1981-03-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
to a Crown corporation; effectively, it will be buried for another year or so.
1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That this House condemns the Postmaster General for failing to ensure that the residents of Calgary are provided with letter carrier service and requests the minister to take immediate action to provide these residents in Calgary with the same level of service provided to those living in other parts of the city.
Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


SUGGESTED EMERGENCY DEBATE-MOTION UNDER S.O 43
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. This one really is urgent and pressing. There is a major crisis on the west coast.
The cost of the ordinary home in Vancouver has practically doubled in the past 12 months. Interest rates on mortgages- first and second-make it impossible for the average citizen to afford monthly payments, much less accumulate a down payment. As a result of the government's failure to respond to the massive move of people from east to west, Vancouver is now in a crisis situation. Particularly since a national housing conference is taking place today in Ottawa I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson):
That this House immediately have an emergency debate on the housing crisis facing not only Vancouver but also the country as a result of lack of action by this government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, I want to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Considering the report released yesterday by the Director of Investigation and Research that the major oil companies have combined to fix prices and engage in monopolistic practices, considering that the present combines laws requiring a criminal burden of proof are so inadequate that few convictions have been rendered in the area of monopolistic practices, considering that during the past ten years the government has tabled three bills to strengthen the Combines Investigation Act but none have been passed in this House, and considering that yesterday great interest was shown by all parties in amendments to strengthen the Combines Investigation Act, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia):
That this House endorses the government's intention to bring forward as soon as possible amendments to the Combines Investigation Act to deal effectively with monopolies, mergers and price-fixing.
Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The residents of Whitehorn, Temple, Falconridge and Castle Ridge are being shortchanged and treated as second-class citizens by not being provided with mail delivery of any kind. A year ago studies were promised to resolve this pressing problem. The minister has shown no concern or interest in doing his job, is not doing his job, and has not been to this date. Now he is shunting the problem off


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 5, 1981


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas over
1,000	women recently met in Ottawa to discuss issues pertaining to them with special emphasis on constitutional matters, and relayed those concerns to the government, and whereas the minister responsible for the status of women has now exposed his real feelings toward women by calling them "tiresome", by saying he "couldn't care less" and by branding women's legitimate representations to him as "a form of mischief and should be treated as such", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper)-and I am glad the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is here to hear this:
That the Prime Minister relieve the Minister of Employment and Immigration from his cabinet duties pertaining to the status of women immediately and apologize to the women of Canada on behalf of the government for his minister's chauvinistic behaviour and attitude toward a group he supposedly represents but obviously despises.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTION MINISTER BE STRIPPED OF DUTIES-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, in a similar vein I hope to get unanimous consent this time for my motion under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that repeated calls for the resignation of the minister responsible for the status of women are becoming "pretty tiresome" and that, frankly, the women of Canada "couldn't care less" about the fate of the minister responsible for them, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broad-view-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That the Prime Minister immediately, and in recognition of International Women's Day this Sunday, strip the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pauline Jewett: -of all his responsibilities relating to women.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, Robin Sears, the national director and federal secretary of the New Democratic Party, has been appointed "ambassador" and/or lobbyist to the British Labour party by this government in its co-ordinated efforts with the NDP. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs, on motions, report to this House as to, first, the arrangements whereby Robin Sears is making representations to British Members of Parliament with the assistance of our High Commissioner, second, what salary, benefits or other arrangements is Robin Sears or the NDP receiving from the government for Mr. Sears' activities for and on behalf of the government, and, third, whether Mr. Sears is making representations for both viewpoints held by the NDP to British members or are his representations only on behalf of the Liberal party wing of the NDP.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Quebec wing of the New Democratic Party, the Saskatchewan NDP, and the Alberta NDP have each adopted a resolution opposing any form of unilateral patriation, therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That this House urges the Leader of the New Democratic Party to get out of Trudeau's bed-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: -and start reflecting the thinking of the rank and file of his own party.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion respecting a matter of urgent and pressing necessity that directly affects
March 5, 1981

next week's discussions between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the President of the United States, a motion for which, I understand, 1 have unanimous agreement. One of the high priority matters on the agenda of those discussions is the Garrison diversion. It is reported that Garrison has just received approval from the administration in Washington for new funding of some $4 million. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael), and the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House express to the government of the United States, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs, its strong concern that important funding decisions on Garrison are being made in Washington before the start of discussions between the Prime Minister and the President that are to deal with this fundamental and serious issue.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that each man, woman and child in Canada over the last 15 years, while successive Liberal and Conservative consumer and energy ministers stood by, has been bilked out of $2,500, and in view of the fact that these practices have escalated since 1973, and indeed continued last weekend when the oil companies piggybacked increased costs when oil prices went up, and in view of the fact that the people of Canada are demanding their money back, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House direct the Government of Canada to present immediate measures to Parliament to ensure that the people of Canada will get their money back.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions THE CONSTITUTION


CONDEMNATION OF ADVERTISEMENT ATTACKING BILINGUALISM-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter to which there may be favourable disposition on all sides of the House. In view of the fact that today an advertisement has appeared in the Globe and Mail which equates unity with a unilingual speaking Canada, and in view of the fact that the same ad says that official bilingualism as proposed in the constitutional package will become the central cause of permanent division, and in view of the fact that federal bilingualism is a policy endorsed and practised by the leaders and members of all three parties in this House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That this House unanimously condemn the spirit and the letter of this backward advertisement which ignores the rights of millions of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Who said no?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General arising out of those matters under combines investigations, the restrictive trade practices of the oil companies.
Yesterday the minister made it pretty clear to the House that he had no intention at all of taking any action arising out of the report of the director, save and except to move on toward another inquiry about an inquiry which has already taken place. He indicated in the House of Commons that he had no intention of taking the advice of the Attorney General of Canada with respect to the prosecution of offenders as had been found in a report, which was about the most strongly worded report I have seen since coming here.
As the minister has had overnight to reconsider his position, is it still his position, notwithstanding the strong evidence and strong wording of the report presented yesterday, that the

March 5, 1981
Oral Questions
government will not move quickly and expeditiously to the courts to bring these alleged offenders to justice?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, 1 want to correct the impression the hon. member has given. I never said yesterday that we were not going to do anything but refer the report to the commission. In fact I indicated in answering a question that it was still possible a charge would be laid. That option was possible. If he looks at Hansard, he will find in my remarks yesterday that I indicated it was an open avenue which could be explored and that a decision could be made in that regard at a later date.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I suppose the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I assume the minister is conferring with the Minister of Justice. Has he officially conferred with or officially apprised the Minister of Justice of the contents of the report and asked for the inquiry by the Minister of Justice to which he is entitled, to see whether or not there ought to be prosecutions? Has this been done by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I repeat what I said yesterday. The Director of Investigation and Research has the responsibility for an inquiry. He is the sole person who decides what course of action should be taken. If, on the merit of the evidence he gathered, he decides to go to the Attorney General of Canada and to ask for a prosecution, this is an avenue he could follow. If he prefers-and this is according to the law- to go to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, he can. It is entirely his own decision. Now that we know the contents of the report, now that the report of the director is public and has been referred to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, the hon. member is asking whether as a minister I will consult the Minister of Justice to find out, independent of the matter being referred to the Restrictive Trade Practice Commission, if some charge could be laid arising out of specific aspects of the report. My answer is yes, this is a possibility.
There is nothing that prevents the government from looking at the evidence gathered, assessing it and deciding, after due consultation, whether or not a charge could be laid. But that is not the prerogative of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The entire inquiry was in the hands of the Director of Investigation and Research. He did his job and he made a reference to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, in accordance with the law.


Walter David Baker: Surely the minister is not saying to the House that the director, having chosen the course of action he did, is beyond at least having a discussion with the minister, to be initiated by the minister, with respect to the advisability of the director making the referral under Section 15 of the Combines Investigation Act? Surely that is not beyond the right and power of a minister of the Crown responsible for an agency, and for which he reports to Parliament? Will the minister do that? That is question No. 1.
Second, will he in fact not say that he may discuss matters with the Minister of Justice, but that he will discuss matters with the minister with a view to seeing whether there is any substance to very strong allegations with respect to those companies? If there are, will the minister then lay the appropriate charges? Surely that is the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, if he is to do anything at all with respect to this matter besides sit in his seat.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, if you will permit me, as I undertook yesterday, when answering questions by the Leader of the Opposition, I checked with the Director of Combines and Investigation and Research and asked him precisely why he did not ask the Attorney General of Canada to lay charges. His answer was that he believed there are several solid reasons to follow the course which he has decided to follow. The fact that the focus of a criminal trial will be on several narrowly defined legal issues and would largely overlook, if not entirely ignore, the major structural problems which the director's findings have revealed, is the basic reason why he did not go to the courts.
The second reason is the fact that the type of remedial measures available to a court of criminal jurisdiction would be very limited, that is, imprisonment or a fine.


Walter David Baker: Or deterrence.


André Ouellet: The third reason, which is very important, is the fact that even the limited relief available from successful criminal prosecution will be withheld for years pending the final resolution of the judicial process. This was another reason why the director preferred to go to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission rather than to the courts.
Finally, the director told me that the reference to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission is his preferred choice but that it does not preclude the laying of criminal charges at another time.
These are the four reasons for the director going to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. I hope the hon. member and the members of his party will not wish to deny the public of knowledge, at this time, of the findings of the director.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: We know the findings. We have had the findings.


QUERY RESPECTING REFERRAL OF REPORT TO RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, of course the minister omits to mention the fact that we have the findings of the director. Everyone in Canada knows exactly what the allegations are. So the minister, in effect, unintentionally I am sure, misleads the House.
The director's report, released yesterday, states that in Section 47 the inquiry will have a significant role in placing the
March 5, 1981

importance of competition in the petroleum industry in the forefront of public debate. The minister apparently agrees with the director's assessment. The minister has said that public awareness will have a very strong deterrent effect in the future, and that during the inquiry the activities of those oil companies will be up front. That is the reason why the minister agrees when the director says it must go to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.
Will the minister stand in his place and say that is the sole purpose for referring the report to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission?


An hon. Member:: He just gave four reasons.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, my answer is absolutely no. I have just given the House the answer that has been supplied to me by the director. Yesterday, in answering the Leader of the Opposition, I undertook to talk to the director and ask him the reason why he preferred the option of going to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.
My position as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is not to agree or disagree with the finding of the director's inquiry, but to concur with the course of action taken by the director. I agree with the director that at this time it is good that he has decided to go before the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The minister has avoided answering the question. He has not told us why he thinks it is a good reason to go to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. He answered why the director did not want to proceed with prosecution. 1 have quoted the director as to why he wanted to go, and it is highly unlikely. The fact is that this whole access is going to delay relief and changes in the law-because that is all the commission will do-Mr. Stoner said all they can suggest is changes to the legislation. That was the purpose of his hearings.
A Section 47 investigation is currently being conducted into the relationship between Bell Canada and Northern Telecom. The RTPC had four years of hearings, sat for 224 days, travelled the entire breadth of the country-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member please proceed with his question?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I will simply ask him the question. What concerns me is that nothing will happen if Northern Telecom and the Bell Telephone matters are any indication, for an immense period of time. Why and how can the minister have this unconscionable delay before taking any action, if he is waiting for the recommendation of that commission?


André Ouellet: I think that the answer is very simple. This director referred one matter to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, that is, the Bell Northern inquiry. Previously,
Oral Questions
two other large inquiries were referred to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission-


An hon. Member:: Who has ever heard of them?


André Ouellet: -the bid depositories and also the ophthalmic goods. The time that the commission took to deal with these questions was two years for the bid depository and three years for the ophthalmic goods, and it is expected that within the three and a half years the Bell Northern inquiry will be completed.
In comparison, when the director dealt with the sugar cases, he went to court and it took 11 years to go through the process.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It took you one minute to get in trouble.


André Ouellet: In assessing the various routes he could follow, the director made his decision, and preferred to go to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission rather than go to court at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AMOUNT GARNERED BY COMPANIES SINCE 1973
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as well. The minister knows that the report documents the greatest rip-off in Canadian history, for the period from 1958 to 1973 which cost every man, woman and child $2,500. It says that the monopolistic practices of these companies have continued since 1973. Considering that there have been additional price increases in excess of $30 billion, will the minister confirm that in addition to the $2,500 from every citizen in Canada, there have been other rip-offs of billions of dollars, and could he give us a precise amount since 1973?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, it is very difficult for me to start to speculate on figures. What we have in front of us is a report of an inquiry that went pretty deeply into analysing the operation of the companies. It has come forward with a set of recommendations. It has come forward with findings that will be assessed by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission and that will allow the companies to respond. I think in all fairness, for justice to be done, it is natural that we allow the accused a chance to present their own defence. At this time I would not want to speculate on things that have not yet been investigated by the director during his inquiry. I think we have sufficient evidence in front of us to allow the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to hold hearings and report to us in the near future.

March 5, 1981
Oral Questions


ACTION TO HALT PRESENT PRACTICES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the report makes two points that have absolute and clear relevance to the present. The first is that the practices are continuing, and the second is that the report says that not only are the practices continuing but the dominance of the majors is even greater today then in 1973. Considering that there were massive rip-offs up to 1973, and they are continuing-there is no reasonable ground for supposing anything other than that- why is the minister not taking some action now to stop the continuation of these rip-offs?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that the government took its responsibility in initiating an energy policy for Canada. The very reason that this party was so much in favour of Petro-Canada and that we so vigorously opposed the Conservatives when they wanted to dismantle Petro-Canada, was that this government and this party knew it was important to have a player there, to have a window on this industry, an honest broker in the field, to make sure that the consumer would be protected. In this way we will at last know what is going on in the industry. I think the government has already started taking its responsibility in this regard, not only to protect the consumer but to make sure that this industry is Canadianized.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister took a long time to give a completely irrelevant answer, and he knows that. It is totally irrelevant. The Canadian consumers who are being gouged right now want to know not what effect Petro-Canada will have in the future, we know all about that, but what benefit they are going to get now from this government that is just setting up the oil industry to take whacks at, and is getting political gain, but not doing anything about the price gouging.
Just 48 hours ago the oil companies raised their prices between two and three cents per gallon more than they needed, piggy-backing increases, thus adding millions of dollars of windfall profits to their already excessive profits. Will the minister do two things now? Instead of just talking about what would happen in the future, will he call in the heads of the oil companies responsible, the big four in question, and say to them, "We, the Government of Canada, want you to roll back that two or three cents increase and, in addition, roll back a few more cents to make up for the 25 years of gouging"?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, in answering a question yesterday I indicated to another member of the New Democratic Party that this question has been brought to my attention by my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and that my department was looking at these recent increases by two oil companies. I want to assure the hon. member that we will indeed be looking at this question and will take any remedial action that can be taken under the circumstances.


COMBINES ACT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Considering the criminal burden of proof which is provided under the Combines Investigation Act for predatory pricing and monopolistic practices, is it not a fact that there have been very few convictions for charges under the present law? Also, is it not correct that under the present law there are not adequate remedies for what has been pointed out in the report of the director? In view of this, when will the minister bring in amendments to the present legislation? Will he do it in this session?
André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I fully agree with the hon. member that it is urgent to amend the competition legislation. 1 have already told the House that I want to introduce those amendments at the earliest opportunity. Yesterday I suggested that the parliamentary leaders meet to discuss this topic and, should both sides of the House be prepared to proceed rapidly, I would be the first one to hail such an agreement.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister about the recently announced additional funding for the Garrison project in North Dakota. I was glad to see that the motion presented under Standing Order 43 which was moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Lisgar, was adopted. In addition to the $4 million, another $3 million has been left over from the previous year, so that means there is an additional $7 million to be spent on the Garrison project. We are concerned that each dollar spent adds impetus to the completion of that project. Would the Prime Minister not only raise this issue with President Reagan when he is here next week, but raise it as a priority item when we get to that part of the agenda which deals with things that are of mutual concern to our two countries?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Madam Speaker, I have indicated before that this will be very high on the agenda but I am happy to have the unanimous support of this House to a motion moved by the Conservative Party and supported by the Liberals-


An hon. Member:: And the NDP.
March 5, 1981


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and presumably the NDP. We are all concerned about this.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: They never say no.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am sure that this position of the entire Parliament of Canada will be very important in my representations to President Reagan.


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. Many from both parties in opposition have made suggestions about some things we should be doing to represent our concerns about Garrison to the Americans. We know now that the new Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, apparently will be more favourably disposed toward the completion of the project than was the Carter administration. I wonder if the Prime Minister and the government will accept some of the suggestions we have made, for instance, with regard to sending an all-party delegation of our legislators to the U.S. capital to persuade them on our behalf, or if he has any other new initiatives that he could announce. This is clearly a federal responsibility but I think a lot of us would like to see the federal government assume some of its responsibilities in this regard.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the federal minister of the environment intends to meet with the Secretary of the Interior of the United States in the near future. If, as a result of my discussions with President Reagan and the meeting I have just indicated, it appears to be useful to exercise further representations with the United States Congress and administration, I will gladly consider the recommendation of the hon. member.


HOUSING
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works who is responsible for housing. On February 18, 1981, I asked the minister what action the government was taking on high interest rates. The minister pointed out that the government had increased the annual commitment for non-profit social housing from 25,000 starts to 30,000 starts per year. One week later CMHC announced that the commitment for social housing had been cut back by cabinet. I would ask the minister if it is not true that at the same time he was bragging about increasing social housing starts he already knew they had been cut back by cabinet?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, the allocation of 5,000 additional social housing starts last year is just that, an allocation for starts. Those projects will come on stream this year and it is expected that with those starts coming into the marketplace this year, where it is anticipated that the market is in a rebound position, the general effect in the market, the impact of those additional
Oral Questions
starts from last year, means it is possible for the corporation to stand back and observe the market for a little while further.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I am interested in the rebound because CMHC recently revised its 1981 estimated housing starts downward by 9,300 units. That reduction is entirely for multiple unit dwellings. An official of CMHC has attributed the lowering of the forecast to continuing concern about mortgage rates. How can we rebound up when CMHC says we are rebounding down? What action does the minister plan to take to stimulate this market?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, when 1 was referring to rebounds, I was comparing the projections for starts in 1981 to those of 1980, and to the two previous years before that. I think the hon. member will agree that by all standards, all projections show starts in 1981 will be ahead of those in 1980. That is what I meant by a rebound.
In terms of multiple starts, the province of Ontario, for example, has built upon the MURB provision, which was introduced in last fall's budget. By a subsidy of $4,200 per unit in the multiple area the province of Ontario has indicated and identified a responsibility in the market which we perceive will be another increase in the multiple market. I wish that some of the other provinces, where there has been difficulty-for example, the difficulty in British Columbia which was identified today in a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43-would also follow that lead and attempt to build on the work and the leadership which this government has shown.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The report clearly identifies that the problem we face today in large part is the responsibility of Imperial Oil. Imperial Oil is a ringleader in the unconscionable sting that has been placed on Canadian people for about $89 million. Every minister of consumer and corporate affairs since 1973 has known about this. Could the minister explain to this House, with the knowledge those ministers have, why Imperial Oil was allowed to have a special relationship with the government in advising the government on confidential energy policy? In addition, why did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs approve the appointment of the president of Imperial Oil to a special committee which gave advice on competition legislation in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 5, 1981
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I cannot speak for my Progressive Conservative predecessor. I have no idea what happened when the Tory government was in office, but I can assure the hon. member that, as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I did not receive or ask for the advice or guidance of Imperial Oil.


SUGGESTED TRUSTEESHIP FOR IMPERIAL OIL COMPANY
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, the old response clearly is "I do not know what is going on," and it is absolutely true.
I have one other key point to address to the minister. I think the Liberal Party is setting up a travelling road show to bash the Tories in the province of Alberta. We feel that the minister has a responsibility to consumers in Canada. Therefore, I ask him this: in addition would he fulfil that responsibility by placing Imperial Oil under trusteeship and imposing a condition that the legislation will be in this House immediately? Also, will the government, either through negotiation or legislation, set up a procedure for restitution for the Canadian people?


An hon. Member:: What do you think, Marc?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lawrence:: Exxon-can.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I wish to reassure the hon. member that no one at Imperial Oil was consulted or invited to give advice in the development of the energy policy. That energy policy was developed by the Government of Canada for the benefit of all Canadians, and it appears to have been vindicated by some of the allegations which are in that report. I hope in the future we will get the support of opposition parties in the implementation of that policy as soon as possible.

[ Translation]


THE ECONOMY
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and has to do with the Montreal economic summit. Can the Prime Minister explain to the House the total absence, the non-participation of the Canadian government in the current economic summit in Montreal, knowing as we all do that most of the economic
serum injected in the bloodline of the city of Montreal comes from the federal government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker. I am sorry I am unable to offer reasonable explanations for the absence of the federal government. Given the harbour facilities and the various accommodations of the federal government in and around the city of Montreal, including Mirabel, it is obvious that the participation of the federal government was important and should have been taken into account, considering our efforts to promote the city of Montreal. I can only think, as does the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that it amounts to electoral posturing rather than an endeavour to boost the interests of the residents of Montreal.


