in Section 1? That is part of the Canadian package. So, you are saying, put the name of God in section 1. Make it the subject of the Vancouver formula, and let all the premiers opt in on the name of God. How silly can you get? That is where it is: in Section 1. You say, "We are for the opting in of Section 1. Each premier can decide whether he wants the name of God put in or not, but we will not vote on this matter. We will not vote on this; freedom of religion in Section 15." That is your position. You will not support Section 15 in the Bill of Rights which deals with freedom of religion, because it is part of the
February 26, 1981

so-called Canadian package. The hon. member should either be for these rights, he should stand up here and say, "I am for them", or he should be against them. He should not come into this House and say, "I want property rights and I will let the Hon. Sterling Lyon decide if we are to have them, or I will let the Hon. Brian Peckford decide if we are to have them."
That is the position, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member must either be for them or against them. Within the next month he should decide whether history will record that the Conservative Party of Canada stood for rights or whether it stood for nothing in 1981.


DROUGHT ASSISTANCE-REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES
Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, four months ago I addressed a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Ostiguy) about the problems we have experienced with the herd maintenance program. At that time about 20 farmers in the Pierceland area of my constituency contacted me because they were outside the drought area. The program has changed somewhat since that time. They have now been considered. The government listened to our plea that they be included because they were affected by the drought just as much as some of the people within the area. We have now been assured they will be considered under the appeal process that was set up and that they will receive some funding.
The question I put to the parliamentary secretary tonight may not fit the answer he has prepared. I would like him to give the matter some thought before answering my questions about the herd maintenance program. If he does not feel comfortable answering this evening I hope he will respond at a later date, possibly by telephone or by letter.
Now that these people have been considered to come within the appeal process, it will still be a very long time before they actually receive any funding. Some other people who did come under the herd maintenance program were rejected for other reasons.
Last week in Regina I met with members of the appeal board. They are livestock producers so they can appreciate the problems farmers are having and they are trying to clear up the mess the government has got us into. A drought committee of some kind studied this problem for almost five years, I understand, in case difficulties ever arose. They have risen now and the program has proved to be totally inadequate.
The appeal board indicated to me that 35,000 appeal application forms had been sent out. Of these, 30,000 people replied. These were grouped into four categories. The first category comprised those who had been turned down because of lack of precipitation; the second were those who had been turned down because of low crop yield; the third, which concerned the greatest number of my constituents, were those
Adjournment Debate
who were adjacent to the drought area, and the fourth were the individual special cases that were being reviewed.
Because of the volume of applications received, the herd maintenance appeal board will not be able to deal with all of them until nearly the end of April. It is rather strange that, as part of the program, the producer is required to hold 70 per cent of the breeding herd until March 1, 1981. Some farmers and ranchers will not know if they qualify for the funding even after they have kept the herd all winter. I think this is unfair to producers who in many regions have had to buy feed because of poor precipitation or yield. They should not have to suffer this hardship.
For this year we have been assured that at some point those producers will get compensation if they qualify under the appeal process of the herd maintenance program. Will this drought committee function between now and next year? We may be facing another drought in western Canada because of lack of moisture and precipitation this year. I know that in many parts of my constituency the snow has now almost gone. Unless there are some heavy snowfalls between now and the spring, and if there is a lack of moisture subsequent to that when the rains start in the spring, western Canada will have a serious problem in its agricultural sector next year.
Does the government intend to carry on with this committee? If the government has learned anything, what will it do differently about a program in the future in place of this present disastrous program? I do not want to condemn the government for what has happened. I hope, however, that the government has learned some kind of a lesson. Hopefully we will not have to face a drought next year but the next time there is a drought in any part of Canada I trust that a program will be in place to ensure the situation is taken care of.


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer briefly my colleague opposite, the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish), who inquired about the eligibility of those 20 farmers under the herd maintenance program and 1 should like to point out to him that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), during a short visit in the west last week, stopped at his Regina office where all the cases are being reviewed. It is understood that this is being done according to specific criteria.
I would like to say to the hon. member that the program is designed to provide livestock producers who had to buy feed for their herd with the necessary funding. We now understand each other. Although the hay crops were not generally good in Saskatchewan the farmers in areas who had more than 60 per cent of precipitation or whose grain crops were higher than 80 per cent of the regular production usually are eligible for the cattle feed program.

February 26, 1981
Adjournment Debate
In areas which received more than 60 per cent of normal precipitations from November 1, 1979, to May 31, 1980, as recorded by Environment Canada, people will not be eligible because they will have had enough rain.
In the area of Pierceland, which is in the riding of my colleague, the rainfall was above 60 per cent. Applications from producers outside the drought zone, including Pierceland, were automatically sent to the appeal office for checking. The managers of the program were responsible for making recommendations to the office concerning the eligibility of the applicants and local conditions. The managers recommended that all the applications for aid coming from the area of Pierceland be dealt with with fairness and the appeal office will soon issue guidelines for processing those cases.
Naturally, as I have just said, farmers should receive an answer from the board within the next few weeks, and that of course, follows the representations made by the hon. member, as I recall, when the funds were being considered during the visit to Regina by the Minister of Agriculture. As we all know, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture held a convention here in Ottawa last week where this issue once again was considered. So I want to assure the hon. member that the Department of Agriculture will give fair consideration to all requests made by farmers.
Now, will there be another drought next year? Let us hope not, Mr. Speaker. The west has known several while in the east we had heavy rainfalls. But we cannot plan the program for the years ahead without knowing whether or not there will be a drought.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. [English]
If there were more membes present, I would be inclined to welcome all of those who have come to the city of Ottawa to participate oin the political involvement of Canada. Even in the absence of so many members, we wish them well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are still four of us here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Regardless of their purpose and affiliation, they constitute the very elite of Canada, and we welcome them.
This House stands adjourned until Monday at two o'clock in the afternoon.
At 10.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 2, 1981