HOUSING
Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works, the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and responsible for the housing crisis in Vancouver.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: An average of 2,500 people have been and are arriving in British Columbia each month. That means 2,500 people arrived last month and 2,500 will arrive this month. The vacancy rate is four tenths of 1 per cent. Actually it is a minus figure as many people have been forced to double up, move into substandard, unsanitary or illegal basement rooms. It is no longer a news story in Vancouver to find people living in automobiles or tents. I repeat, 2,500 people arrived in British Columbia last month, 2,500 will arrive this month, and 2,500 people will arrive next month. What is the minister doing to help alleviate this shortage of housing? What does he plan to do on an emergency basis, either in the short term or the long term, to lessen this severe situation which is the most severe in Canada? What will he do now?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, in response to the very real concerns expressed by the hon. member opposite, I visited Vancouver on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of this week. I met with the mayor and with provincial officials to ensure that a number of the federal government's and CMHC's initiatives were taking place. For example, I had the opportunity, along with the mayor, of looking at some of the site locations for the new projects which were recently authorized under the increased social housing starts for the city of Vancouver.
In addition to that I had a meeting with the mayor to review the site location for B.C. Place. In co-operation with the developers of B.C. Place, the provincial minister of housing
March 5, 1981

and officials of CMHC, we have identified a need and an opportunity for introducing what we hope will be lower than market housing in that project. I can assure the hon. member that we are concerned. We have been able to respond in reallocations of budget. With the co-operation of local officials, and of the provincial minister, I am hopeful, as I said, that with possible provincial add-ons to our MURB program that we can address that problem.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for a fairly detailed answer but it does not deal with the present crisis. When he talks about MURBs, that is long-term planning. I am talking about short-term planning. In terms of anything firm, all I have got from this minister is 800 social housing units this year. Out of that 800, does the minister really feel that is sufficient for a population which is moving into the province at the rate of 30,000 people a year?


Mr. Siddon:: Answer that one.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is either not aware of the response of CMHC in terms of social housing, or his figures must be confused. On Monday and Tuesday of this week I had an opportunity to walk through sites which have a total of 3,000 social housing units which were designated last year and are presently being constructed.


Walter David Baker: That is ten to a room.


Paul James Cosgrove: I ask the hon. member to check his facts before he wishes a reaction to occur upon us, although it is a very serious situation.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, my questions are for the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The minister will know that in Mississauga his department has control over 900 repossessed townhouses and condominiums.


Mr. Kempling:: Send them out to B.C.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The minister knows that these units are selling, that the market is improving, but they are being sold for $10,000 to $20,000 below their cost. One of the problems is that they are being sold for cash. The purchasers have to arrange their own financing. Will the minister undertake to the House that these houses will not be sold wholesale to speculators and investors but will be sold directly to owners and occupants so that the speculators will not again rip off Canada?


Paul James Cosgrove: I am
very pleased to respond to the hon. member. The first objective
Oral Questions
of sales by the corporation is to ensure that the sales are to home owners, people who will occupy and use the property for home owner purposes. The hon. member will recognize that when the market was difficult some two years ago, and his government authorized an additional $200 million to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to address the problem of the mortgage insurance fund, that market was different and the procedures were different. I would like to assure him that we are addressing the home ownership question.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: With the high interest rate policy of the government, interest rates up again today, and at 17 per cent or more for 11 weeks, the minister's policy is to sell these houses for all cash, with purchasers having to arrange their own financing. It is exceptionally difficult to get realistic interest rate financing on the market. That is the reason the minister is taking low ball prices for these properties. Will the minister rearrange the sales program so that CMHC will take back vendor mortgages at realistic interest rates for people who intend to occupy these homes?


Paul James Cosgrove: As I already indicated to the hon. member, Madam Speaker, in view of the tightening and improved market, the corporation is looking to achieve the best prices it can to replenish the mortgage insurance fund. I cannot respond favourably to the hon. member's question or his request that we possibly take a lower interest rate than would normally be possible or, indeed, that we take vendor mortgages. Our objective in this exercise, as I indicated, is to replenish the mortgage insurance fund which had a $200 million advance by the hon. member's government in 1979.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In November, 1980, the Canadian government replied to questions of the United Nations Human Rights Committee regarding discrimination against Indian women with specific reference to the case of Sandra Lovelace. The government indicated that it was preparing legislation to end such discrimination and to give Indian bands power to pass non-discriminatory bylaws concerning membership. Can the minister tell the House when this legislation will be introduced? Can he inform us what process of consultation is being followed with Indian organizations, particularly organizations which specifically represent Indian women?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, dealing with the latter part of the question first, I announced several months ago that I have power under the present Indian Act and that if the chief and band council, by band council resolution, ask me to exercise my powers under the Indian Act to give exemption

March 5, 1981
Oral Questions
to this alleged "discriminatory feature" of the Indian Act as it applies to a status Indian woman marrying a white person and losing her status, I would do so. That option is now there for chiefs and band councils to exercise, if they so wish.
With regard to the first part of the hon. member's question as to when we are going to attack the whole question of the discriminatory section of the Indian Act, may I indicate, as the Prime Minister did earlier, that we wish to give ample opportunity to the Indian people to consult and let us know when they will be ready, within a reasonable time, for us to deal with this aspect of the alleged discrimination, mainly because it involves complex questions dealing with membership, as the hon. member knows. Certainly the Indian community is well aware of the constitutional resolution now before the House. After the three-year period involved, we will automatically do away with the discriminatory feature in the Indian Act.


James Douglas Manly: The Canadian government in its response to the United Nations specifically said that it hoped this legislation would be prepared and tabled in the House by mid-1981. What process of consultation is being followed now with Indian organizations so that this legislation will represent their views, specifically organizations which represent Indian women?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the constitutional resolution now before the House includes a clause which will do away with discrimination based on sex. That clause is to be operative three years hence, giving the provinces time to gear up their legislation to deal with the rationale for that. The Indian people have had the constitutional resolution before them for months. They have made appearances before the constitutional committee. They are well aware there will be a law entrenched doing away with discrimination of this kind, to be effective three years from now. Therefore, they have been richly consulted with regard to that aspect of the resolution.
Innumerable Indian organizations appeared before the constitutional committee to give their views on this particular section and on the whole Constitution. This consultative process has been open to them. They are aware of the section. They have been aware of the parliamentary committee where they can make all sorts of representations with respect to it. One need only read the record of the constitutional committee's proceedings to see the tremendous availability for consultation there has been.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam
Speaker, my question is addressed to the very popular Minister of Public Works in his capacity as minister responsible for the National Capital Commission, ft deals with the long awaited and much needed Rideau Centre development in my riding.
My question is prompted by several comments made by developers, contractors, suppliers, and citizens concerning press reports that the Rideau Centre development has been put off once more. Can the minister confirm that there will not be a loss of $5 million per month as reported in the press? Can he advise whether there is any truth to the fact that the lawyers representing the developer, Viking Rideau and a hotel, Western International, are having difficulty reaching agreement, and that is basically the reason why it is being delayed?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to the question of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. I want to express my optimism that although there have been additional delays on the project, I remain confident that the problems are temporary and the project will go ahead. We feel very positive about the project. For example, the announcement of this project with the convention centre has encouraged other developments in the city of Ottawa. It will be good not only for the city, but the region generally. In direct response to the question, the newspaper reports are accurate. There are some legal difficulties between the major parties involved, the developer and the hotel, and the federal government, at the request of the major developer, changing the program from a lease to a sale has encountered some delay in legal implementation as well. Hopefully it will proceed.


Madam Speaker:: Some answers to questions today were quite long, and justifiably so. I did not think it in the interest of the House to intervene, but the House will probably agree that I should extend the question period for a while.


HOUSING
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works, who is responsible for housing. The vacancy rate for rental housing in St. John's, Newfoundland, is down to 2.5 per cent and now equals the national rate. Housing starts are down over 10 per cent on the east coast, which is greater than the national average. Mortgage interest rates are up 5 per cent. This puts great financial pressure on renters on the east coast and across Canada. There are three million of them.
We have heard about MURBs, which are not successful in the long-term. We have heard about social housing, which is not proceeding in Nova Scotia. What more can the minister tell us about what he will do for the east coast? Let us remember that much of what he has told us is about provincial initiatives such as those in the province of Ontario. Will the minister tell us what the federal government will do for the east coast?
March 5, 1981


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, 1 should at the outset indicate for the record that the social housing component of CMHC is a national program. The allocation of the 25,000 social housing units is on a proportionate basis in all of the provinces from coast to coast. This is in response to needs on the east coast as well as those on the west.
Second, the MURB provision is a national policy. It is a tax policy of the government which applies everywhere. If it is not by itself sufficient to engender action and response to the points raised by the hon. member, I have no hesitation in saying that some provinces have felt that they can, with their resources, add to those expenditures of the federal government. I would recommend that that be considered by the provincial ministry.


REQUEST FOR MEETING WITH NOVA SCOTIA MINISTER
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could ask the minister to contact the regional office of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Halifax and ask about the status of the social program in Nova Scotia and about how it is proceeding.
In order to help the area to take a positive approach, will the minister meet with the minister responsible for housing in Nova Scotia and with other maritime housing ministers in order to establish some additional programs to resolve the problems in the housing field?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I have a meeting arranged with the minister for Monday.


FISHERIES
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It arises out of the recent regulations the minister has announced which impact very heavily on the sports fishing and recreational community in British Columbia, as the minister well knows because of the thousands of letters he has been receiving. The minister initiated these regulations without reference to the sports fish advisory council or to his own ministerial advisory board. He has produced no scientific evidence to justify the measures he has announced.
As he is a man who has a great deal of regard for the concept of fairness and equity, I wonder if the minister might tell this House how many of the Fraser River chinook salmon are caught by the sports fishery of British Columbia, what percentage are caught by the industrial seine fishery, and what percentage are caught by interception by U.S. fishermen in Puget Sound and the San Juan islands area.
Oral Questions


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I do not have in front of me the arithmetic the hon. member requests. I can obviously look and make sure that his office receives a copy. In fact, I was looking at that information in a report which was sent to me last night.
Certainly it was in an effort to be fair to all groups that I felt that conservation measures should affect all groups. There should not be one or two groups which are completely excluded from conservation measures. In fact we have approached United States authorities to explain that the situation regarding the Fraser chinook was very serious and that we were hoping they would also implement measures to accommodate the Canadian interests. They have not rejected this approach. In fact, I thought their reaction was rather positive. I am waiting for confirmation from them.


ECONOMIC EFFECT OF REGULATIONS-REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, the sports fishermen of British Columbia are particularly annoyed by this rather ridiculous one-fish-per-day rule, which essentially cripples the sports fishing industry, which includes guiding and tackle operations, tackle manufacturers, and all those who benefit from the sports fishery.
Is the minister prepared to announce a 90-day suspension at least of the one-a-day chinook salmon regulation so that he can meet with the sports fishery advisory committee and so that there can be full disclosure of scientific facts with respect to the potential effectiveness of this measure? Before reimplementing these initiatives will the minister announce action against the industrial seine fleet and the American fishery at the same time?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, 1 am sure the hon. member would not want to drag a red herring across this problem. The information is available to all interest groups, including the sport fishery advisery groups. I accept that perhaps we did not at the very last minute consult adequately, although discussions on bag limits, etc. have been going on for months and months. In fact, I have had very prolonged discussions with sports fishermen's representatives in the past six months. A meeting was scheduled for yesterday. I have not yet seen a report on this. There will be another meeting with another sports fishing group later this week.
I will repeat what I said ten days ago to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich: if the sports fishing community can come up with alternatives which are perhaps slightly better adapted to what they identify as their needs, and yet make sure that conservation of the wild chinook stock does take place, then obviously I am open to suggestions.
I do not think a 90-day moratorium is the right approach. There was a suggestion-and I am looking at the possibility- that we might look at a shorter moratorium, but then the onus would be on all users to come up with alternative suggestions.

March 5, 198!
Oral Questions
Interestingly enough, not too many people have wanted that problem to be dumped on their laps yet.


AIRPORTS
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. On November 21 in this House I asked the minister when he planned to introduce long-range planning for Toronto international airport, a ten-year plan. On that day the minister announced it would be released in January. It is now March 5. The people in Brampton, Mississauga, Etobicoke, and Toronto are wondering where this long-awaited plan is and what is the hold up.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, unfortunately there will be a short delay. The master plan will be concluded in the coming weeks. I wrote yesterday to all members from the Toronto area asking them for suggestions as to the best way of bringing the plan to the attention of the public. The short answer is that we will be late by three or four weeks.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I think the minister means by three or four months. He is eight weeks late now, so I think that is what he is referring to. Will the minister assure the people of Toronto that this delay will not preclude them from making proper representations to the ministry on the plans as presented?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, to make it short, I can give that solemn assurance.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board, in light of the fact that this Sunday is International Women's Day, and since it has been nine months since the Canadian government was found guilty by the Canadian Human Rights Commission with respect to providing equal pay for work of equal value to 3,000 members of the general services group of the PSAC, would the President of the Treasury Board not agree that it is time the government now acted? Would he also not agree that by having only Mr. John Campbell and one assistant looking into all complaints of inequality in government pay scales, the government is really just giving token recognition to equality in the public service?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I do not agree with the remarks of the hon. member that we are paying token lip service, or
whatever the comment was, to this very important and fundamental principle. I indicated earlier to the House that the matter referred to by the hon. member is very complicated because of the difficulty involved in establishing a firm basis for compensation. I hope we have solved that problem. The hon. member is right that it is time the matter was settled. I want to assure him, however, Madam Speaker, that all settlements will be retroactive in any event, so ultimately no one will suffer through these delays. The important thing is to establish a firm and fair basis to give effect to the principle found in Section 11.
So far as the staffing of departments is concerned, 1 will look into the matter that has been raised. 1 have committed Treasury Board to moving ahead in trying to ferret out areas where there may be a contravention of this fundamental principle. 1 would point out that so far as the number of complaints that we have received is concerned, they are all being dealt with and they are not that numerous.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I thank the minister for his answer. 1 have a supplementary question for him. As there are only 14 people involved in the three government departments that have any affirmative action programs at all, as there are only two people at present looking into equal pay for work of equal value complaints, and in view of the fact that it has been over nine years since the Treasury Board issued a directive stating that department managers are supposed to be hiring and promoting women within their departments, does the minister not think that, unlike the minister responsible for the status of women who could not care less, this is tiresome? Should the Treasury Board not make sure that all government agencies act to make sure that there is equality within the public service?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Treasury Board and on behalf of my colleague to whom reference was made, may I say that my colleague has been instrumental, along with the Secretary of State and my own department, in moving forward on these three pilot projects which are independent of the equal opportunities program which already exists and, I suggest, has moved forward relatively effectively.
We have been attempting, as I have said before in the House, Madam Speaker, to identify across Canada, starting with three departments, what is known as systemic discrimination, not only against women but against handicapped people and against native people. This is a form of unconscious discrimination which undoubtedly has an impact in preventing women from moving ahead in the ranks of the public service at a rate which we would find acceptable. There has been no lack of resolve and no withdrawal from that very firm commitment, and I resent any suggestion that we have in any way departed from what I think are very ambitious pilot projects which have been undertaken. When those results are known, which I expect will be very soon, the hon. member can rest assured that we will make a concerted effort to apply the principle across government. As I suggested before, we regard it as a
March 5, 1981

mistake to take on additional person-years and bloat the public service without first knowing exactly where we are going.


An hon. Member:: Enough.


Donald James Johnston: We should know that in a very few months.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, could I ask the government House leader to tell us the legislative intentions of the government for today, tomorrow and into next week?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, today we will go on with the debate on the Constitution and conclude five months of debate. Tomorrow we will deal with Bill C-55, the Canada Student Loans Act amendment, through all the stages. Then we will deal with Bill C-34 and with the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Transport. If we have any time left, we will start debate, and if possible conclude it, on Bill C-58, the Canada Elections Act.

Next Monday, Madam Speaker, will be an allotted day, and I understand that the New Democratic Party will sponsor the motion. Then on Tuesday, we shall resume debate on the Constitution. We shall thus begin the sixth month of debate on the resolution and the constitutional issue. Wednesday morning the President of the United States will address the House at 11 a.m. Since we expect everything to be over around 12 noon, this will not affect our regular sitting hours. We shall, therefore, sit as usual on Wednesday and, of course, the following day. Next week, Madam Speaker, after Monday, the constitutional issue will again come before the House.


Walter David Baker: I want to thank the government House leader. It is because of our desire to ensure that there is adequate time for all hon. members to speak on the Constitution debate that we are agreeable to putting some legislation through quickly, legislation which could have gone to Committee of the Whole, and send it to committees of the House. We are agreeable, for instance in respect of Bill C-55, to go through all three stages, and we are agreeable generally to the program that the government House leader has outlined because we want to reserve as much House time as we can for that portion of business which the government obviously regards as the most important, namely, the Constitution.
I want to ask the government House leader about one other bill which we discussed, and that is Bill C-60 respecting the National Energy Board Act. There had been a discussion with respect to that bill and the government was to consider its position on the bill. Has my friend had an opportunity to do so?
Business of the House
While I am on my feet, Madam Speaker, I should like to have it confirmed that the agreement has been that next Monday will be an NDP allotted day. I hope they will bring up the matter of the price gouging by the oil companies because we look forward to participating in that debate.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, with regard to the last part of the question concerning Bill C-60, I have not had the opportunity to discuss the matter with the minister responsible. I will speak to him and I will try to bring the bill in front of the House as soon as possible.
My colleague mentioned his desire to allow more members to speak in the Constitution debate. I agree with him on the importance of that debate and if he wishes to accept my proposal that the length of speeches be reduced to 20 minutes and that we sit additional hours, I hereby make that offer to him. I propose that we reduce the length of speeches to 20 minutes and that we allow the House to sit from six to ten additional hours a week, thus allowing more members to participate. If my colleague is serious and sincere in his desire to allow more members to participate in the debate, he will accept my proposal. In fact, I understand-and this has been made public in the House-that two or three weeks ago when we resumed debate on the Constitution his party refused additional hours of sittings.
Since he has mentioned today, three weeks after that refusal, that he wishes more members to participate in the debate, I am willing to oblige him and I hereby once again make the formal offer that speeches be reduced in length to 20 minutes. If my colleague wishes to settle for 25 minutes, I will agree to any length of time below the unacceptable 40-minute time limit which deprives many members from participating, not only in the Constitution debate but when debating any government bill. Because of the large number of members in the House, 40-minute speeches have become unacceptable. That is why I make what I believe to be a reasonable offer. Also, if my colleague wishes the House to sit during meal hours from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays and even from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. on these days, we are willing to agree to that.
I think the NDP should also be seized of this offer which I am making formally at this stage. If the official opposition House leader, who just now mentioned his desire to allow more hon. members to participate in the Constitution debate, is serious in what he says, he will accept, if not the total, then part of this generous offer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my friend's generosity is overwhelming and I want to thank him. I want to say that I have been following the course of the debate very carefully and I want to thank the government for its forbearance in putting up only one speaker a day for about 20 minutes-


An hon. Member:: Two speakers.
7924

March 5, 1981
Business of the House


Walter David Baker: Yes, two speakers a day for about 20 minutes each. I think that is very generous of them. As a result of their generosity and of the fact that there seems to be, as we go on, a shortening of speaking time, I have no doubt at all that there will be ample House time for all Members of Parliament to speak on the Constitution package. I want to thank the government for its generosity because I think that at last the light is dawning upon them that indeed the Constitution is important. However, notwithstanding the fact that members are entitled to use 40 minutes in making their speeches, most of them are not using that time. The government is applying itself quite appropriately to allowing members of the House of Commons to speak, those members who wish to speak and were denied the opportunity before by the government's act of closure. I hope this change of heart on the part of the government will be continued and that there will be no need hereafter to negotiate in public with respect to House leaders' matters.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I hope our example will be followed by members of the Conservative Party and that they will voluntarily limit themselves to 20-minute speeches as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, I should like to make a comment or two with respect to the matter under discussion. First, may I say to the President of the Privy Council that I was somewhat surprised when he said the New Democratic Party should also be seized of the offer. I do not quite know what "seized" means in that context but, as he knows, the last time this matter was discussed on the floor of the House of Commons I indicated our party was prepared to go for shorter speeches and for additional hours in the week so that as many members as possible might speak. Although we hold our House leaders' meetings in camera, some of these things have got out. He also knows that whatever the others have said at our meeting, I have said that we are prepared to agree to 20-minute speeches for the rest of the debate on the Constitution and that we are also prepared for additional hours.
We think the suggestion of adding ten hours per week is a bit much. We have suggested six, but we are prepared to negotiate the number of hours. Like the President of the Privy Council, we are prepared to negotiate 25 minutes if that is what it must be; certainly it is better than 40. At any rate, we are asking that this matter continue to be considered.
I should also like to express the hope that some time soon there be an understanding under which we could have a vote on the amendment of the hon. member for Provencher which is now before the House. As has been indicated, there are a number of members with amendments they would like to make. It has been suggested that the Progressive Conservative Party has other amendments; we have two or three we should like to make. But if we continue debating the amendment before the House, it could be spring or summer before we get a chance to put up other amendments.
I say to hon. members who are making their main speeches that they could make their speeches just as well on the motion with another amendment as they can make it on the motion with the present amendment. I am not asking for a House order. I am just expressing a hope, as I have expressed privately to members to my right, that they might soon let the vote come on the amendment of the hon. member for Provencher. It seems to me this would give a chance to this party and to other members in the other parties to get amendments before the House. Otherwise, as matters stand, as long as that amendment is there no other amendment can be moved.
Here we are again discussing these things in public, but it got started that way. I hope we can come to some understanding. We are prepared for shorter speeches and for a few additional hours during the week.
While I am on my feet dealing with House business, I should like to refer to a couple of other matters. First, I believe, having discussed the matter with my colleagues, that we can do a number of things tomorrow along the lines suggested by the government House leader. We may not get all of that work done, but I think we can do fairly well. I join with the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton in expressing the hope that Bill C-60 might be brought forward very soon. We understand that all it does is to make changes in the arrangements for expropriation of land out west where the pipeline is being built. We want to see those changes; we could pass that bill quickly.
The other bill to which I should like to refer is Bill C-42 to turn the Post Office into a Crown corporation. Some of us were quite concerned for a few weeks that the failure to get the bill through might result in a letter carriers' strike. Apparently that will not take place. While there is some time available, I would hope that we might get Bill C-42 before us. The crucial thing about the bill is that when it was in committee the Postmaster General said that he was willing to accept the amendment to the bill proposed by the representative of the workers. When it was not possible to do that in committee because the matter had not been before cabinet, he made the offer to put that amendment down at report stage. I hope that will now be done. We have a little time, since apparently there is to be no strike. The Postmaster General promised in committee to take that amendment to cabinet for cabinet approval and to put it on the Order Paper. It is another bill with which we could deal rather quickly. As for Bill C-60, if it is put on the list we can deal with it very fast; but we also want to see action on Bill C-42.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I take note of the suggestions of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre concerning Bill C-60. If they want to deal with it through all stages tomorrow, I am in a position to tell them that I will bring that bill up for discussion. I am willing to discuss that later on this afternoon.
I could accept the replacement of Bill C-58, dealing with the Canada Elections Act, with Bill C-60 so that we could deal with the bill before the end of the afternoon, after dealing with the student loans bill and the Judges Act.
March 5, 1981

The hon. member referred to the Post Office bill. It is a very important bill and we do not intend to delay it either. We would like to have much more time, but I want to talk with the Postmaster General to clarify the situation concerning the amendment about which the hon. member just talked. I hope to be in a position to announce when we will definitely proceed with report stage and third reading stage of that bill later on, but prior to that I would like to have a House leaders' meeting to negotiate a reasonable length of time to dispose of that bill.
Finally, once again I welcome the formal acceptance of the NDP to limit speeches and to extend the hours. I take note of this. I am willing to continue discussions with the Tory party so that we can reach an agreement on the matter as soon as possible. But I understand, from the reaction of my colleague, that this agreement is not for today. Let us hope that it will be for tomorrow or within the next few days.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, there could not be any agreement today to the suggestion of my hon. friend. But the President of the Privy Council and the House should note that there is agreement today to clear other matters on the Order Paper as quickly as we can in order for us to have the time to debate the Constitution matter. This has been my position from the outset, and it remains my position. Naturally discussions continue between us in the friendliest possible manner.
When Bill C-60 is reached later in the day-and I gather that is his intention-we would be prepared to agree to greatly limit speeches. In fact, ten minutes per speech and one speaker per party would be satisfactory to us.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I listened with interest to the proposal of the government House leader in terms of reducing the length of speeches and adding hours so that we would have time to debate the important constitutional matter before the House and to the reply of my House leader on behalf of the New Democratic Party. But I express some concern in terms of what the House leader of the Conservative Party had to say. As I understood it, there was no commitment to reducing the length of speeches or adding to the number of hours available for debate during the week. I should like to ask the House leader of the Conservative party-


Mr. Nielsen:: He is the official opposition House leader.


John Edward Broadbent: The official opposition House leader, right. That is wonderful, a very perceptive comment.


Erik Nielsen: Get it straight.


John Edward Broadbent: It is a precise comment, which is rare for the hon. member, but I appreciate it. It was even truthful, which is almost-no, I had better watch my language!
In any case, I would like the House leader of the Conservative Party to indicate to the House if his party will be prepared to indicate tomorrow, or Monday at the latest, an answer to
Privilege-Mr. Fulton
two questions. One, is the Conservative Party prepared to shorten the length of speeches to 20 minutes and increase the number of hours?


Some hon. Members:: Order!


John Edward Broadbent: Second, is it prepared to have a vote quickly on their amendment so that the House can get on and discuss other important amendments as they affect the native people of Canada, the women of Canada and the Senate of Canada? Or do they really plan to conduct a filibuster?


Madam Speaker:: I want to say that it is most unusual that a question should be asked of a member. I do not think I can allow that. If the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton wishes to make a response, it is up to him.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I think one of the most distinguished people in Parliament is the House leader for the party of the member for Oshawa, and perhaps he should learn a few parliamentary manners from that hon. gentleman. It would serve him well.


Mr. Cossitt:: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I would like to ask the government House leader a question with respect to Bill C-38, which I realize may be low on the priority list of the government's legislation. I have had a number of inquiries from constituents who are concerned as to when this bill may come up for second reading. The bill deals, among other things, with making it possible to garnishee public servants' wages, so that they are not on a level other than the ordinary citizens of Canada; in other words, so that they do not have extra privileges over and above that accorded other people. I know there are a great many people concerned about this bill, certainly in my constituency. I am wondering if the government House leader might indicate to the House when this bill will be called for second reading.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, this is another good reason for the hon. member to advise his party to agree to shorter speeches and extended hours, which would allow us to deal with more bills which are on the Order Paper. In fact, there are over 35 of them on the Order Paper which could be dealt with expeditiously. It is a good start for tomorrow. I hope that we will be able to come to grips with all 35 of those bills within a reasonable length of time. Bill C-38 is one of them.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: On February 12 last, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) raised a question of privilege concerning misleading statements made by certain Ministers of the Crown. I have now reviewed with care the arguments presented by the hon. member and the remarks made by the ministers involved.

March 5, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Fulton
In his presentation, the member referred to a number of questions and answers in the House which started back in July, 1980, and which he pursued until February of this year. It is obviously an important matter, one which is of great interest to him. The fact that he also raised it during the adjournment proceedings and twice as a question of privilege is a clear demonstration of his concern. I am sure the House has noted that.
Essentially, the hon. member for Skeena is taking objection to a certain permit granted to Amax Ltd. which, in his view, does not comply with the provisions of the Fisheries Act and, consequently, he asked for a public inquiry into the matter.
The hon. member for Skeena claims that he has been misled by the ministers who gave him conflicting information in answer to his questions. He raised a question of privilege to this effect on January 23, after the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) had told him that:
-a panel of experts has been set up to look into the matter, notice of which has been communicated to the Nishga tribal chief, Mr. Gosnell.
The hon. member stated then:
I have taken the time to check, and in fact no panel has been set up, and no notice has been communicated to Mr. James Gosnell, president and chief of the Nishga Tribal Council.
In an effort to clarify the matter, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said:
Subject to checking, it was my information that the scientific panel was constituted. It may be in the process of being constituted, which is apparently at variance with what was said yesterday.
It seems to me that the hon. member for Skeena followed the appropriate course of action open to him in order to deal with his concern when he asked questions during question period and followed them up with an adjournment debate. Obviously, he is not satisfied with the answers given to him by the ministers, but the Chair is not in a position to insist on any other answer nor to comment on the quality or the substance of such answers. The hon. member has expressed his dissatisfaction by way of a question of privilege, but he has not persuaded the Chair that his privileges as a member of this House have been breached. What he has established, however, is a difference of opinion between himself and certain ministers of the Crown as to the interpretation of certain facts. I hardly need to refer hon. members to Citation 19(1) of the fifth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which reads as follows:
A dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
I therefore rule that, in this instance, a prima facie case of privilege has not been established.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, there is an agreement I forgot to mention. It is very short. After consultation with my colleagues it is agreed:
That the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development be empowered to study any aspects of the operations of the Northern Canada Power Commission;
That it be an instruction to the committee that it appoint a subcommittee for the aforementioned purpose;
That the subcommittee be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada; and
That the subcommittee be empowered to employ expert and technical staff that shall be authorized to accompany the subcommittee.


Madam Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I served written notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege this afternoon. It is my first opportunity to address the matter since returning to the House from a trip to British Columbia. It arises out of a question addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), the Leader of the New Democratic Party, on March 3. His words were as follows:
Yesterday the minister responsible for housing was in Toronto giving the government of Ontario some advice on rent controls. At that time he said that the government of Ontario should get rid of rent controls.
I have three points I would like to bring to your attention, Madam Speaker. As I have indicated, I was not in Toronto on that day; I was in British Columbia, in the city of Vancouver. Second, at no time did I give advice to the government, any member, or any servant of the government of Ontario on the matter of rent controls. Third, the information provided to the hon. member in preparation for his question probably arose from a newspaper report published in Toronto.
Finally, I would like to indicate that, contrary to that report, it is not my intention to address the question of rent controls at the national housing conference this weekend. It never was my intention to do so, it is not my intention to do so and it will not be my practice. I am there to listen.
I have indicated three reasons why I have raised this matter, Madam Speaker. If the Chair recognizes that there is a prima facie case of privilege, I would be pleased to provide the appropriate motion complaining of the same.
March 5, 1981


John Edward Broadbent: I was listening to the minister with care, Madam Speaker. I have not yet been able to determine from Hansard my question concerning this subject. I am quite prepared to accept the minister's claim that he was not in Toronto. As I recall, I did not say that he was in Toronto. If I did say it, I take it back. I was taking a quote from the Toronto Star for Monday, which is surely the essential point.
What I think would be useful in terms of the substantive issue of rent controls, which presumably the minister responsible for housing is interested in, is whether he is now telling the House that he does not favour abolition of rent controls. Will he make it very clear what the government's position is with respect to that issue?


Madam Speaker:: No, I do not think I will allow the hon. minister to reply. This question is obviously not a breach of the privileges of the House. The statements were made outside the House and there is a different interpretation as to those statements. The minister has made his point, as has the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). I think the matter should be closed.


MR. SKELLY-QUESTION RESPECTING COMPETITION POLICY
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I did send you a note concerning a question of privilege arising out of today's proceedings. I believe the situation resulted from questions to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) and the responses of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). I think it was a matter of misleading through inadvertence or misunderstanding.
My question basically asked the minister to explain why the president of Imperial Oil had been placed on a board that was advising the government on competition policy, and he said they had not. I have submitted to you two documents which show that William O. Twaits was a member of a committee which provided advice. The recent report says that that was one of the central documents in influencing competition policy. So I think that was a misunderstanding, and if the minister would confirm that the president of Imperial Oil was there it would clear it up. The point was that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs knew of the role of Imperial Oil in this matter prior to this situation.
Then somewhere out of the machine dropped the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and I think his statement was also misleading by misunderstanding the question. My questions were directed strictly to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. His officials have been aware since 1973 that Imperial Oil was a prime mover in this investigation, of bilking the Canadian public. However, the document, which the minister denied wholeheartedly, on page 33 indicates there were several documents in the possession of the government in which Imperial Oil has been asked by the National Energy
Board and the government to provide confidential information on such matters as licence restrictions and energy policy.
The minister certainly misunderstood my question; but if you find that I have a point of privilege, I would like some clarification to confirm that the president of Imperial Oil, after the investigation began, was asked to sit on a committee advising the government on competition policy, and that Imperial Oil, years after the investigation commenced, provided special advice, as the report puts it, on confidential energy policy. This is a matter of record, and either the ministers are right or the people who investigated the matter are wrong. If you could find my privilege, Madam Speaker, I would appreciate clarification of these two points.


Madam Speaker:: After listening to the hon. member, I do not think there is a privilege in the question he is now raising. It is clearly a different way of interpreting a report. The hon. member is not satisfied with the kind of answer he received from the minister, but the Chair has no way to redress a situation when one member is not happy with an answer that he has received from another member. The proper way to pursue the hon. member's concern is to continue his questioning during question period, or at other times, to get clarification from the hon. ministers to the questions to which he is seeking answers.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, on the point of order-


Madam Speaker:: I am willing to recognize the hon. minister, but I was looking at him in a certain way so that he would realize that he cannot go on discussing the question of privilege. If he rises on a point of order, I am willing to accept that, but I have already made my ruling. I did not realize that the minister might want to reply, but because this is clearly a debate, there therefore is no question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the release yesterday by the Director of Investigation and Research under the combines investigation branch of the report on the state of competition in the Canadian petroleum industry, and its revelation of shocking evidence of price gouging of the Canadian consumer, costing each Canadian

March 5, 1981
Order Paper Questions
man, woman, and child some $500, and its detailed accounting of predatory and monopolistic business and trade practices, thus requiring the Government of Canada to take urgent and immediate action to put a stop to the biggest consumer rip-off in Canadian history.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) has given me notice under the terms of Standing Order 26 within the time prescribed. The hon. member seeks to move the adjournment of the House to discuss the matter of price gouging by the petroleum industry as indicated by the release of a report yesterday.
I might mention at the outset that during yesterday's question period a substantial number of questions were posed to the government on this very subject, and today the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) did indicate in his answers that the matter had been referred to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.
It has been ruled by my predecessors on several occasions that matters of this nature, having been referred either to the courts or an administrative body, are not proper subjects for debate in this House under the terms of Standing Order 26. Furthermore, the provisions of Section 5 of this Standing Order are very clear, in that the Chair "shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means." I have not been convinced that the publication of a report, even on a very important subject, constitutes an emergency contemplated by this Standing Order.
The House is well aware that the main estimates and supplementary estimates, tabled recently, are now before the various committees of the House. Also, we are presently in a supply period which provides an opportunity for members to discuss a subject matter of their choice.
Therefore, for these reasons, I regret that I cannot accept the hon. member's application for a debate under Standing Order 26.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,803, 1,851, 1,876, 2,007 and 2,087.


Mrs. Mitchell: 1. What was the cost of the federal-provincial study, completed in 1978, entitled "Down to Earth: The Report of the Federal-Provincial Task Force on the Supply and Price of Serviced Land"?
2. Are volumes 1 and 11 of the study available to the public free of charge and, if not, what is the cost and where can copies be obtained?


Paul James Cosgrove: I am
advised by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. The total cost of the study was $529,789. CMHC's share of the cost was $366,300 and the balance was provided through provincial contributions.
2.	The two-volume report is available free of charge through the Canadian Housing Information Centre, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Montreal Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0P7.


Mr. McKinnon: Do the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, list an expenditure of $97,990,000 on aircraft and engines-new fighter aircraft and does the contract with McDonnell Douglas Corporation call for payments of $48,744,637 for the same period and, if so, on what is the additional $49,245,393 to be spent?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: The list below shows the sequence of forecasts in regards to funds for the main contract and the project support elements identified in total program requirements but which are not part of the main contract with McDonnell Douglas.
The original submission which became Supplementary Estimates (B), subsequently, was made in December, 1979. The January, 1981, forecast is the total which will be spent up to March 31, 1981.
Main Contract	Supplementary (B) Submission to TB in December, 1979	Sept. 80 Forecast	Jan. 81 Forecast(U.S.)	48,771	48,771	48,771Exchange Contractor	7,315	7,315	7,800Spares Maintenance Support	25,709	5,000	Equipment	3,000	3,000	2,925Missiles Training	3,066	3,400	6,460Publications	-	-	2,287Exchange Management	5,124	1,461	937Costs Other Support (Simulated,	3,277	2,777	2,770ETC)	1,728	5,330	1,923Total	97,990	77,054	73,873
March 5, 1981


Mr. Lewis: 1.	Did the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario form a task force of officials to study the potential for fiscal transfers in the housing field and, in the course of the study, did they contact the government?
2.	Did the government, through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, receive recommendations and, if so (a) what were they (b) what was the government's reaction to the recommendations?


Paul James Cosgrove: I am
advised by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. An Interprovincial Task Force on Future Fiscal Arrangements for Housing in Canada was formed in 1978 with all provinces participating and chaired by the province of Alberta. A report was completed in September, 1980. Task force members contacted CMHC on an informal basis to obtain information.
2. No.


Mr. McKinnon: How many contracts for advertising in the past year were awarded by the Department of National Defence and (a) to whom (b) in each case, in what amount?


Ursula Appolloni: Seven contracts were awarded by the Department of Supply and Services on behalf of the Department of National Defence. All for recruiting of military personnel.
(a) and (b)
Agency	Location	AmountRonalds-Reynolds & Co. Ltd.	Toronto	1,625,000Tremblay Publicite Inc.	Quebec	840,000Wilshar Advertising Ltd.	Halifax	200,000Payeur Publicite Inc.	Quebec	450,000Reidcorp Advertising and Consultant Ltd.	Toronto	350,000Baker-Lovick Ltd.	Calgary	325,000DIR-AD	Montreal	85,000


Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence place a contract for $7,474,000 with Bell Canada for data processing services and, if so, what proportion of this data processing expenditure is for (a) operational and/or training purposes (b) administrative purposes?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
Department of Supply and Services placed a contract on behalf of the Department of National Defence with Bell Canada for data processing services in the amount of $7,474,000.
(a) Approximately 94 per cent of the contract value was for operational purposes.
The Constitution
(b) Approximately 6 per cent of the contract was for administrative purposes.

[ Translation]


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 1,661 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 1,661 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) How many CANEX stores are operated by or under the authority of the Department of National Defence (b) where are they located and what is the number of staff employed in each (c) are any of the persons employed by the Department and, if not, for what reason (d) on what basis are persons hired and what job protection, salary ranges, etc., are paid for the various levels of work?
2.	During the last year for which figures are available, what was the (a) profit (b) deficit for each store and what was the total over-all result?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed debate on the motion of Mr. Chretien, seconded by Mr. Roberts, for an address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada.
And on the amendment of Mr. Epp, seconded by Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton)-That the motion be amended in Schedule B of the proposed resolution by deleting Clause 46, and by making all necessary changes to the Schedule consequential thereto.
Mr. David Weatherhead (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in this most historic debate this afternoon. In so doing, I join the thousands of Canadians who are following our deliberations in the media,

March 5, 1981
The Constitution
and who have discussed this important issue with their friends and neighbours. Hundreds more Canadians have participated directly in the committee process, making significant contributions to the final package we have before us.
We can point to the experience of the committee and claim that the parliamentary system of government works well for and with Canadians. Representing groups of Canadians from across Canada and Canadian society, witnesses before the committee found that body receptive to their feelings, resulting in certain changes to the resolution. Most notable among these are the strengthened aboriginal rights. Of the 72 total interventions by groups or individuals, fully 69 of these approved of the ultimate formula we have before us. Forty-one of the 54 interventions were in favour of entrenching minority language education rights in a Constitution, a principle favoured by all provincial premiers as recently as 1978. No one appearing before the committee disagreed substantially with the final form of legal rights.
Much of the credit for the fine work of the committee is due to its joint chairmen, and I would like to join my colleagues in offering my congratulations to the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal) and to Senator Hays. Under unprecedented media scrutiny they performed magnificently, due in large part to the excellent spirit of co-operation among the committee members. Fifty-one members of the other place took part in the work of the committee, joining 132 members of the House of commons who participated in the committee's deliberations at one time or another.
Before going further, I would like to take this opportunity to dismiss a notion being stated by some members of the Conservative Party. Specifically, they charge that requesting action on this resolution from the parliament at Westminster is an act of colonialism. The Conservatives, while favouring a charter of rights, want this charter enacted in Canada. Frankly, that is exactly what is happening, and I am certain that some members opposite know full well that charges of colonialism are absurd. In addition to the almost 300 witnesses who appeared on behalf of more than 100 groups in Canada, a total of 35 pages were appended to the joint committee's report to Parliament, listing the hundreds of written submissions received by the committee.
The substantive amendments, the unprecedented participation of 183 parliamentarians in the work of the committee, and the appearances and intense lobbying by groups and individuals from across Canada, demonstrate clearly that this resolution is a Canadian document, made by Canadians, in Canada, for Canadians. It represents the will of the Canadian people.
As the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) told the joint committee:
It is the popular will that we have a charter of rights and freedoms for the Canadian people, embedded in a constitution.
As members of the Parliament of Canada, we should be cognizant of the fact that it is here, in this Parliament, that the will of the Canadian people is expressed. By passing this
resolution, we are proclaiming, once and for all, that it is the people who are sovereign, their rights supreme and unchallenged.
So long as most of the provincial governments are willing to hold the rights and dignity of the Canadian people hostage in exchange for greater provincial powers, these rights will continue to be considered secondary. Some provinces argue that discussions on a charter of rights should take place at the same time as talks on resource ownership or communications jurisdiction.
Hon. members know full well that to proceed in this fashion would effectively hold back the charter of rights forever. The two senior premiers in the federation have stated that unanimous, or even near-unanimous, agreement is impossible in a world of competing political ideas. That is why Premiers Hatfield and Davis, both Conservatives, support the position of the federal government in this debate. They speak from the experiences gained in frustrating talks dating back to 1971, when a glimmer of hope was seen at Victoria. They know, as I do, that since 1927 13 first ministers' conferences, 17 conferences of federal-provincial ministers, and countless meetings of officials have failed to reach agreement on patriation and an amending formula.
Surely, as a Parliament accountable to all the Canadian people, we have a responsibility to seize the political will to end this deadlock once and for all. To persist in holding the charter of rights for ransom, as is the case now, would be to tell the Canadian people that their rights are secondary to communications jurisdiction, or to a reformed Senate.
Some argue that unanimity should be the formula for constitutional change, knowing that it is a formula for failure. What sort of unanimous agreement can we expect if Premier Lyon continues to oppose a charter of rights in a new Constitution? What kind of unanimity can we hope for if Premier Peckford blocks a charter of rights until there is agreement on control of offshore resources? Will we continue to tell the Canadian people that their right to hold and express beliefs is only as important as the number of cod caught on the continental shelf?
What, exactly, did Premier Peckford say about a charter of rights? In a document placed before the first ministers last September entitled "Towards the Twenty-First Century- Together", the Premier of Newfoundland stated, and I quote:
The people of Canada-as elsewhere-live in an age of continuing, almost radical change. Today there is not the same surety as yesterday that values enshrined in the heart and conscience of a people will be universally respected.
The entrenchment of democratic rights and fundamental freedoms is a means of giving explicit constitutional recognition to values which have served Canada well... Newfoundland, therefore, supports a charter of rights which will entrench the democratic rights and freedoms of Canadians.
To those who argue that legislatures should be supreme in determining and protecting the rights and freedoms of Canadians, I ask: Where were those rights and freedoms protected when we stripped citizens of their rights merely because they were of Japanese origin? Tell the Jehovah's Witnesses about the kind of protection given them by Premier Duplessis and his
March 5, 1981

legislature during the 1940s and 1950s. Try to explain to Chinese Canadians that they were not even considered as persons in the Election Act of 1885.
These points illustrate one of the deficiencies of the Vancouver consensus as well. If, as under the provisions of that amending formula, provinces may opt out of constitutional obligations, the results would be disastrous. Alone among truly democratic nations, our citizens would be unsure of their rights from one provincial jurisdiction in the country to the next. We would have, as has been said often, a checkerboard of rights across Canada. Canadians travelling from one end of the country to the other would be playing Russian roulette with their fundamental rights. We need only look back to the actions of the government of Alberta during the early years of the Social Credit regime, where that government sought to stultify legitimate political opposition through repressive press laws.
Some will say that these are isolated incidents in our history, and fortunately they are. However, to hide our heads in the sand by patting ourselves on the back for our tolerance is to forget that Indian women are still discriminated against. As a group generally, women must still struggle to achieve some level of equality in the workplace and elsewhere. It is too easy for most of us to adopt an "I'm all right, Jack" attitude when it comes to providing services to the physically or mentally handicapped. Through my personal experience as a member of the Association for the Mentally Retarded, I am acutely aware of the frustrations of people who know that their contribution to Canada is stunted by a society structured to conform to an arbitrary standard of ability.
Some of the interest groups who came to my office represented aboriginal peoples who have grown dismayed by the erosion of their culture and the lack of participation they feel in the building of our country. They sought an affirmation of their rights within a strong and forward-looking Canada. All Members of Parliament share this view, as shown by the unanimous support for amendments strengthening aboriginal rights.
Mr. Speaker, people can deny the rights of others too. We know that throughout Canadian history immigrants were encouraged to come to Canada to escape religious discrimination, or the insidious discrimination that poverty brings. They saw and continue to see that Canada holds the promise of a bright future for them and their families. In all parts of Canada their industry, vision and imagination have added to the diversity and strength of this country.
What is the Canadian way of life, Mr. Speaker? Certainly it is not some narrow perception offered by a few fringe spokesmen. With few exceptions the Canadian way of life has been one of tolerance, enriched by the contribution of people from all over the world.
It has become a truism that Canada is a nation of immigrants, for, with the exception of the aboriginal peoples, Canadians can trace their roots to the four corners of the world. Canada owes its development as a peaceful and tranquil nation to its own people, be they new Canadians or people
The Constitution
whose families have been in Canada for generations. It is for this reason that the enshrinement and recognition of Canada's multicultural heritage in our Constitution is so important.
What is easily forgotten is that politicians and political interpretations are transitory. With respect, I would point out to those who oppose this resolution that, as much as anything else, we are building the future. We are building a modern Canada. We would need a knowledge bordering on the divine to forecast the future, and while we would sincerely wish for orderly development, we are scarcely equipped to predict the endless possibilities for the future.
Equally transitory is public opinion and the social conditions which will rapidly change the face of future societies. For many people, Orwell's "1984" looms as an ominous year, demanding the vigilance of the people in order to protect their own rights. It is significant, then, that in advance of the change that is sure to overtake the future we as a Parliament affirm the rights and dignity of the person.
What are the rights that we seek to enshrine in a new Canadian Constitution, Mr. Speaker? Legal rights will ensure that the citizen is given the best possible protection from arbitrary justice. In attempting to build a sense of mutual trust between the citizen and the law, we seek to make clear rules that will inform the alleged offender of the charges and possible punishment that he or she faces. We want to embed in the Constitution the principle that persons may retain counsel promptly to assist the offender in seeing that justice is done.
The new Constitution will effectively outlaw unreasonable search and seizure, keeping Canadian law in line with the provisions of the United Nations covenant, to which Canada is a signatory.
The Constitution will make clear that no one will be prevented from voting in or contesting an election for the Parliament of Canada or a legislature of any province. This democratic right will ensure that one of the most fundamental principles of Canada is clearly spelled out, and that all citizens share in the governing of Canada.
The charter of rights contains provisions for fundamental freedoms that will guarantee Canadians freedom of expression, thought, conscience and religion. Canadians will be entitled to associate with people they choose, and to assemble peacefully with fellow citizens.
In a society which values democracy, freedom of the press is one of the most sacred principles that society can hold. Freedom of the press, therefore, is one of the fundamental freedoms this resolution seeks to enshrine in our Constitution.
Let me make it clear that in adopting this resolution, Parliament is not "granting" rights to people; we are merely affirming fundamental rights that we accept as a given fact of life in a democratic society.
By including the aged and mentally or physically disabled among the categories of people who may not be discriminated against, we are saying that all people in Canada may partici-

March 5, 1981
The Constitution
pate in the task of building our country. Finally, we are correcting an injustice that has gone on far too long. It would be unforgivable if we were to allow this situation to persist.
Among the rights we seek to enshrine in the Constitution are the rights of all Canadians to share in the boundless wealth and opportunity we have in Canada. For many years Ontario shared without complaint its tax dollars to aid in the development of other parts of Canada. Now, as the situation shifts, other areas of the country are able to share the responsibility of delivering the promise of Canada to all Canadians. A child from a less advantaged part of Canada must never lose out on that promise because he or she chooses to remain close to family roots. It is essential that the quality of government services be equal and that job opportunities exist everywhere in Canada, regardless of where a Canadian chooses to live.
Equalization is a principle that is vital to the continued survival of Canada as a nation together. Though regions formerly in need of assistance have found sources of wealth, opportunities will never be completely equal in Canada. But across this vast land, the quality of life may be more important than resources lying underground or in the offshore, more satisfying than life in the industrial cities of central Canada. If we can preserve the beauty that is tradition, if we can save the heritage of families and communities remaining together at home, then equalization will be seen, not just as an economic leveller, but as a builder.
Just as important as equalization is the right of Canadian residents to seek employment and residence anywhere in Canada. Mobility rights are an important guarantee of that opportunity. For many years Ontario's strong industrial base provided Canadians and people from all over the world with the opportunity to pursue a rewarding livelihood. Ontario's cities, towns and countryside are enriched by the contribution of peoples from around the world and across Canada who choose to make Ontario home. Once again, the shift in economic opportunity makes it essential that Canada is home to all Canadians.
The western provinces now welcome our sons and daughters to share in the boom that this region is experiencing. For its part, Atlantic Canada stands on the threshold of untold wealth, due in large part to the action of this government to assert Canadian sovereignty over the 200-mile limit.
Mobility, like free speech, is a fundamental right. Anything which would hamper this right flies in the face of the ideals which are Canada. Enshrining this right in the Constitution of Canada tells Canadians that all of Canada is theirs. The mere accident of birth in one area or another has never prevented an individual from sharing in the boundless promise that is Canada. It must never do so, for without the right of mobility for all of its citizens, Canada is a pointless, balkanized collection of communities out of touch with itself.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to give my support to the principle of enshrining minority language education rights for our two official languages, where numbers warrant.
If a constitution is to reflect the make-up of a country, it must have an amending formula which provides for orderly and fair amendment. For that reason, I favour the position advocated by the government. The Victoria formula, as amended, gives all regions, and indeed all provinces, a large measure of protection which will ensure that their interests are not tampered with by a small majority in the country. By requiring the approval of the two most populous provinces, the support of two provinces in western Canada representing 50 per cent of the population in that region, and by needing the endorsement of two provinces in the Atlantic region, amendments under the Victoria formula will represent a consensus from all regions of the country. Of course, the provinces and the federal government have the two years following patriation in which to arrive at a formula by unanimous consent. While this has not been successful in the past, one would hope that the urgency to achieve greater consensus on an amending formula will spur the first ministers to closer agreement.
I spoke earlier of the nightmare that Canadians would face with the Vancouver formula. This formula is really a cop-out, requiring no commitment by the provinces to respect rights in a uniform and consistent pattern across Canada. If we are to remain as one country, we must assert once and for all that Canadian citizenship is one citizenship for all Canadians.
One of the people who came to my office in the past few months represented a group who wanted to ensure that this was not the end of the line for constitutional change. I made the commitment then, and I do so now: there is much, much more to be discussed at the first ministers' conferences which will be constitutionally required under this resolution. Family law, questions relating to interprovincial and international trade, reform of the Senate, Supreme Court and regional representation on federal government bodies, and the divisions of power, are but a few matters for discussion.
But, Mr. Speaker, all of this means nothing if the people of Canada do not have fundamental rights embedded in their Constitution. We must stop comparing the rights and dignity of individual Canadians to regional representation on the CRTC, important though it may be. Let us stop the horse trading, bartering equality of men and women for a reformed Senate. Let us not wait until the question of offshore jurisdiction is settled before telling the aged and the disabled that, finally, they are part of the process of building Canada's future.
In this Parliament we are answering the most important question facing Canada since 1867. What comes first, the rights of the people or the rights of governments? Let us answer, loud and clear, "the people come first!" Now is the time to break the deadlock.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on this very important resolution and on the amendment which was brought forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp).
First, I want to commend our leader in the Constitution committee, the hon. member for Provencher, as well as the
March 5, 1981

hon. members from our side who made a great contribution to that debate. I have a special commendation for the co-chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal). 1 also commend other hon. members who have spoken on this topic.
I find this is a distressing time for me. I am compelled to comment upon the arrogance and single-minded actions of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) regarding the patriation of the Constitution. I feel it is necessary to draw attention to what surely will be the tragic consequences of these actions. I feel just as strongly that I must apologize to the residents of my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka and to millions of other Canadians. In fact, all of us in this House should apologize to Canadians everywhere who feel, as I do, that there are other more pressing problems facing this nation, such as inflation and unemployment. These are the matters we should be talking about and doing something about.
It is important that our Constitution be in Canada, but because the Prime Minister and members of his government have now arbitrarily placed this matter before us, we must challenge their approach and their methods. Surely we in Parliament have a very important responsibility, a responsibility to deal with those issues more urgently affecting the daily lives of the people of Canada.
A recent Gallup poll illustrates just how low on the level of priorities stands the issue we are now debating. Fifty-five per cent of those polled cited inflation as the most important problem facing the country today, and 15 per cent cited unemployment. Fewer than one in ten expressed concern over energy problems, national unity or problems connected with government.
Canadians want the Constitution brought home, I will admit that. However, another Gallup poll showed that 64 per cent are opposed to the government's unilateral position and highhanded decision to bring it home on the basis it has outlined. What they want now is for the government to get its priorities straight.
The Constitution is not going to feed a hungry family. It is not going to put a roof over the heads of people to keep them warm. It will not find or create jobs for anyone. It will not make us all one big happy family. The Constitution is important and can have an effect on living conditions, but let us not forget that we already have a Constitution and we still have inflation and unemployment. The Constitution is a declaration of principles. A proper application of those principles will put this country back on a sound and stable economic footing.
I would be much happier if we were now dealing with real problems rather than ones that have been created artificially. Regrettably, the constitutional debate is before us. I have some important points to bring forward in this regard. This is a fiery time in Canada's history. It is not a time for hasty or politically expedient decisions by any governmental body.
What we are discussing is not just an ordinary law. We are discussing the fundamental source of the law of the land, the
The Constitution
country's Constitution. Let there be no doubt about it, the outcome of this debate will have monumental consequences for the future of this country. We are talking about the future of Canadians for generations to come. We are talking about the survival of this country as a federal state.
What this government is attempting to do is wrong. I know it, the members on this side of the House know it, the Canadian people know it and the British know it. Everyone seems to know it except the Prime Minister and his puppets. I suspect that, if the truth were known, a good many of them also know it. Despite the fact that the majority of people on both sides of the Atlantic oppose the Prime Minister's constitutional plans, he is determined to have his own way. I am reminded of a song which the great entertainer Frank Sinatra made famous, and probably made a great deal of money from, entitled "I did it my way". That seems to be the theme song of the Prime Minister. The time has come for Canadians to stand up to the arrogance of this administration and to yell out loud and clear, "enough is enough!"
This government is uncaring, indifferent and ruthless. It is not worthy of the confidence of the Canadian people. Canadians deserve better. They deserve a government they can trust, a government willing to act in accordance with their wishes and concerns.
It is with respect for the wishes and concerns of Canadians that I say this resolution before us must be rejected. It must be rejected if we value the foundation upon which this country was created. We pride ourselves on being a secure, independent nation. Why, then, is the Prime Minister forcing the British Parliament into a corner, demanding that the British do something we should be doing ourselves? To place the British Parliament in such a position is an embarrassing and regrettable move. What should or should not be included in the Canadian Constitution is a matter for Canadians to determine, but only after the Constitution has been patriated, not before.
The government's constitutional package must be defeated for three very important reasons. The legality of the government's actions is highly questionable, the government's move to amend the Constitution unilaterally is a violation of the true meaning of federalism, and the government does not have the support of the majority of the Canadian population. These are three sound and solid reasons for the immediate and absolute rejection of this resolution. If the people do not want it done this way, if some of the provinces are taking the issue to the courts and if members of this Parliament oppose the move, why in heaven's name does the Prime Minister not back off?
The Premier of Saskatchewan has now bolted the government ranks. It has been said that Blakeney now makes the score eight to two against the Trudeau package. However, that should be ten to two because we must not forget the territories. This is certainly worth considering.
Never have we had a Prime Minister who has caused more divisiveness. When we look back we see some who were far from good, but this Prime Minister has put us on more of a collision course than all the other prime ministers combined. We have region against region, province against province,

March 5, 198!
The Constitution
French against English, and to what end? Is it so that one day we may replace the Queen and pass the crown on to an emperor?
The time has come, not to bestow a crown, but to bell the cat who so arrogantly and flippantly suggests that, if the nation is destroyed over the issue of patriation, it was not worth saving in the first place.
Are we to sit submissively and allow one man to decide whether this country is worth saving, the very man who is pushing this country to the brink of destruction? Are we that placid? Are we that timid? I think not.
The dividing tactic used so effectively in the past is now being recognized, becoming fully understood and being acted upon. There has developed a groundswell of citizens in this nation who are coming forward and volunteering to place the bell around the cat's neck. Indeed, there are many who have a strong desire to hit him over the head with it. There is no man or woman in this country who should have the power to single-handedly determine what is best for the others. No one man or woman should be allowed to assume such power.
This is particularly true of a man who consciously excludes any reference to a higher authority. This omission, in itself, is highly revealing. The charter of rights, the one that has been proposed by this government, makes no mention of the fact that this country was founded upon the conviction that God and not the government is supreme.
The Fathers of Confederation went back to Psalm 72, verse
8:
He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.
The Fathers of Confederation, the men who created this nation, had no trouble accepting the supremacy of God. They did not find the acknowledgement of God a threat to the way in which this country was to be governed. They were simply stating and reaffirming the obvious.
As one of the witnesses appearing before the Constitution committee so eloquently reminded us:
-we were made in the image of God, and that our basic human value comes from that affirmation and that we live constantly in the presence of God.
We do live in the presence of God. We swear solemn oaths in His name. Prayers are held each day in this House before we begin debate. Many members attend weekly prayer breakfasts. The Canadian anthem now asks that God keep our land. Easter and Christmas are times we celebrate with humanity and gratitude. The Bill of Rights of the late Right Hon. John Diefenbaker opens with these words:
The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions-
And so on. The government rejected this party's amendment that those words be contained in the government's charter of rights. I believe that any charter of rights which is ultimately incorporated into the Canadian Constitution should make
reference to the fact that this nation was founded upon a belief in a supreme being. The charter of rights before us makes no such mention.
Not only does the absence of any reference to God in the proposed charter of rights upset and offend many Canadians; they are also distressed about the lack of mention of a more wordly nature. I speak now of property rights. I have been in the real estate business for many years and I know how important it is to many Canadians to own their own land. People in this country have always worked long and hard-and will continue to do so-and saved money so that they could own a piece of Canada they could call their own.
During my many years in the real estate business many new Canadians came to the area I have the honour to represent from the great city of Toronto. These people were from European and other countries where they had never had a chance to own any land whatever. I naturally assumed they were interested in buying summer cottages on lakes, but that did not interest them in the least. They wanted bigger pieces of land. They ended up buying 100-acre pieces of land with nothing much on them. There might have been roads to them and scrub bush, but that would be all. Some of those lots were purchased for $700, $800 or $1,000. I can see how astute those people were because those lots are now worth ten times or more what was paid for them.


Mr. McKinnon:: They had a good real estate agent!


Stan Darling: That could be correct.
Property rights are a basic desire which creates strength in our nation. That basic desire is inherent in the spirit of free men. It is a basic desire which cannot and should not be denied. This government did agree at one point to accept our recommendation that property rights be enshrined in the charter of rights. Then for purely political reasons the government decided not to honour its commitment. The reason for the abrupt turnabout of the government is very clear. The reason was very opportunistic. The government needed the support of the New Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party informed the government it would not support the government's constitutional package if property rights were included, so what has been proposed is a charter of rights with a fundamental right excluded. Perhaps the government should correct the title of its charter; it should be the "charter of partial rights". The government's proposed charter of rights is not acceptable because partial rights are not acceptable.
The very fact that so many Canadians have spoken out against the charter only reinforces the position taken on this side of the House that patriation of the Constitution with an amending formula acceptable to the provinces should be the sole act of Parliament at this time. Only when this is accomplished should the issue of a charter of rights be dealt with. If the constitutional package is divided in this manner, we will avoid the unnecessary difficulties which are now developing in our relationship with the British parliament.
There is no question that the British would be more than willing to respond favourably to Canada's request. For the life
March 5, 1981

of me I cannot understand why the Prime Minister is forcing the British in this way. Why does he want to make enemies outside the country? He has enough of them right here at home!
The amending formula is a perfect example. Back in 1867 when the British North America Act came into being and this country was born, the Fathers of Confederation decided that this country would be a federal state. Two levels of government were established and each had responsibility and authority over those matters falling within specific spheres of jurisdiction. It has been a working relationship which has served this country well for 114 years.
What the government now proposes through its amending formula and referendum procedure is a dangerous move. It is a move which will do nothing more than continue to divide the nation and undermine the federal state system. It is a move taken by the government with the conscious knowledge that it pits region against region, province against province and minority against minority, all because one man wants his way.
There has been the suggestion that those members of the government who are uneasy and privately opposed to letting the Prime Minister have his way on the issue are keeping silent because of the "gold watch" syndrome. A departing employee is given a gold watch from his firm and fellow workers for his years of service. The Prime Minister's gold watch, it is said, will be the patriation of the Constitution and the charter of rights.


Mr. Ellis:: A very expensive watch!


Stan Darling: What my colleague says is quite right. I urge hon. members opposite to consider very carefully what they are doing. If this is what they are doing, they will have to face the fact that there will be no one in the country able to repair this watch when its mechanism falls apart, as it surely will. All the Prime Minister really deserves is a simple watch, probably a Timex. I would be only too happy to supply him with one, especially if it would hasten his retirement.
It has been said that humour lessens pain and that we only laugh when it hurts. Well, it hurts. It hurts me and many other Canadians to see this magnificent nation of ours in such turmoil. It hurts to see what is happening to Canada because of that impregnable barrier of indifference with which the Prime Minister surrounds himself. It hurts to witness the damage he is doing and to know what he wants to do to this once proud and growing land. We will no longer accept the pain, and the time has come to put an end to this headache.
The resolution we have before us must not be passed. It is riddled with injustice. What the government is proposing is destructive. It is time for all Members of Parliament to put their country ahead of party loyalty. We must remember that because of a willingness on the part of all Canadians to co-operate, to sacrifice and to work together for the well-being of the entire nation, Canada, in its short lifetime, has flourished. The Canadian people have not stopped caring; they still believe this country is worth caring for.
The Constitution
Canadians who realize how fortunate they are to be living in such a magnificent country care very much. The riches of this nation are not measured only in terms of forest products, oil, wheat, minerals and other products we use and export; the great wealth of this country also includes its human resources, people who take silent and undemonstrative pride in calling themselves Canadians. It once was fashionable to call such people the silent majority. Well, that silence is being broken. The people who care are now making themselves heard.
The voices of a great many people in this country are being raised in anger about the fact that the government is setting in motion changes to the fundamental structure of this nation which will have grave consequences for the future. There is anger at the fact that such changes are being implemented with complete disregard for the will of the majority.
There is anger that such changes bypass and ignore many concepts Canadians deem important to what may be termed the Canadian identity. The Canadian identity is not as elusive as many people may think. We know what it means to be a Canadian. It means we are part of a nation of free and proud people who treasure that freedom and pride and who work not only to maintain but to assist others less fortunate in the world. It means we are part of a community of nations, the Commonwealth, whose head is Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second.
Recognition and acceptance of the monarchy is not a threat to Canada's freedom or pride. The monarchy serves only to enhance both. The monarchy does not imply a subservient role. The monarchy only serves to reinforce our position of prominence and stature in a community of nations. The monarchy does not seek to intrude; the monarchy only seeks to provide a link for the common good.
Over the years, the Liberal government has attempted, bit by bit, to erode that link. The Liberal government seeks to establish a Liberal identity in place of a Canadian identity. The present resolution before us makes it quite clear. The monarchy is important to Canada and Canadians understand this. Canadians are also beginning to understand that the Liberal government, through its proposed charter of rights, is removing control over certain legislation from the people's elected representatives.
I will speak now about the issues of capital punishment and abortion. This party proposed that there be included in the charter of rights a new section which would ensure that no provision of the charter would be used by a court to determine the issues of capital punishment and abortion, and that Parliament be allowed to legislate with respect to these delicate issues. The resolution before us offers no such safeguard.
These are two issues the fate of which must be decided by the people through their elected representatives. They are moral issues which cannot, and must not, be decided by the courts. By shifting the responsibility to the courts, this government seeks to avoid dealing with matters under its jurisdiction

March 5, 1981
The Constitution
and deprives the people of Canada of a voice in the forum of debate.
The voice of the people of Canada is of paramount importance. It is here in the House of Commons that the Canadian voice is heard and acted upon. All too often the government has turned a deaf ear to that voice and to that of members of the House who enlarge on what is being said, and all too often the Prime Minister orders a limit to debate when what is being said contradicts his notion of what is right and what is wrong for the people of Canada. It is highly possible that he is about to act in the same arbitrary manner over the debate on the patriation of the Constitution.
It is appropriate at this time to remind members of the House that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) stated categorically that every member of the House would have the opportunity to speak on this issue. I presume such an assurance was not given lightly, and I say to the Deputy Prime Minister and government House leader that we certainly expect that all members of Parliament will have the opportunity to speak. I and my colleagues accept the right to debate the substance and style of the government's constitutional proposal, a proposal the style of which is as damaging as its substance. Because the issue before us is of such grave importance, it is the right of each and every member to have the opportunity to speak. For the Prime Minister and the government to invoke closure at some point during the debate would be an affront to members of the House and to the Canadian people. I would therefore call upon the government-


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have listened with great interest to the point of view expressed by the hon. member during his speech and I have noticed that he has been speaking now for 25 minutes. May I point out that the House leader of the official opposition stated earlier this afternoon, with approval, that hon. members on the government side had limited their speeches to 20 minutes and that only two of their members spoke a day. He stated that this was an example which members on his side would follow.


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Marc Lalonde: I wonder if members on the hon. member's side would listen to their House leader.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on this spurious point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: That is not a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a legitimate point of order. You should prevent such spurious acts on the part of ministers who should know better. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is trying to smuggle in a point of debate under the guise of a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I accept the argument that this was not a point of order. The hon.
member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) has the floor.


Stan Darling: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the comments of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde).


Erik Nielsen: I don't.


Stan Darling: As was mentioned several times here, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources makes lengthy speeches here from time to time, but he has not produced too much. He is probably the member most responsible for the mess in which we find ourselves today. He is responsible for the high cost of energy.


An hon. Member:: He is also dishonest.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Stan Darling: Our leader, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark)-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Stan Darling: I am not out of order. Do not worry about that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition had made an agreement with the province of Alberta, but over a year later the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has not produced anything.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Stan Darling: As a result, we are paying through the nose. It is about time he left the House and headed for Alberta. It is about time he came up with a deal and it is about time he started to give in a bit.


Erik Nielsen: Let him speak to the oil people and the real estate people over there.


Stan Darling: I know that time and time again all of us have read many comments on this. I will mention the fact that when this resolution was presented to the House by the Prime Minister-I believe it was on October 2-one of the few times in the last few years that he has spoken in the House, our leader walked out. I can still see it. Our leader stated he was against this resolution, and I put my hand up to my face and said "Wow, what is this?" I was very skeptical of the position taken by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, 1 will admit that to the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Irwin) who is pointing to me.


Mr. Irwin:: You were right.


Stan Darling: I was wrong, as the people of Canada eventually decided, because, may I point out to the almighty Cabinet opposite, 64 per cent of the people of Canada are against the
March 5, 1981

government's unilateral, autocratic, and high-handed way of dealing with this question. Even the great columnists, the $ 100,000 a year columnists, who were the mouthpieces of the Prime Minister and of some of the hierarchy over there have changed their views.


An hon. Member:: Fotheringham and Stevens.


Stan Darling: Yes, Fotheringham and so on. You can mention all of them. Here is a columnist-


An hon. Member:: It must be Lubor Zink.


Stan Darling: That is right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: Just a minute, before you clap too much.


Marc Lalonde: What about Bill Davis?


Stan Darling: Mr. Lubor Zink is not the greatest advocate or admirer of the Prime Minister. We see here the headline "Not the first lie or the last". Here is another article in which the Prime Minister is quoted as having said "I am not a dictator".


Marc Lalonde: Quote Bill Davis.


Stan Darling: Here is another one. This is a special one of Mr. Lubor Zink's, and I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to listen with care. The headline of this article reads "Tyrannical Brat".
[ Translation]
In French, Mr. Minister, in French!


Some hon. Members:: Encore! Encore!


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, my French is very flimsy, and very vocal.

I wish I could speak better French. Instead of being taught to speak French in my six years of high school in Toronto, I was taught how to spell the words and to put the accents this way or the other. If I had been taught how to speak French at that time, I would be able to speak it much better now.
Instead of launching into one of his sometimes harsh comments, Mr. Lubor Zink wrote the following article:
On February 9, Le Devoir carried a column which packs more critical punch than anything I have seen printed in English. Even rainmaker Keith Davey will be hard put to dismiss the devastating blast in French as "lunatic fringe extremism," for neither the paper nor the writer can be branded with that iron. Shaped for years by Claude Ryan (now Quebec Liberal party leader)-
No doubt the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources knows Mr. Ryan and has considerable respect for him. The article continues:
-, Le Devoir at one time carried articles by Trudeau's close friend Gerard Pelletier (now Canada's Ambassador in Paris). By any standards, it is a highly respected and influential independent Montreal daily.
Adjournment Motion
Would the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources concede that? No, he will not concede that. The article continues:
It has no use for separatism. Its learnings, if you look hard enough to detect any, are impeccably "progressive."
For those who do not read French or would find it difficult to get hold of the February 9 issue of Le Devoir, I have made a rough translation of a few samples from Jacques Poisson's "Les fantasmes de M. Trudeau" (Mr. Trudeau's delusions) column. I tried to preserve the flavor but both the cadence and the punch are better, I assure you, in the French original. Just the same, everything printed in English about our peerless leader pales in comparison.
"It's becoming more and more evident," says Poisson, "that our Prime Minister is succumbing to domination delusions which may date back to his adolescent dreams. This may explain the arrogant forcing of his will on Britain while he misrepresents that country as a menace.
"He sees himself dominating the British Parliament and the Commonwealth, the French National Assembly, the international francophone community, nine out of ten of Canada's provinces, the Liberal Party, the NDP, North-South relations between the rich and the poor countries-
"Our Prime Minister certainly is a person outside and above all rules. It's not surprising any more than he plays fast and loose with traditions, customs, concepts and the vocabulary.
"It's not unusual for him to twist words to serve his despotic vision of reality. For example, he accuses Britain of trying to interfere in Canadian affairs at the very moment when the British show profound repugnance of Ottawa's mix of supplications and ultimata-
"It is said that our Prime Minister has found pleasure in grimacing behind the back of the Queen, thumbing his nose at heads of states at international meetings, rump-bumping Mrs. Thatcher, and in snickering at the BNA Act."-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has now expired. He may continue only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Hunting-ton)-Small Business-Representations respecting independent retail sector of petroleum industry; the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche)-The Constitution-Query whether charter of rights covers unborn children; the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky)-Communications- AM radio transmission-Proposed change in dial positions.

March 5, 1981
The Constitution



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed debate on the motion of Mr. Chretien, seconded by Mr. Roberts, for an address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada.
And on the amendment of Mr. Epp, seconded by Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton)-That the motion be amended in Schedule B of the proposed resolution by deleting Clause 46, and by making all necessary changes to the Schedule consequential thereto.
Mr. Louis R. Desmarais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I can shed some light on the debate because of my status as a French-speaking Canadian raised in an English-speaking province without, of course, presuming that either my personal feelings or political convictions run deeper than those of my esteemed colleagues, whatever their vision of the shape of our country's future. My background as a Canadian whose mother tongue is French, who was born and raised in Sudbury, Ontario, but who has been a Quebecer by adoption for the past 15 years, entitles me to offer a perspective based on live experience rather than abstract considerations.
At the outset, Mr. Speaker, let me briefly attempt to answer the basic question around which all subsequent debate must revolve: why does Canada need a new constitution? The reasons-which for so many peoples of the world are self-evident-are, unfortunately, often clouded and confused by our country's peculiar history, traditions, social evolution and development to nationhood. Unlike the great republic to the south, with which we share the longest undefended border in the world, Canada's birth was gradual and discreet, without cannon fire or trumpet blast, battle hymn, slogan or philosophy designed to turn the world upside-down. There are even those who maintain that the British North America Act was, in reality, little more than a trade pact, aimed at establishing harmonious interaction between Upper and Lower Canada, while providing a measure of solidarity against the danger of a takeover by the expanding United States.
But whatever the motives of Westminster, the coming of confederation in 1867 marked the beginning of our gradual drift toward the realization of our identity, our uniqueness, our right to take our place among the sovereign nations of the earth. Now it is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that in the absence of armed conflict or violent rupture, Canadians felt no immediate urgency in establishing a distinctive identity. But as the decades passed, the generations came and went, pressures inevitably began to build for a distinctive flag, national anthem, and finally, for our own Constitution, which would
reflect the ideals and aspirations of all the diverse elements which have contributed to the building of our nation.
But why, many still ask, do we have to have a written constitution?
Why not just go along with the provisions of the BNA Act which, they argue, has served Canada well for more than a century?
Why not carry on in the British tradition of reliance on precedent, custom and jurisprudence, instead of attempting to enshrine fundamental principles in law?
Mr. Speaker, the initial answer is that Canada is not a nation-state like Britain or many of its European counterparts. This country is a mosaic, made up of people from every corner of the globe, of widely different origins, customs and backgrounds. Thus, to rely merely on implied consensus, deriving from the common ideals of a homogeneous population, is patently unworkable and unjust in this country today.
Moreover, we must realize that, despite our attachment to elements of custom and tradition, deriving from language and cultural ties with our European ancestors, Canadians are North Americans, we are North Americans who have elected to live within a federation. Thus, in defining our political structures realism dictates that, while we may draw on the experience of another federation such as Switzerland, coupled with what we deem most valuable in the systems of European nation-states, the end result must be a faithful reflection of our own distinctiveness. All very well and good, is the reaction of some to arguments such as the foregoing, but, they ask, why not confine our Constitution to a general statement of principle, a declaration of de jure sovereignty to ratify the de facto sovereignty Canada has already established with past actions, such as its separate declaration of war in the last world conflict.
And it is here, Mr. Speaker, that we get to the nub of current opposition to the government's constitutional proposals. And objections range all the way from global mistrust of constitutional definition of rights under a Canadian charter of individual rights and freedoms, to taking of issue with specific provisions, such as the entrenchment of language rights. In the absence of any specific guarantees, Canada, in fact, tends to follow the British tradition of the primacy of "law, order and good government" when the chips are really down.
So, despite the illusions fostered through the impact of American films, television and the like, but in the absence of specifically defined constitutional guarantees of individual rights, there is a less dramatic but more serious aspect involving infringement.
Recent examples might include imposition of the War Measures Act in 1970 or, in the more distant past, the wartime internment of Canadians of Japanese origin-is deemed bureaucratic expediency at all levels of government.
March 5, 1981

This lies in the development over decades of a mass of statutory regulations-often constituting a maze of contradictory confusion where personal freedoms are ignored or trampled over roughshod in the interest of what Canadians have to face the reality of just how easily basic human rights can be suppressed or ignored under our existing system.
Most serious consequence of this-as the Canadian Bar Association has pointed out-can be seen in the administration of criminal law. In this area, the Bar Association maintains there are instances where the administration process allows no public debate and, consequently, no consideration of civil liberties involved. As a result, people feel powerless to challenge the system and become either alienated from what they regard as the tyranny of the establishment, or simply bow in resigned, meek deference to authority. Is this how we want our free citizenry to behave? Is this any example to put before the world for a nation which subscribes to the United Nations' Charter of Human Rights and aspires to a role as mediator and peacemaker in today's world? While not going quite so far as to advocate adoption of the United States citizens' basic attitude of resistance and rebellion, when individual rights are suppressed or arbitrary measures become intolerable, I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that we require a drastic change of attitude.
If we are ever to break out of this stifling web of statutory regulations, which may differ not only from province to province, but from parish to parish, if we are to ensure that inequities in administration of criminal law are to be eliminated as far as is humanly possible, we must rid ourselves of the notion that the Anglo-Saxon reliance on decency and fair play is adequate to our needs today.
The reality is that we are a federation, living within a North American context in a very imperfect world.
And we are now, I firmly believe, sufficiently mature as a people to decide exactly what democratic, legal, political, language or other rights we wish and intend to enjoy. And then we should take pride in spelling out these fundamental freedoms in clear and concise terms, so that our convictions are manifest not only to ourselves, but to all peoples of the world.
This brings me, Mr. Speaker, to what is perhaps the most sensitive area of the proposed Constitution-entrenchment of minority language rights. Although the perspective on this question may vary widely in accordance with a host of factors, such as geographic location, ethnic origin, individual goals in life and so on, there can be little doubt today that it remains crucial to the future survival and development of our nation. Over the past couple of decades alone it is safe to say that no
The Constitution
other single issue has generated such sustained heat and controversy. Governments have grappled with the problem, some coming to subsequent grief at the polls, following legislative attempts which may have half pleased one segment of the population while infuriating another.
In my own province of Quebec I am reminded of the Union Nationale's controversial Bill-63, a direct result of the St. Leonard language riots of the late 1960s, of Premier Bourass-a's equally ill-starred Bill-22 language law and, finally, of Premier Levesque's Bill-101, now a "cause celebre", the impact and implications of which are still being assessed. Given this record of dissent and disaster, an outsider might well be forgiven for asking the simple question: Why? There is not a simple answer to this question, as any serious student of linguistics well knows. The roots of the matter run deep indeed, drawing their sustenance from the subtle psyche of the people.
But allow me, Mr. Speaker, to offer a more concrete example based on my personal experience. As I mentioned earlier, I was born and raised in Subdury, Ontario. French was the language of my home and I was able to attend elementary school in that language. But when it came time to go on to the secondary level, there was no French school then available in that Ontario town. So my parents were obliged to send me to Ottawa, simply to complete my pre-university education in the tongue they considered theirs by birthright and mine by inheritance. This, you might feel, was no great tragedy in those days, merely a mild trauma common to language minority children everywhere. But Canada was my country. The fact that the language through which I have learned to interpret life had second-class status set me to wondering about the quality of my citizenship.
Again, the Canadian Bar Association has summed up this feeling of alienation very succinctly with the blunt assertion that "constitutional language guarantees are required if Quebecers are to continue to feel that Canada is their country". This touches the very heart of the matter. It is not enough, nowhere nearly enough today, for French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec to rely on the much-vaunted declarations of intent or expressions of good will in this basic area of language.
Where is the intrinsic dignity, the vital sense of belonging, in such an arrangement? Can we create a proud citizenry out of a segment of our population condemned to receive its identity as a charity from the hands of some latter-day Lady Bountiful?
Of course, it is in recognition of this that governments in Quebec have made their agonized attempts to legislate such dignity. For its part, the federal government has gone as far as it can, giving bilingualism force of law in those fields over which it has jurisdiction. But under the present provisions of the BN A Act these areas are clearly restricted, with the result that access to minority language education still depends on the benevolence of the provincial governments. It is for this reason that we propose to entrench minority language rights in our Constitution as part of the charter of rights and freedoms.

March 5, 1981
The Constitution
What those opposing such entrenchment apparently fail to grasp is that very much more is at stake here than just the sense of identity and dignity of one of this country's two founding peoples. Quite clearly the corollary is that Canada's continued unity itself depends on successful inculcation of this vital sense of belonging. For despite the smokescreens created by the raising of economic and other issues over the recent decades of acute Quebec unrest, the language question is and has been at the heart of the issue.
It has become a truism to point out that, through use of its two official languages both at home and abroad, Canada has managed to maintain a measure of distinctness vis-a-vis the all-pervasive culture of the United States. But if Canada as a whole oft-times fears drowning in this American tidal wave, just imagine the apprehensions of Quebec and our four million unilingual French-speaking fellow Canadians who live there, surrounded by an English language ocean of more than 250 million-the most powerful, technologically advanced and wealthiest society in the world. Just try to envisage the fears, trepidations and uncertainties of the French-speaking Quebecer, and how these fears are increased a hundredfold for his counterpart outside his home province.
Thus there is no doubt in my mind that the language issue has always been, and remains, at the root of any Quebec independence movement, and the continued discrimination against French-speaking minorities in other parts of this land constitutes a major force for national disunity.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that I must make the point here that French-speaking Canadians no longer believe that this is any particular person's fault. They realize that there is no devious Anglo-Saxon plot to eliminate their language.


An hon. Member:: There never was.


Louis R. Desmarais: The threat stems from a historical and geopolitical accident of circumstances, not necessarily from any ill will in the hearts of their English language compatriots or American neighbours. But this realization does nothing to make the danger any less real. And what thinking Quebecers fear most of all is the nightmare possibility that mere force of geographic and economic circumstances could lead to a gradual degeneration of their language to a folkloric level. They are now aware of instances elsewhere in the world where a language, culture and an entire people have slipped into a sort of twilight zone, providing a curiosity for tourists who come to see the natives "who talk funny".
Again, the modern day science of linguistics has made it abundantly clear that the very quality of our individual thought processes depends directly on the quality and precision of the language we use. All abstract concepts-for example, honour, courage, justice, equity and even love-are intangibles, impalpable ideas which exist only through words and their employment in our syntax. Thus it follows that if this precision is blunted, if this syntax is distorted through deterioration of language, the thought processes themselves inevitably
degenerate. And we end up with something less than a full human being.
Now I am not, of course, suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that mere constitutional entrenchment of language rights will solve this problem, any more than will Quebec's Bill-101. I have made the point rather as a form of appeal to those opposed to such entrenchment to endeavour to look at the situation from another person's point of view.
It is, in essence, an appeal-perhaps I should even say a heartfelt plea-for realization that French-speaking Canadians are desperately in need of understanding and support from their English language fellow citizens. And this need, though often concealed beneath truculence and aggressiveness, is as poignantly real today as at any time in our country's history. From one Canadian to another it is, in fact, a cry for help.
In light of the foregoing, it is difficult to comprehend the opposition to the government's proposal for a truly Canadian Constitution. At the Victoria conference of 1970, it should be recalled, all provinces agreed to the principle of entrenchment of political rights in a new Constitution. At the 1977 New Brunswick premiers' conference, all provincial government heads again pledged to set up machinery to ensure access to minority language education facilities across the country, where warranted by sufficient population. This principle was ratified at subsequent premiers' meetings in Montreal and has since, apparently, remained an avowed goal.
At the same time, Premier Levesque offered his provincial counterparts a formula for reciprocity covering minority language education rights. Now that such reciprocity is, in essence, being proposed in a constitutional charter which would be beyond the whims of any transitory majority, it is difficult indeed to see how the present Quebec government could find credible grounds for objection; nor are there, as far as I can determine, Mr. Speaker, any serious objections to the principle of placing wealth sharing, through equalization, beyond any such transitory tampering.
Thus we are forced to the conclusion that, with a majority of Canadians in favour of bringing home the Constitution, of the principle of entrenchment of basic rights, including language mobility and equalization, opposition is aimed at form rather than substance. Therefore, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to deal with this aspect in the concluding portion of my remarks today.

Now, examination of the substance of such opposition, in addition to the representations heard by our parliamentary committee, makes it clear that even most hon. members across the floor here are in favour of the thrust of the government's proposals. And this, in turn, places responsibility for any move to block our Constitution squarely on the shoulders of dissenting provincial governments. But in this respect I would like to make one pertinent observation. This is that, at the time when the Quebec sovereignty-association referendum campaign was in full swing, all other provincial premiers-some through their very silence-quite clearly indicated tacit consent to the
March 5, 1981

federal government's pledge to initiate immediate steps for patriation and amendment of the Constitution. Some went further and openly supported the promise that, if the No forces were to win-that is, if a majority of Quebecers voted to remain in Canada and give federalism another chance-they would help see to it that prompt constitutional change was forthcoming.
Well, optimistic Quebec voters took them at their word and the referendum result passed into history. And almost immediately, it appears, the hedging began.
Is it really possible, one wonders, that the rest of Canada really believes that one such referendum vote has wiped out any threat to Canadian unity? Can governments and electorates actually convince themselves that Quebec's fears, malaise, unrest and the independence movement itself have now been laid to rest and the remainder of the country can slide back into the "good old days?" It would be tragic indeed, Mr. Speaker, if our provincial leaders once again wore their two solitudes blinkers. But even more distressing-more potentially disruptive and dangerous-would be realization by Canadians that some provinces are now coldly determined to renege on the pre-referendum constitutional reform consensus for purely partisan, regional or electoral interests.
As a Canadian who remains a convinced federalist and has a sincere faith in the basic integrity of his fellow citizens, I would like to believe that such is not the case. Let us take a look at the substance of the objections to the government's proposed machinery for bringing home our Constitution and its subsequent amendment by Canadians and for Canadians. First of all, much is being made of what is termed the government's "unilateral" action in pressing ahead with patriation without obtaining prior unanimous approval of every detail from the provinces.
We have been floundering over this issue for about half a century now and there is no reason to believe that, if we have to wait for total unanimity on every question, we will be any further ahead in another fifty years' time. Thus I strongly suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the notion of prior unanimity-not only in the constitutional area, but in any fallible, human organism-is an elusive and virtually unobtainable ideal. We have allowed this myth, this bugbear, to block and cripple all our previous attempts to give ourselves a constitution of our own. I sometimes wonder just what we must look like here in the eyes of the rest of the world. This must not be allowed to happen again. Now that we have the impetus, we have got to press ahead, or reconcile ourselves to the realization that we are not really the mature people we would like to believe.
But it has become increasingly clear over recent decades, Mr. Speaker, that if we wait for perfection, we will wait forever. Thus, we have no choice but to bite the bullet and act now, while the majority impetus remains the driving force. And all those raising academic arguments against what they see fit to deem "unilateral" action in this respect, might do
The Constitution
well to consider that the alternative to "now" is almost certainly "never".
This leads naturally to the second area of objection to the machinery-rather than the principle-of the government's patriation proposals: the amending formula. Recognition of the ever-present factor of human fallibility, of the virtual impossibility of total unanimity and of the need to avoid future constitutional stagnation, provides the basis for the proposed amending formula. But this has been carefully shaped to ensure that regional interests will remain forever protected from arbitrary constitutional change, effected by a simply majority of the country's population. Now this formula will clearly provide veto powers over certain areas of constitutional amendment for each of the country's four major regions. Again, it is a break of the futile ideal of unanimity, which past experience has shown all too painfully, would merely hamstring any future constitutional reform. Thus I submit that a formula along the lines proposed by our government has the dual advantage of providing for effective regional veto powers, while still permitting the people of this country to envisage realistically any constitutional reform clearly destined to enhance the over-all lifestyle of all Canadians.
On the question of the use of a referendum for popular ratification of any amending formula or subsequent constitutional change, I should make it clear that basic human rights must remain unaffected. This means that, as laid out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, such provisions could never be withdrawn or altered merely by a referendum majority vote. Improvements, however, could always be made. That is, additional rights and freedoms could be added to the charter, in the light of experience and to meet needs not covered in the present proposals. Thus the charter would remain for all time inviolable, protecting our people, while itself protected from any threat from the transient "tyranny of the majority".
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully urge all members to reflect seriously, until we vote on the proposed constitutional resolution, upon the words of the outstanding parliamentarian Lord Acton, and I quote:
The maturity of a society is measured by the maturity with which this society treats its minorities-
In concluding, I appeal to the maturity of all members to get on with the work. Despite our differences and endless debates in certain areas of disagreement, I remain convinced that there is infinitely more to unite than to divide us. Our future, our potential in people and resources sometimes staggers the imagination. What we are striving for now is some sort of common denominator which can bring it all together for the common good.
Madam Speaker, if there is one thought which I would like to emphasize and to leave with you in concluding my remarks

March 5, 1981
The Constitution
today, let me repeat Lord Acton's words: "The maturity of a society is measured by the maturity with which this society treats its minorities."
Despite our differences and seemingly endless debate in certain areas of disagreement, I remain convinced that there is and has always been infinitely more to unite than to divide us. Our future, our potential in people and resources, sometimes staggers the imagination. It is all there. What we are striving for now is some sort of common denominator which can bring it all together for the common good.
Let us get started. Let us get to work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: A very good speech. A very useful contribution.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by congratulating the previous speaker, the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Desmarais), on his remarks. He expressed in his speech considerable wisdom and the strength of feeling was evident to us all.
My congratulations, however, centre on the fact that he followed a spurious point of order interjected by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) which bothered me a great deal. The minister said to the House that the 147 members who represent the Liberal party would be restricted to 20-minute speeches on an issue that is so important. I congratulate the hon. member for Dollard for taking almost the full 40 minutes to which his constituents are entitled. I think he used the time well to express a point of view which I cannot share in most respects, but which I can honour. I hope future speakers from the other side will take their responsibility to their constituents and to this Parliament seriously and take the time they need to bring to the floor of this House the message that they think they have to give. I hope they will not be muzzled by the wishes of cabinet ministers or the House leader.


Walter David Baker: Well said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak as a Canadian from Alberta. I rise as a citizen within this federation, someone who values my freedom, my right to vote for a school board, a municipal or county government, a provincial legislature or this federal House of Commons.
In my province exactly 100 people are elected to serve in the legislature and the House of Commons, 79 in our provincial government and 21 in this House. I rise to report that 99 of those 100 people who represent the people of our province in a free, democratic way are totally and unalterably opposed to the present process and to the consequences of that process.
The hon. member for Dollard talked about national unity and the need for some changes relative to the people who live in the province of Quebec. In my brief intervention before this House today I will talk about the threat to national unity
which this proposed constitutional amendment carries with it in my province and in my riding. That threat is real and it must be attended; it must be given consideration before it is too late.
Last night I attended Baltic night, an event which occurs once a year on Parliament Hill. The thrust of Baltic night and the message which is delivered to parliamentarians by the Baltic people centres exclusively on the need for vigilance, on the protection of our freedom. That is the message from Baltic night and it is particularly appropriate that I have the opportunity to speak on the Constitution of Canada the day after attending Baltic night. I had the opportunity to listen to the refugees from unitary, totalitarian states warn us about the dangers to freedom and to see that concern is passed through generations to the young people who belong to the Baltic states.
I rise in this House today to clarify a couple of matters. First, I attended 50 of the 56 sitting days of the committee which met on the Constitution of Canada and for a whole year prior to that I spent at least as many hours outside of that committee tyring to comprehend the nature of constitutions and the impact which they might have on a nation such as Canada. Through that kind of diligence I think one deserves the opportunity to speak in this House.
Second, this debate, in its initial short time in this House, in the Constitution committee itself and now at this phase, has demonstrated a great deal of difference between the members opposite and the members who serve in the official opposition. I believe the difference relates to the fact that members of the Liberal Party will give speech after speech centring on goals. On this side of the House we have no quarrel with the goals, but whether I appear on television with ministers of the Crown, in committee with Liberal members or whether I listen to speeches in the House of Commons, I think it is curious that members opposite seldom deal with the fine print. They seldom deal with the reality of what is written in this resolution. They seldom deal with the nature of Canada and the way we are governed; nor do they deal with the intrusion this particular legislation will make into our lives.
I think of this resolution we are debating today as a secret revolution. That it is a revolution, I have no doubt; and I will expound on that later. The fact that this is being done with a measure of secrecy, though not total secrecy, I also have no doubt; and I shall expound on that also. The revolution occurs in two ways. One way has been talked about a little, but the other way is seldom talked about. The revolution in the way we will be governed in the future will hit anyone who gives this measure serious study. It is a revolution related to the power of the people and to the supremacy of the voters of this country. This resolution will take away those powers from the people. That in itself is a revolutionary concept in its magnitude and repercussions.
It is also a revolution in both its process and its substance which attempts to dismantle the federal system. I wish to deal
March 5, 1981

with both of these in what I hope might be understandable ways, not only for members of this House-and I have found it helpful in achieving my own degree of clarity-but also for those who watch our proceedings from time to time through the medium of television. What I say may help them.
The principle on which this nation was founded, one which continues to this day, is that the voters are supreme. When we elect our school boards, municipal and county councils, our provincial legislatures, or this House of Commons, what we do is elect juries or peers to represent us in a decision-making process. In these forums the majority rules and we are governed. But critical to that is the notion that periodically, every three, four or five years, the voters of this country for each of those bodies have the power and the responsibility to decide whether or not the same people shall continue to govern in their areas of jurisdiction or a different group of people shall govern.
For instance, in the recent municipal elections in the city of Calgary, the latter course was chosen. The entire public school board was changed; half of the separate school board was changed, half of the city council was changed and a new mayor was elected because the voters of the city of Calgary had that democratic right and power to change the jury. I think for those who care about freedom there is nothing more important to protect than that power which lies in universal suffrage in the ballot which all of us enjoy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Liberal Party, aided and abetted by some members of the New Democratic Party, is attempting in secret to take that power away from the people and to give it to a jury of nine people, of which five of the nine shall rule. The government is not changing the process of the selection of the nine. That process today, and in the fine print of this resolution, which will be continued, is the selection of those nine people, largely in secret and chosen essentially by one person. That is the nature of the revolution.
There may be value, and I would assert there is value, in handing over to the courts some additional responsibility. But I think that should be matched by a great deal more care and attention. As we increase those responsibilities, then we need to deal with the mechanism of selection to ensure that we, as free people, retain control of that jury as well. Certainly when we attempt to take away from Canadian voters the power to choose who shall govern them, we should do it with a great deal more care, attention and time than we are devoting to the way we are doing it now.
Do I find this denial of the supremacy of voters to be discrepant through the last 12 or 13 years? I do not. There is a school of thought in philosophy and political science which must be described as an attitude portrayed by those who believe in oligarchies, those who believe that somehow there is an elite class of rulers who somehow have more wisdom and knowledge than others, and that this elite class shall rule. If we look back over the last 12 or 13 years, those years which bring us to this point in constitutional revision, we can see that mind
The Constitution
set in operation. The growth to 400 Crown corporations in its basic element represents the fact that we have turned over jurisdiction in 400 areas of our lives to small boards of directors who are not chosen after public examination but are simply appointed.
We get into great debates in this House about patronage appointments, but we cannot have access to information from Crown corporations. These are hot topics for a day or two and then forgotten, but the sum total of 12 or 13 years is the fact that just at the federal level alone we have over 400 of those kinds of groups. That is the consequence of a philosophy which believes in oligarchy.
One of the big issues faced in this House with great frequency in recent times is the energy issue. We argue occasionally about Petro-Canada, its growth, and its development. I ask members of this House how the directors of Petro-Canada were chosen. Do they know their names? What are their qualifications? Are they good at what they do? Hon. members choose to expand that organization and its influence over our lives without the kind of careful consideration that should go into the selection of those people.
How is it that a corporation that is worth $3.5 billion only had a profit of $13 million at a time when other oil companies are being accused of excess profits? Does it relate in any way, shape or form to the method we use in choosing who shall govern? Why do we so willingly give those few people such an expanded role? Have they earned it? Are they subject to recall?
I would like to read the first paragraph of Beauchesne's. Soon after I was elected to this House in May, 1979, I was given a copy of Beauchesne. For those of the general population who do not serve in this House and may not know Beauchesne, it is a book which attempts to tell members of Parliament, new or old, their rights and responsibilities. The first paragraph deals with the principles of parliamentary law and reads as follows:
The principles that lie at the basis of English parliamentary law, have always been kept steadily in view by the Canadian Parliament; these are: To protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner; to enable every member to express his opinions within limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time; to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure; and to prevent any legislative action being taken upon sudden impulse.
That is the responsibility of each and every member who serves in this House. We should put that in perspective and just deal with two of the key points, to "restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority" and "to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken upon sudden impulse." If all members, regardless of party affiliation, who accept the responsibility of sitting in this House, were to take those responsibilities seriously, how would we feel about the process in which we are presently engaged? I suggest we should at least

March 5, 1981
The Constitution
be nervous about the extent to which we are discharging that responsibility adequately.
I said there were two aspects to the resolution. One was the denigration of the power of the individual voter. The second was the dismantling of the federal system. Of those two issues, the most difficult to comprehend is the dismantling of the federal system.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and others on that side indicated that there is no rearrangement of powers in this country. I think I have built a reasonable case to show that the powers of the voters have been diminished. However, those on the other side seem to leave us with the notion that the rights and privileges of the governments elected in the provinces are not seriously affected.
I ask members opposite, and anybody watching us today, to get a copy of this resolution. It will be seen that the provinces are specifically referred to 31 times in the resolution. If their powers are not to be significantly affected, why is it necessary to refer to provincial legislatures 31 times?
A federal system is not built on a principle of decentralization. If you examine the experts and constitutional theory, you find it is built on the principle of non-centralization. It is a form of government which does not exist universally throughout the world, or even universally throughout the free world, but it exists in some countries, not because it is preferred but because it is the best of government for a particular nation and its people.
The Fathers of Confederation and those who up to this point have been responsible for the affairs of the nation were and have been wise in the extent to which they have done their best to pay attention to the fact that any successful federation will adhere to the principle of non-centralization. Within that concept it is important to note that the various political entities, the various kinds of government in a true federation, are sovereign in their areas of jurisdiction. That has been the understanding in this nation until this point, that that sovereignty of jurisdiction exists constitutionally. It does today, and it cannot be taken away unilaterally without the agreement of those who are affected. To do that constitutes a revolution. It runs counter to any basic understanding of what a federation is all about.
The importance of the notion of a federation in a nation like Canada is twofold. This process we are engaged in today demonstrates clearly the importance of protection from arbitrary action by a transitory majority in a single level of government. Where would we be today if we did not have more than one level of government to object to the revolution which is being attempted in this House? The voters of this country need to be protected from the tyranny of transitory majorities, and I suggest that it is our federation and the interplay between the different constituent elements which provide us with that protection. Because of the size of this nation, territorial democracy is an important concept, and those who would deny the importance of that concept invite us all to run the risk of separation of the nation.
The true nature of a federation involves legal jurisdiction, and hon. members opposite, today and on other days, in addressing themselves to the amending formula have talked about its fairness because every region is represented. Where in this federation is there a regional government? In this federation we have ten provincial governments, the government of Yukon, and the government of the Northwest Territories. We do not have regional governments. We have provincial governments. That is the nature of this federation, and those are our nation's states. The provinces have legal jurisdictions guaranteed in the Constitution of Canada, and it is the Liberal government which is unilaterally trying to take those guarantees away from the Canadian people. I suggest that will not wash.
It is interesting to note also that scholars of federations talk not just about legal jurisdiction, but they also talk about the spirit and the practices of a federation. The spirit involves honouring the partnership and acknowledging that we are a federation, and to ignore the spirit is to weaken the spirit and weaken the will to survive. It is like a marriage. A marriage licence is a very simple, straightforward document. Not much is written on it. The terms and conditions are not specified, but those evolve and marriages last and prosper if the partners work at it. They decay and split apart if the need for parner-ship is not acknowledged and partnership is not worked at.
Today we have a situation in which eight of the ten provincial governments and the governments of both the Yukon and Northwest Territories-ten of the 12 governments which represent the areas of this country-are opposed to these constitutional amendments. I think it behooves all of us to think of that. If that opposition can be overcome by legal means which do not pay attention to the spirit and the practices of the federation, then what will happen to this nation? Are those risks worth running for all parts of this package?
I have said in committee and to the Minister of Justice that this proposal attempts to separate Canadians from their governing traditions, their legal traditions, and their economic traditions. The best word I can think of to describe those who support it is "separatist". Those who seek to separate are in fact the true separatists in this confederation of ours.
In my attendance at the constitutional committee hearings I thought that perhaps with the passage of time and process we might arrive at a Constitution which I felt was supportable, but in my attendance at those committee hearings I was an unwilling participant in a bad process, and we have produced a bad resolution which will not do good things for Canada.
I have sat many times and thought about what would constitute a good process. Perhaps I will just sketch that out briefly for the House. I think a good process of constitutional renewal would begin with an invitation to Canadians in all walks of life-whatever their responsibilities or stations-to submit to some central place their ideas on the constitutional problems which exist in the country, and their suggested solutions. Armed with that kind of input I suggest that a
March 5, 1981

constituent assembly composed of representatives of all Canadians-elected politicians, ethnic groups, women, men, labour, business, academics and others-could consider those statements of problems and proposed solutions and, after some considerable period of time and examination, make recommendations to the partners in our federation. With the moral authority of such a body I think we could end up with a good Constitution.
When I have those thoughts in my head, I run them against my personal experience in this Parliament in dealing with the Constitution of Canada. I read a memo which advised the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government opposite that it seemed unlikely that the partners in confederation could agree to the federal perspective or buy totally what the Prime Minister wanted them to, and in that event it was important to turn the September first ministers' conference into a public relations platform designed to convince the Canadian people that it was the provinces which were to blame and not the federal government.
The next piece of advice in that memo of 59 pages was that the federal government should then move quickly to ram its ideas through, and the federal government was warned that if it took too long, the opposition would grow. I refer to that as the strategy of speed and secrecy. Step one involved closure, the denial of free speech in this House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada after 24 hours of debate. After one full day of debate, closure was invoked. That fits the strategy of speed and secrecy.
Step two was to move the resolution to the committee. In the committee there were 15 Liberals, two New Democrats, and eight Conservatives. The memo advised that this step be taken because it would make it easier to control the committee. We think that committees are masters of their own destinies and that majority rules, but when there are 15 votes for the government and ten for the opposition, we can see that that control is evident. Was that control put to use? I suggest it was.
We started out with a 30-day time limit, no television, no broadcasting, and long hours. People became tired. We fought, and some of those things were amended slightly. However, hidden in the background was the exercise of control over the choice of witnesses and the length of time they had to appear before the committee. There was the warning that closure was everywhere we turned. As one member of this House who sat there for a long, long time, I have no sense of pride. I carry something more akin to a sense of shame that a free and democratic institution like the Parliament of Canada forced me to participate in something which had many elements of a charade rather than a true inquiry.
I sat there and I heard the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and others in our party move an amendment, and before it was out of their mouths, the Minister of Justice said that the government would or would not vote for it. Before the arguments were heard, before the wisdom of that amendment
The Constitution
was apparent, the minister said the government would or would not vote for it, and the 15 members did what the Minister of Justice told them to do.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Then they had the gall to come to the House and say this was a resolution sponsored by the Parliament of Canada. It is not; it is a government initiative supported by government members and by some of their marriage partners from the NDP.
In early October I took great pride in the fact that the leader of this party said on national television that this was a bad piece of legislation. That was on Thursday night. The Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) and the Prime Minister said it was good. But what are the facts, Mr. Speaker?
We have a resolution before us in the House today. The resolution we saw in early October had 59 clauses. The resolution we now have before us has 68 amendments: 67 mandated by the committee and one moved since then which nobody seems to have noticed. What does an amendment mean? When the government agrees to it, it means the government acknowledged the mistake. There were 67 mistakes which the government was willing to acknowledge in a bill which had 59 clauses. Have there ever been in the history of this Parliament 67 or 68 amendments to a 59 clause bill? It was the worst piece of legislation that this Parliament has ever considered, and the leader of our party told Canadians that.
I heard the Leader of the NDP stand up in the House the other day and say that this is the best we can hope to have. But the leader of that party and his caucus proposed 43 amendments to the resolution. They saw 43 mistakes in the bill. Two amendments were accepted and 41 were not-there are still 41 amendments which he identified, and now they call it the best that this country can do. I am ashamed of them.
If we looked around us, we would also find that in the process of federal-provincial consultation there was a 12-item agenda and agreement was reached in large part on such items as communications, offshore resources, fisheries, and family law. They agreed on a different amending formula, they agreed on something different on resource ownership, different from what we find in this resolution. Why is that? Why do the NDP and hon. members opposite sit here so willingly intending to vote for this resolution, when in fact they know that such a large part of what is needed in the way of constitutional revision, such a large part of what was agreed to, does not appear in this resolution? What does appear is a number of things on which there was never agreement or discussion.
I see that my time is running out, Mr. Speaker. When I began my comments, I was wondering whether I would be able to speak for 40 minutes. I see now that I have dealt with only one third of the items I had prepared for my speech today.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I suppose that all I can really do in conclusion is to express, as clearly and as succinctly as I can, my belief

March 5, 1981
The Constitution
that the people of my province, the people of most western Canadian provinces, will not, in the long run, want to belong to a federation in which they are treated as second-class citizens. They will not want to belong to a unitary state. They wish to be partners in a federation. They will not be victims.
We are on a very dangerous cliff. I hope that perhaps in the quietness of the caucus, in the quietness of the halls and of the offices, hon. members opposite, before they vote to impose this resolution on all the people of Canada, will take at least a little time to speak with us and will come to our province to meet with our people and to judge for themselves the seriousness of what is facing Canada today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I suppose that at some time in the future people will look back and they may even read the comments made by members of the House of Commons and members of the Senate and give some consideration to what was the truth in the views various members put forward of what is likely to happen to Canada as a result of this debate and of this action by the government.
I have listened to many points of view, and I have found it sometimes difficult to determine exactly how much of what is being said is real, how much is partisan, how much is misinformation. I assume it is all said honestly, but it worries me because many of the things that have been said about the consequences of the passage of this piece of legislation could not and will not come to pass. This measure will not destroy confederation. It will not take away the rights of people to have a democracy where they will be able to elect Members of Parliament and where those Members of Parliament will represent them and, in some way or other, deal with the issues and the problems of the time.
I listened with interest to my friend from the Conservative Party who spoke before me as he said that going to the courts was such a terrible thing. Yet every single Member of Parliament knows that every piece of legislation we pass will, at some point, be interpreted by the courts, and the court interpretation will set the precedent which will be the benchmark against which the legislation will be applied. Every Member of Parliament knows that the legislation which we will pass from this day forward, as on any other day, will be subject to amendment in the House of Commons.
The one thing that has not been said by those who suggest that what is happening destroys democracy is that until today, and until this bill finally becomes law, if we wanted to make any change to the existing Constitution of Canada, we could not have gone to the courts of Canada; we had to go to Westminster and ask another Parliament, far removed from the concerns of Canada, with little, if any, interest in the day to day activities of our country, to approve or disapprove of the changes we would like to make. Frankly, I do not think it is all that bad to have the court in your own land, appointed by your own Parliament, make the final decision.


Mr. Andre:: It is not appointed by us. That was the whole point of the speech.


Ian Deans: It is appointed under an act of Parliament, and therefore appointed by Parliament.


Harvie Andre: No, that was the whole point of the speech.


Ian Deans: The point of his speech was wrong.


Walter David Baker: How do you know it is wrong since you did not understand it?


Ian Deans: The greatest part of the debate I have heard outside the House of Commons has been centred upon why we are doing this right now, why we are not dealing with the economy, with employment, with energy. I think there is a certain validity to that. Perhaps on balance it might have been better to spread out the discussion of the constitutional change over a longer period of time. This would have afforded an opportunity to deal with some of the problems which more evidently touch the lives of the vast majority of Canadians. But given that that was not to happen, it is appropriate that we should be dealing with the Constitution here in Canada and putting to rest, once and for all, the idle argument that this Constitution is to be made in Great Britain. What utter nonsense! What utter nonsense!
The committee sat countless hours listening to representations from Canadians. Members of Parliament and Senators deliberated carefully over the matters put before them. The House of Commons debated at great length the Constitution and the consequences of it. How can anyone say that this Constitution will be made in Britain? Yes, it will be approved in Britain for the last time, but it will be made in Canada by Canadians on behalf of Canadians.


Harvie Andre: Are the premiers involved?


Ian Deans: When I return to my constituency, the people ask why the Conservatives are so naive and nasty. I say that it is their nature. Also they ask me what it is about this matter that I support. I should like to tell them that any time a discussion took place about the Constitution of Canada during my almost 15 years in politics, the one matter raised most often was that we ought to have our own Constitution, that we should have the British North America Act brought to Canada, since it was made here in the first place, and that it should be located here as a Constitution for this country. Perhaps I am one of the few members of the House who has looked at and read the actual British North America Act in Westminster. Therefore I think we are responding to the wishes of the vast majority by moving to bring the Constitution back.
What good would it be to have the Constitution in Canada with no way of amending it? The argument then centres on how it should be amended. Should we use the amending formula which was worked out in committee? Should we use
March 5, 1981

another formula, perhaps the one proposed by the Conservative party which is supported in part by some of the premiers?
I asked myself those questions, and I came to the conclusion that it is better to have this formula, deficient though it may be, than one which allows the provinces to opt in or out of the constitutional provisions and thereby deny Canadians equal access to the rights that are being given, recognized, and written in this Constitution.
Surely it is better to have this amending formula, although it requires some change. Surely it is better to have this amending formula for the next two years and to allow the premiers of the various provinces and the government to come together and look for a formula which has their total support, one which reflects the concerns of western Canada.


Harvie Andre: At least blush when you say that.


Ian Deans: 1 say to the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), who speaks often but rarely rises, if what the Conservative Party is saying is true, that there is a willingness out there to find a way to resolve the differences of opinion, then within the next few years that willingness will rise to the top and there will be a new formula, if it has unanimity, which will be acceptable to everyone.


Harvie Andre: Why would Trudeau give up his power? You are an old union negotiator; use your head.


Ian Deans: Despite the nattering of the hon. member for Calgary Centre, I should like to indicate we have almost agreed unanimously that we want to bring the Constitution to Canada and that we must have an amending formula. We have both those things in place. They are not absolutely perfect, but who would expect that they would be?
Then we hear arguments about the bill of rights. Who in Canada wants to perpetrate the system which exists in terms of dealing with the disabled? Who wants to deny the section dealing with the rights of women? Who in the Tory caucus, or out in the country, wants to deny natives the rights we have been able to negotiate and include in this bill of rights? Who says that we should leave the system as it is? It is not I, not I. I do not want to leave the way in which we deal with our disabled and handicapped as it has been over the last half century or more. I want to see it changed. 1 want to see some rights. I do not want to leave the question of women's rights hanging in the air for the next 15 or 20 years while discussions take place. I do not want to turn to the natives in this country who have placed so much trust in us, and say that for the sake of expediency and political gain, as the Conservatives have said, "we will back away; we will not guarantee your right to a place at the table."
It is difficult to come up with a constitution; it cannot be perfect. It must be a living document, not one which writes about history. It is a document upon which the future will be developed. It is a document which sets out the accepted norms and the parameters within which the majority of people feel comfortable in our society.
The Constitution
The question as to whether the bill of rights should be entrenched is a difficult one to answer. Although I have never been particularly in favour of a referendum, given the opportunity in the final analysis to have such a referendum, I suppose a bill of rights could be entrenched. We must bear in mind always that this bill of rights is not the final one, that it will change with the times and will reflect the concerns of society as society evolves.
I should like to refer to the report of the Royal Commission Inquiry Into Civil Rights written by former Chief Justice McRuer a number of years ago. He wrote the following about a bill of rights:
When people demand a comprehensive "bill of rights" declared or defined in some authoritative legal form, what is it they seek? Is it not the age old demand for "justice"?
To write a bill of rights is to express in general terms the expectation and claim of citizens that the legal system under which they live shall be just.
He went on to write:
It is to be appreciated that the definition and implementation of a bill of rights cannot be done in one simple operation. Adherence to the standards set out in a bill of rights is a very complex process. It must allow for and promote continuous progress involving legal change, together with adjustment through the decisions of impartial courts and the legislative action of democratic legislatures.
Also he wrote about constitutional law as follows:
As Sir Ivor Jennings has said, in a sense all law is constitutional law.
This is because it is in fact written within the constitutional framework of the country.
It is interesting to look at the arguments which have taken place here about constitutional law and whether certain things should or should not be included in the Constitution. One argument put forward by the Conservative Party-and I assume it was in good faith-dealth with property rights. But I should like to refer to what former Chief Justice McRuer wrote when he dealt with the matter of property rights. It reads:
The laws against trespass and violence safeguard the free enjoyment of the ownership of land-[DOT]
In fact it has been generally recognized in this country that property rights are the responsibility of provincial jurisdictions and that to write some vague reference to property rights in the Constitution can only serve to complicate further an already very complicated situation and to create even further problems in terms of whom has the ultimate jurisdiction to determine the right of individuals to quiet enjoyment of their own property. The fact that we pointed that out and said that this is an inappropriate place to put it cannot, and ought not, be interpreted to mean that somehow or other we are opposed to someone owning a home. I doubt that there is a political party anywhere which has spoken more often, more passionately and more carefully about the need to provide the opportunity for people at all income levels to have accommodation at a price they can afford, to buy a home of their own and to live in dignity. I do not think any party has any more claim to that than we do.

March 5, 1981
The Constitution


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: When I listen to Conservatives talking about what they put forward, they do not tell you the implications of it. The implications would have been a continuous harangue through the court system trying to determine whether, indeed, it was a provincial or a federal responsibility, whether the Constitution would take precedence over the rights of the provinces. That measure would have served no one. In fact it would have served only to frustrate and aggravate. It would not have made any sense.
So, when I look at those kinds of things I wonder why it is that we have allowed, at least what appears to me to be, a step forward toward establishing the Constitution in Canada with the rights of individuals written so that they can look at them and read them and so that they do not have to rely on something which is called "common law tradition" to determine what it is they are entitled to and what it is they have every right to expect.
When we refer to common law, of course we are not referring to Canadian common law. We are referring to British common law. Canada has not been a nation long enough to have established a sufficiently strong tradition in common law. Thus, when we try to make an interpretation about the rights of individuals, using common law, we are actually basing it on the common law traditions of Great Britain. Great Britain has centuries of history behind it, an evolution of a process which we have never had, an evolution which allowed for all changes that took place through many different systems, through the industrial revolution and through the emergence of the common man or woman into prominence in the state.
We cannot really base our tradition on that because our tradition is a different one. It is the North American tradition. It has a good core in British law but it is not necessarily governed by British law only. Therefore, to suggest for a moment that it is better to rely upon common law tradition than to rely upon a bill of rights, is a matter of opinion.
For many of us, having looked at it, opinion comes down more heavily on the need to say it to people in writing so that they can read it in any part of the country. This enables them to understand what it is that their laws are about and what their rights are. That does not take away for one moment the existing law and the weight of it. It does not depreciate for one moment the laws that we have already written into the books, the laws which have stood the test of time. They still remain. It is not as if you are starting all over again and eliminating all the other laws because you are writing the guidelines. You continue to use those laws. The laws that protect people still remain in place. The laws that give them the rights I have mentioned with regard to property still remain in place.
Therefore, it is not a matter of starting over. It is a matter of having reached a point where the growth of the country indicates that we are now capable, as Britain thought we were some years ago, to stand alone, not to be isolated but to stand
alone to develop new friendships and to help strengthen old ones. The fact that we ask of Britain that she give us our Constitution back now does not mean that we do not want to continue to associate with her. It means that we want to have a relationship of maturity, of equality. That relationship will be strengthened by actions on both sides of the Atlantic. It means we will be doing what so many much smaller countries in the world decided they should do for themselves years and years ago, that is, to be masters in their own homes.
I just returned from speaking to the Prime Minister of Barbados, the Prime Minister of St. Lucia, and to some people in another part of the world. They listened with almost incredulity to the discussion that we might not want to be independent, that we are not really sure that we are ready for it yet. They do not believe it-neither do I. I think we are ready. In fact I think it is time.
As I talk to people across this country, all I can find out from them is that they are upset by the constant wrangling. They cannot differentiate between the charges and the countercharges. They do not have sufficient in-depth knowledge of the subject to be able properly to evaluate what is the truth, as I said at the beginning. As I see it, the truth is simple.
We will bring back the British North America Act, which was written here. When we have brought it back we will have a way to amend it. As part of our Constitution we will have decided to put down on paper what the rights of individual Canadians will be-each Canadian, not just Canadians living in one part of the country or another, but all Canadians no matter where they live. The Canadian living in Prince Edward Island, whose family lives in Alberta, will have the same rights as all others. A Canadian living in Ontario or in British Columbia will have the same rights, because they are all Canadians. If they decide to up and move, they can do that. They will not lose the rights that they have, as would be the case if we allow the opting in and out formula, as would be the case if we left it to the jurisdiction of each province to write its own bill of rights.
Surely to God being a Canadian means something. Surely being a Canadian in any part of this country is the same as being a Canadian in any other part. Surely the rights that you have in one part of the country are the same as the rights you have in another part of the country. You cannot have them denied because of the whim of one jurisdiction. That is what this is all about. That is what we are trying to achieve.
If I had my way, and I suspect maybe this will happen, I would have included the recognition of the supremacy of God in the preamble. We supported it. My good friend, the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) spoke about it in committee and he proposed it would be a good thing. I suspect we may see it yet.
If I had my way I would see the amending formula changed in order to correct an imbalance which exists in western Canada as a result of the formula we now have. Maybe we will get that. 1 do not want to risk a return to the inequities which exist across this country, the inequality which exists across this country in terms of the way individual jurisdictions deal with Canadians. I do not want to run that risk any longer.
March 5, 1981

In closing I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I have great respect for the views that have been expressed by the many premiers across this country about what would be best for their jurisdictions. I must say that among all the letters I have received I have not received one from any premier. What I will say, because I am a Member of Parliament, is that in looking at it 1 do not doubt for a moment their sincerity as they speak about what is best for their jurisdictions.
I think what we must understand is that we are not talking about a jurisdictional dispute at the moment. We are talking about the rights of Canadians, regardless of where they live. We are talking about what is best for each of the component parts since, when added together, it is not necessarily best for the whole. That is the dilemma which confronts us. 1 wait with interest to hear the reasons why what we are doing is wrong, because I hear, from people on all sides of the House, that they support the constitutional package, bringing it back to Canada, having an amending formula, albeit we may disagree as to what it should be. They even support the bill of rights. Well, damn it, if we are supporting all these proposals, what are we fighting about?
One final point comes to mind. When this is over-and God knows that it will be over some day-and we have sovereignty in Canada, which we are striving for, and the Constitution is here, and the bill of rights is printed, and members are shipping them out by the hundreds to their constituents across the country, pointing out the good things contained in them, I hope we will be able to come together as a House of Commons and say to the people of Canada, "Look, in spite of our partisan differences and some reservations, this document is a good foundation upon which to build. If we work together, we can make it even better. It affords a good opportunity to preserve those items which are of value, and guarantees that you will receive a high quality of treatment, no matter where you are".
But what we will say to the people of Canada is, "Alongside the flag and the national anthem, you will have a Constitution which tells you, in the type of language that we can all understand, that being a Canadian is the best thing in the world, and that together we will have a better nation".


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the concluding remarks of my hon. colleague from Hamilton-Mountain, I can only hope that the day will come when the Constitution adopted for Canada is the right one, and that there will be peace and harmony in the country arising from that document, whatever form it takes.
I reflect back to the summertime and to the month of September when we saw signs around our country admonishing Canadians to work together. I believe one sign said, "Let's work together to build a better country, now." I remember that sign quite vividly, and another sign which said, "A new Constitution: Make it right, make it work, make it ours."
The Constitution
I am sorry to begin my remarks this evening by suggesting that the present government initiative defies these slogans. Is it right to discriminate against some provinces and to favour others through a biased amending formula? Will it work if we set region against region, as some of these proposals do? Can it ever be ours, in our hearts, if the British government is to be blackmailed into passing amendments which are unacceptable to many Canadians and to many provinces-in fact, eight provinces?
Canada is a marvellous country, and we are all very thankful for having the opportunity to live here. We have a country where we respect the differences of one another, and that diversity makes us stronger; interdependency allows the country, collectively, to be much more than the sum of the individual parts. It is a team effort, and not everyone can play goalie and not everyone can play forward, but we all have a part to play in the future of our country.
I love this country as much as every other Canadian and every other Member of Parliament here this evening. I respect the fact that we come from different backgrounds, languages, and geographical locations. We are not all the same. I can only say, "Thank God for that".
I am reminded of a statement made during the confederation debates, in 1856. Sir George Cartier said:
I view the diversity of races in British North America in this way: we are all of different races, not for the purpose of warring against each other, but in order to compete and emulate for the general good.
I must conclude that no one man or political party has the wisdom to surpass that of all others; that of the premiers; that of the people who are calling phone-in programs and writing letters to Members of Parliament these days, to express their views on the government's constitutional proposals.
I think of the closely knit family, much like the one I know so well, where the parents sometimes get a little bit out of control, but generally we try not to "talk down" to our children. Parents do not order them around, although they might get carried away from time to time; instead, parents attempt to teach by example and speak softly to their children in order to cultivate respect. In that process, the family spirit strengthens, and the family grows in its understanding of all its members, and learns from one another. Parents often learn a great deal from their children.
I would like to see our country come together as a family-a family which has the power to last. My fear this evening is that the process of constitutional reform is not bringing about that family spirit which I consider to be so important.
I would also like to remind members of the spirit of the Constitution enacted in 1867 and reflected in 1871 when my province joined this wonderful country. After all, "constitution" really means the putting together of a country. This is the way British Columbia felt on the morning of July 20, 1871, as reported in The British Colonist of Victoria, under the headline, "Confederation Complete", and I quote:
Today British Columbia passes peacefully and, let us add, gracefully into the confederated empire of British North America ... To-day British Columbia and Canada joined hands and hearts across the Rocky Mountains ... let us join

March 5, 1981
The Constitution
hands in a friendly but firm resolve to begin our new political life a united and harmonious band.
I only wish that were the spirit in the chamber this evening, but I am afraid it is not; and that suggests that there is something seriously wrong-not necessarily wrong with all of the detail in the document we have before us at present, but something seriously wrong in the government's approach to this matter, and it concerns me deeply. After all, Canada has not consented to this process.
I must turn to the preamble of the resolution we have before us, and it states that, "whereas Canada has requested and consented to the enactment of an act of the parliament of the United Kingdom-"
Mr. Speaker, Canada has not consented! Most Canadians have not even been consulted on this matter! Our hon. colleagues to the left and across the way can talk about all of the delegations and individuals who appeared before the special committee that did such fine work for all of us, but the people of Canada have not been consulted and are in fact being ignored in this process, by not being allowed to be involved in deciding this issue.
It was the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) who had the courage on the evening of October 22 to stand alone. The Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) did not stand alone. He hopped quickly into bed with Mr. Trudeau and he has been there ever since.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am sorry I must interrupt the hon. member, but there has been a developing trend to refer to hon. members by their names rather than by their office or riding, and I would remind the hon. member of the necessity to refer to members by title.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I suppose those notes were appropriate for speaking across the country. I meant the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
Now, more than two thirds of Canadians agree with the position the Leader of the Opposition has taken, that the process, at the very least, is wrong, and the approach being taken by the Prime Minister in reforming our Constitution is wrong.
What is the correct course of action? I believe that was laid out very clearly by my leader, the hon. member for Yellow-head, and by our principal spokesman on the joint committee, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), and other members of the Progressive Conservative Party, as that committee deliberated through the months of December and January.
First of all this party has a respect for the federal nature of this country; for the federal-provincial partnerships and division of powers as clearly set out in our existing Constitution, the British North America Act. In a few moments I will elaborate on this and show how the present document changes
that arrangement of federal-provincial powers in a very profound way.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, this party believes we should bring the Constitution home and bring it home now. The hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) initiated this process many months ago. I can only ask why it has not been brought home to date, following his motion which was passed in this House many months ago. This party also moved another motion on October 22 urging upon this House the immediate patriation of our Constitution on a very simple basis, so that we might make the subsequent and very important amendments in Canada.
This party advocates a bill of rights and advocates that it be entrenched in the Constitution. But it must be a practical bill of rights, a Canadian bill of rights. We are not prepared to accept a Constitution and a charter of rights on which the Canadian people have not had adequate opportunity to offer their input.
We believe that the amending formula by which this Constitution may be changed in the future has to be fair to all the parts and regions of Canada, by treating all provinces as equal. That is why we put forward the Vancouver amending formula which does not contain the outright discrimination that the government's amending proposal contains. We believe that all amendments to the Constitution in the future must be debated and adopted in Canada by Canadians, not by Great Britain. Canadians should decide on Canadian questions, as my leader has often said.
We put forward the proposal for a constituent assembly which would be given a certain period of time to recommend the appropriate changes to our Constitution, in the assurance that they would have the support not merely of the Prime Minister and his colleagues but of all the provinces and people as well.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we believe that the referendum method which is being proposed as a means of amending our Constitution in the future is contrary to our parliamentary traditions, but, more seriously, it is divisive and threatens the rights of minority groups in this country. I will give some further explanation of this in a few moments.
We have put forward an amendment calling for the deletion of Clause 46. It would delete the use of referenda which could be abused to the extent they would deny rights to minorities and Canadians at large; given a certain spirit and time in the country. Senator Roblin in the other place often says that we must do things in the right way if they are to be done right. I heartily echo that sentiment.
What is wrong with the government's approach? First of all, this government has no mandate from many Canadians. It received no mandate on February 18 last year to change our Constitution in substantive ways. It has a mandate from members who come largely from two provinces, and it has the implied consent of two other provinces, one of which is a common province, the province of Ontario, but the rest of the country is being bypassed in this process. Neither does this
March 5, 1981

government have a mandate from the people of Quebec, as it often claims to have.
I am reminded of statements made by a well-known and respected political scientist in the province of Quebec, Dr. Leon Dion. As reported in the Edmonton Journal on October 3, 1980, the day after the Prime Minister presented his proposal, Dr. Dion said: "It's a sad day for democracy in Canada". He went on to note that the Prime Minister was using his promise made during the Quebec referendum to renew the Constitution as a reason for proceeding on the present path. He said in fact that Quebec had precise demands which were expounded during the referendum campaign and that the Prime Minister's plan for patriation and a bill of rights does not meet these precise demands, and does not meet the aspirations of Quebecers. I think that view is reflected when many of the hon. members opposite return to their constituencies each weekend.


Marc Lalonde: He voted Yes on the referendum.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The article in the Edmonton Journal continues:
Trudeau's 'stubborn desire to impose his views on the provinces' will create confusion, and might also create more antagonism, Dion predicted. A constitution must exist on consensus, not on force and constraint.
The third reason for believing the government is taking the wrong approach is the pace at which it is moving. The government is in a big rush, for some inexplicable reason. Perhaps this has something to do with the Prime Minister's personal timetable. Especially and above all else, I think the government is perpetrating a fraud and a deception upon the Canadian people. To be more specific, it is perpetrating a power grab on the provinces. That is what unilateralism is all about and it leads ultimately to a unitary state. I hope hon. members will hear me out, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that Canadians are being deceived, fraudulently, in three key areas. First of all, this government is substantially altering the nature of federalism. It is substantially altering the relationship between the provinces and the federal government. I shall elaborate on that in a moment.
Secondly, the government is using the government of Great Britain to enact changes in our Constitution in a manner which would not even pass the test of its own amending formula here in Canada. If it is so confident that this initiative will be widely accepted by Canadians, then for the life of me I cannot understand why the government would not put the question before Canadians, even using its own biased, amending formula, before sending the joint address to Westminster.
Thirdly, the most significant fraud in all of this, 1 believe, is the sham that minority rights and human rights are being proclaimed as reasons for this initiative. In fact, those rights are being abridged within the text. A referendum mechanism is being proposed which could, in many cases, be used to deny those rights later and to assert the will of the majority, in the face of the needs of minority groups.
I want to turn now to the British North America Act. Clause 55 of the resolution before the House removes the
The Constitution
Guarantee of provincial rights which was clearly asserted in Section 91.1 of the British North America Act. Clause 55 of the resolution essentially repeals Section 91.1 of the British North America Act. This section gives to the federal government the power to amend, from time to time, the Constitution of Canada "except as regards matters coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces". In other words, through the use of Clause 55 to repeal Section 91.1 of the British North America Act, the government takes away the guarantee the provinces have enjoyed since 1867. The provinces which joined confederation after that date also enjoy that guarantee. Now it is being struck and the federal government is giving itself the power to change the Constitution of Canada in any matter whatsoever-in any matter pertaining to provincial rights as set out in Section 92 of the British North America Act. This deals with the right of the provinces to borrow money, to manage and sell public lands, to operate hospitals, municipal institutions, to undertake local works, to operate canals, telegraphs and other communications works, to alter provincial responsibility with regard to the solemnization of marriage, and with regard to property and civil rights.
To go further, Mr. Speaker, Clause 55 would deny the provinces the power over education as set out in Section 93, and control of resource ownership as set out in Section 109 of the British North America Act. In many other respects it would alter the powers and privileges that provincial governments have enjoyed since confederation and for which other provinces that joined later have worked and fought. I believe Clause 55 is unconstitutional, Mr. Speaker, as it frees the government to change the Constitution unilaterally. That becomes clear when one reads Section 91.1 of the BN A Act.
We all know now that the amending formula which is proposed creates not only two classes of provinces, but three or four. The western provinces will rank as at least third class. I believe this discrimination threatens the very future of our nation. No member opposite, except to hide behind the premiers at Victoria in 1971, has convinced me there is any good reason for implementing the present biased amending formula. Perhaps it is to secure and maintain their mandate and support from the two most populous provinces, to forget about and to deny completely the future I want for my children, and the development of communities in the less populated part of Canada, from where I come.
The present government is using Britain to do its own dirty work. The government's proposed constitutional amendments would not even stand the test of its own amending formula here in Canada. The resolution could not be passed in Canada. For one thing, whether or not there was a referendum, at least two of the western provinces would reject these proposals outright. There is a very good chance, and I am sure our colleagues from Quebec could confirm this, that Quebec, either through an act of the legislature or a referendum, would reject this act if the proposed amending formula were applied as the test as to whether it should proceed to Westminster.

March 5, 1981
The Constitution
Quebec would reject it because of the language rights situation in Ontario and Quebec. Therefore, the Prime Minister is asking the British parliament to prostitute itself by enabling, with the principal support of only two provinces, himself to accomplish his personal goals, even though two thirds of the Canadian people object to the process being put forward. Surely this had to be a form of dictatorship.
This act, which is being perpetrated, has the potential to become a major embarrassment to the parliament in Westminster. It could well be that Westminster might be blackmailed into passing this legislation, only to subsequently learn that it has been a party to something illegal, if and when the Supreme Court of Canada finds that the cases being brought by the provinces are right and proper and that the federal government is acting in an unconstitutional manner.
On the question of minority rights, and I have alleged that this is a sham perpetrated on all of the special interest and underprivileged groups in our nation, I believe these groups are being deceived into believing they will get certain rights which they do not already enjoy. However, in so far as the rights of minority groups are concerned, many of those rights as set out in the resolution are qualified by a limitation clause which empowers the Supreme Court of Canada to restrict those rights in any way it deems to be proper. Once those rights have been delineated and interpreted by a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, minority groups will have no further recourse to this Parliament, to their provincial legislatures or to seek redress in any other way for a perceived injustice arising out of a misjudgment by the Supreme Court of Canada.
In spite of the fond notion which comes from one or two of the members opposite, that Canadians should have the opportunity to litigate rather than to lobby, in fact they will not have the opportunity to litigate because once those decisions are rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada it will be virtually impossible to have them altered. It is not a matter of litigating or lobbying. Canadians will not be able to lobby because we Members of Parliament will not be able to help them. Neither will they be able to litigate, even if they had ample financial resources at their disposal, because the court will have made its determination.
For the sake of these various minority groups, I want to refer to Clause 6 of the resolution which contains the so-called mobility provisions. It has a limitation. Section 6(3) reads as follows:
The rights specified in Subsection (2)-
That is the right to move from province to province and enjoy and seek employment, are mitigated by what follows. We read on in that Section 6(3)(a) that those rights are limited by:
(a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence;-
These people are being led to believe they can move back and forth between provinces and seek employment. But if you read the Subsections of that clause, people will be denied that
right, if there are laws or practices in general force which would deny that right. So it is a sham.
Similarly in Clause 7, which reads:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
-we are qualifying everything. We are pretending we are granting people something which, under our system of common law, they have enjoyed in this country for decades.
We could also refer to Section 15(1) which talks about equality. All Canadians are equal under Section 15(1), but under Section 15(2) we are not all equal. Some are more equal than others. Some of us are very concerned about that.
It is not a matter of litigating or lobbying. It is a matter of locking people, in perpetuity-other than through the use of the referendum method, which I will come to in a moment- into judgments rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Even more alarming for these minority groups is the proposed use of a referendum contrived by the federal government to amend those minority rights, if the majority should so choose. The referendum method of Section 46 is completely inconsistent with rights. It is completely contradictory to the spirit of the charter of rights because it can sweep those rights away at a moment's notice. If this country were swept by a wave of national emotion-it might last two, three, four or five years, as the Second World War did-the rights of any minority group could be denied very quickly. The will of the majority could be used to take those rights away. This is dangerous and divisive. This is why our amendment, deleting all reference to the referendum as an amending procedure, ought to be supported by all members in this House.
I want to speak for a moment of the virtues of the parliamentary system, as I see it. When I was younger I could not understand why a referendum or a simple ballot was not the best means of making all decisions in our country. But I have learned in my two and a half years here that there is much more to making important decisions than that. There is the important process of doing our homework, of listening to our colleagues from all parts of Canada and of sometimes tempering our strong regional feelings against what other members bring to my caucus or to this House. Often I will change my mind two or three times before I am sure.
The referendum procedure mitigates against all of that soul searching because people make their decisions on the basis of a moment's whim, a moment's instinct or a two-week campaign. I suggest that is what is seriously at fault with this proposed referendum method. I believe the notion of consensus and compromise is better. This is what I experience in my caucus, whereby members from all parts of Canada give me a much greater appreciation of what our country is really all about. Their views encourage me to tread more lightly than I might otherwise do, especially when a matter of entering into someone else's area of jurisdiction is involved.
This is a lesson which is probably more difficult for members opposite to appreciate, because they do not have enough
March 5, 1981

representation in some parts of the country. As a result, they are not able to sense these important regional feelings which we often try to express from this side of the House. As my good colleague, Senator Tremblay is fond of saying: "The approach of consensus is much more human than the approach of deadlock-breaking mechanisms", which is how this referendum method is being described.
I believe the government is perpetrating an intentional deceit on minority groups. We often hear from hon. members opposite, for example, the minister for propaganda and others, about the Japanese Canadians. We all sympathize for the way they were mistreated during the Second World War. We hear that they somehow might have been saved from discrimination had this charter of rights been enacted. I say that is rubbish. In a fit of national emotion those rights would be denied one way or the other and the dangers would be even more severe, given the referendum method which is included in this resolution.


Mr. Fleming:: What do they say? They say they want it. Ask them.


John Horton McDermid: They had it in the United States and it didn't do them much good.


Thomas Edward Siddon: It is not beyond the realm of possibility that, given the current climate between western Canada, Alberta in particular, and the national government, a referendum, if this mechanism were in place, could be used to take control of the resources of that province. It could take control of the timber of British Columbia, the uranium of Ontario or the gold and hydroelectric power of Quebec. That is symptomatic of the divisiveness which this referendum device can introduce to our nation. As a person born in Alberta and resident in British Columbia I can tell you; that is where my bottom line would come. If, through a national referendum, there was a vote to deny the people of Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec, or any other province their natural birthright, as clearly set out under the Constitution of Canada, then I would feel this country was no longer worth saving. I say that quite seriously.
We might also see a time when the referendum could be used to deny underprivileged Canadians of the unemployment insurance benefits or of welfare benefits. I would suggest to you that a majority of Canadians, if given that question to answer, would probably sweep those programs away at a moment's notice. So there is another danger here because a referendum might discriminate against a very significant and important minority group which receives a very important service from this government, such as welfare. We could conceivably have a bad government in Ottawa, as many believe we do at present, which would perpetrate these types of actions upon the people. With the benefit of government advertising this could lead to a situation where the will of majority would sweep away the rights of those important minority groups with which we must concern ourselves.
The Constitution
Let us talk for a moment about the entrenched bill of rights. What should it contain? Should it be simple or complex? Should it be rooted in the system of common law or civil law? Where do the rights of one person end and the rights of the next person begin? These are important questions which have not been clarified. That is why many of us believe the present charter of rights is flawed and premature.
Under the present proposal for a charter of rights, the only rights and freedoms which will exist after the charter becomes law are those which are presently recognized, as set out in Clause 26, and those other rights and freedoms which are clearly delineated in the charter.
This is the civil law approach. It is fraught with danger for minority groups, provinces and all those free individuals and community groups which enjoy certain privileges in this country.
I favour, as I believe most Canadians do, the common law approach, based on a thousand years of history, which grants to every citizen in a free democratic society all the rights in the world, all the rights in the country that they should wish, except in so far as those rights are restricted by law.
All rights are not absolute; of course some of them are. The basic fundamental rights most definitely are; but many of the things we call rights actually lead to areas of conflict. It is a very important principle in every phase of civilization that the rights of every person should in theory end where the rights of the next person begin. That is generally the case for the so-called fundamental rights; rights to freedom of worship, freedom of speech and the others listed under the fundamental rights definition. In reality, however, there will often be an overlap. If there is an overlap, the rights of one person or group will supersede those of another person or group. Then we can ultimately expect discrimination, arguments and ultimately personal conflict because we are setting up various classes of citizenship. I am not suggesting we should not do that in special cases.
I am going to suggest in a moment that affirmative action is important in some cases, but if rights are written down and become too complicated they will lead to trouble. We saw that before the committee, with many special interest groups lining up, wanting to be named in the body of the Constitution.
In cases where special status is perhaps required to redress an imbalance, such as affirmative action for women in the work force, or affirmative action with respect to the use of French language in the House of Commons or in the governments of the land, maybe there is a case for these special rights being accorded. However, we must always remember that if those affirmative action measures ultimately have their desired effect, then one day you will want to eliminate that special status. You will want to do that because you have corrected an inequity, an injustice within society. Such a correction or reversal from special status will be required from time to time and must be accomplished, not by referendum, but by a wise

March 5, 1981
The Constitution
deliberation in the democratically elected Parliament and legislatures of our land.
The proposed charter of rights will in fact entrench permanent discrimination against certain persons and groups, in perpetuity. Those whose rights are abused; those who are given second-class status by a decision of the courts, must have recourse to review by their democratically elected representatives. There is no other way to ensure justice for them.
This charter of rights would perpetrate second-class citizenship upon many Canadians; young and old, men and women with various special interests. Let me give a few examples of rights that come into conflict. There are the rights of smokers and non-smokers in a closed room. There is the question of the rights of the unborn child contained within his or her mother's womb. Who has the right to life; the mother or the child? Who has the final say?
What about the rights of those who happen to know both our official languages and therefore qualify for a better job? What about the rights of the unilingual person who does not qualify for the better job? Those are rights in conflict. On the use of property, should the owner have the right to obtain the highest and best use of his property or do the neighbours have some interest in that question?
There is the question of environmental concern versus industry, of development; the question of the right to strike versus the right to work. With regard to denominational education, should a teacher be able to insist on teaching in a Roman Catholic school even though he or she may not be a Christian? I say no, of course not! That is what this concept of special status would produce. One way or another a determination by the Supreme Court of Canada would fix and entrench into the future of our country for a long, long time, various degrees of discrimination.
What about the rights of the employer as distinct from the employee? We talk about individual rights. The person who may be alcoholic or have some other personal anomalies may not be viewed as employable by the employer. Should the employer be forced to hire that person? What about landlords versus tenants? Does the landlord have any say over who shall be allowed to rent and occupy his premises? These are examples of rights in conflict.
My assertion is that we need a simple entrenched bill of rights which covers the most fundamental rights, and a subsidiary list of special rights. I would not call them secondary rights, but special rights. We must make a distinction between special rights and these fundamental rights, because special rights are there for a special purpose, that is to right inequities; to give special advantage and status to the handicapped, the native people, women in the work force and the francophone minority in a particular province. They would get special status and special rights, but they would not be entrenched and engraved in stone forever and a day.
There must be a mechanism of flexibility which would allow for those special rights to be altered and adjusted with time so as to eliminate inequity, at the point where the other party
becomes second-class. The present charter does not allow for this. It is rigid, inflexible and ambiguous.
I believe that the main elements of our Canadian Bill of Rights, John Diefenbakers' Bill of Rights as passed in this Parliament some 20 years ago, should form the main body of those fundamental rights which we enjoy in Canada. That Bill of Rights should be entrenched and the Constitution should incorporate the following words:
The Parliament of Canada, affirming, that the Canadian nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions;
Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law;
It is hereby recognized that the fundamental rights of every person, as clearly set out in the Canadian Bill of Rights include:
-the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
freedom of religion; freedom of speech;
freedom of assembly and association; and freedom of the press.
Those are the sort of fundamental rights that are unambiguous. Such simplicity will avoid a hornet's nest and we will not end up creating anomalies in our society, with some people first-class, and others second-class, in perpetuity. I suggest that this government should consider very carefully some of these questions: The abuses to which a referendum can be put, the question of whether or not Canadians are indeed all equal as we pretend they ought to be, and whether the process the present government is following is right and proper.
In closing, I want to observe that one evening in January I was watching a delegation of Metis from northern Saskatchewan as they appeared before the constitutional committee. One of the witnesses, perhaps inadvertently, said "But if we are named in the Constitution, we are going to be singled out in perpetuity as requiring special status and that will guarantee discrimination against us."
I make that assertion very forcefully this evening. Entrenchment of special status guarantees discrimination. It is not true that the natives all want to see their rights reflected in the Constitution. They want their claims resolved. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs has certainly made that clear. It is not true that all Canadians want to have this great gift which the gods across the way are going to give us. They want the kind of standards and values on which our country was founded; respect for God, moral decency, spiritual values and the ability to own property and enjoy freedom.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) who is seeking to be recognized. That will take place at eight o'clock.
March 5, 1981

It being seven o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At seven o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When the House rose at seven o'clock this evening, the Chair had recognized the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), who had not yet begun his contribution to the debate. Accordingly, I will recognize him again for the full 40 minutes allowed.
f Translation]


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take this opportunity to take part in this debate which I believe to be vitally important for our country. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian people are now aware that this debate is of major importance for the future of Canadian federalism. There is every reason to believe that our fellow citizens throughout the country have understood the determining nature of the changes proposed by this government. Up to now, several Quebec members of the government, of course, have spoken in favour of the package deal proposed by the Prime Minister.
For my part, I wanted to take part in this historic debate so that those who follow our proceedings closely may have a true picture of the Quebec reality. 1 want the dissenting voices of hundreds of thousands of Quebecers to be heard strongly and vigorously in this House. 1 wish to thank my colleagues of the Progressive Conservative party for allowing me today to accomplish this mission on which I had set my heart. I greatly appreciate this gesture of friendship extended to me and this act of courtesy towards the Quebec people.
1 want to make myself quite clear at the outset, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking today not only as the member for Joliette, not only in my new capacity as leader of the Union Nationale Party in Quebec, but first and foremost, I am speaking today in this imposing chamber as a French-speaking Quebecer, a Quebecer who stands by the hundreds of thousands of his fellow citizens who reject the resolution proposed by the Liberal government because it goes against their concept of Canadian federalism.
These Quebecers are not only Union Nationale members, Mr. Speaker. Nor are they only from the Parti Quebecois. Many of them are very active supporters of the Quebec Liberal party. I believe it is important that Canadians everywhere understand that the opposition of Quebecers, as confirmed by many polls in the last few months, goes beyond traditional party lines. The reason is very simple for anyone
The Constitution
willing to see beyond the partisan rut. The proposed resolution of the Liberal government is even worse that the status quo; it is a definite step backward for Quebec society as a whole and a tremendous insult to Quebec federalists. It is quite obvious that the Liberal government wants to claim ownership of the Constitution. This goes against our constitutional traditions.
Canada is not limited to Ottawa. It includes all the provinces. Until further notice, these provinces have sovereign governments in their own jurisdictions. When an amendment to the Constitution changes these exclusive jurisdictions, the provinces must not only be consulted, but they must also give their agreement. This is the true nature of our Canadian federalism. Instead of trying to agree with the provinces, instead of negotiating in good faith with an open mind, the Liberal government seeks confrontation, stirs up division, and successfully moreover, to better impose its centralizing concept of federalism and it narrow vision of the future.
Members opposite submit that the proposed resolution takes nothing away from the provinces. I say that this is not true, Mr. Speaker. First, it directly erodes the exclusive provincial jurisdiction over education and the language of instruction without the consent of a majority of provinces. Because of its distinctive nature as the only Canadian province with a francophone majority, Quebec cannot accept that its jurisdiction in this regard be curtailed in relation to the present status quo.
This evolution goes against the wishes of most Quebecers who have always fought to improve their condition in relation to the status quo. Second, Mr. Speaker, through the charter of rights and freedoms, the proposed resolution threatens to make inoperative about 100 Quebec statutes. At least, this is the legal opinion expressed by a group of Montreal lawyers at the request of the Quebec government. As recently as yesterday, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) agreed that this was so. He even suggested that it would be a good thing, as though the statutes involved were necessarily discriminatory, when it is quite possible that they do not comply with the provisions of the charter not because they deny these rights and freedoms, but because they reflect a different concept of their application. Third, the proposed resolution represents a step backward for the provinces because of its unilateral nature.
By moving unilaterally, by moving against the explicit will of eight provinces out of ten, the federal government is dealing a very hard blow to all Quebec federalists, who still believe that our federal system must recognize equal constitutional status to both levels of government. Every political party in Quebec, Mr. Speaker, accepts that principle. Indeed, it is important to note that it was included in the recommendations of the late Pepin-Robarts report. That recommendation reads as follows:
Since we view the provincial governments as equal in stature and maturity to the central government, we have no difficulty in stating that in a restructured, genuinely federal union, the provinces should be recognized as having a constitutional status equal with that of the central government.
7956

March 5, 1981
The Constitution
Ottawa's unilateral action, if it passes here and later in London, will give a de facto, if not a legal status, a status of legal seniority to the federal government. That unilateral action will automatically destroy the beautiful dreams of equality of constitutional status between the two levels of government. The dice will be loaded once and for all in favour of Ottawa, and there will be nothing left for the provinces to do but to bite the bullet. And fourth, as if this were not enough, this Liberal government changes its bold stroke into a coup d'Etat. It establishes on a permanent basis unilateral action by the federal Parliament over the heads of provincial legislatures.
In this matter, I come more precisely to the amendment moved by my colleague from Provencher (Mr. Epp), which aims at deleting from the Liberal package the referendum as a permanent means of constitutional change. I wholeheartedly support that amendment. In a British parliamentary system as ours, Parliament is the ultimate expression of the sovereignty of the people. In a federative country like Canada, this sovereignty is also divided between two levels of government. I cannot accept that all of a sudden, without consultation, without previous study, and especially without the agreement of the provincial governments, a procedure such as a referendum be introduced as an ongoing amending formula in order to amend among other things the future division of this sovereignty between both levels of government.
On two occasions, the Liberal government is infringing upon parliamentary sovereignty. First of all, by shifting the responsibility for basic freedoms from the legislative power to the courts. Second, by ignoring the provincial legislatures with regard to constitutional amendments and by consulting the people directly. In addition, with a referendum, the right of veto that can be exercised by a province, whether Quebec or any other one, becomes totally useless. Should this right be exercised, the federal government would still be in a position to give the deadlock of its own making as a pretext pursuant to the rules required by the Canadian Parliament under a statute, to launch a referendum in order to settle the matter.
Let nobody tell me, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment made by the joint committee alters the basic principle of this proposal. The purpose of this amendment is to establish a referendum rules commission with a membership of three, one of them representing the provinces. This does not alter in any way the basic principle, since this commission has no authority to make decisions. Even though the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) may say that those who are opposed to his package deal are stuck in a status quo, no one will take him seriously from now on. Indeed, what he is proposing is worse than the status quo and goes against the concept of federalism now prevailing in Quebec.
Quebecers have understood it, and that is why a majority of them reject the proposed resolution. Mr. Speaker, I say a majority of them. I know that present Quebec members have
concealed from the rest of the country the reality of Quebec and the Quebec majority that will not be fooled by the proposal now before us.


An hon. Member:: That's true!


Roch La Salle: And I wonder why they do not have the courage to tell the Prime Minister to his face and the Canadian people that the majority of Quebecers are against this proposal.
But what I do not understand, Mr. Speaker, is why of the 73 Liberal members from Quebec, only one, the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) had the courage to stand up and say out loud what he thinks down deep and what several of his colleagues think also. Considering the mood of rejection which prevails in Quebec on this issue, should not those who supposedly represent the opinion of Quebecers have the decency to reflect the mood of the people of Quebec and do so without political partisanship? This issue is too crucial, Mr. Speaker, and will have too much of an impact on Canadian federalism to be confined to the narrow limits of party politics. Is it possible that only two out of 74 members of this House representing Quebec dare say what thousands of their fellow Quebecers think? If so, it is shameful and should be forcefully denounced.
I fully agree with the words of wisdom written by Marcel Pepin, editor of Quebec City's Le Soleil. This is what this prominent journalist wrote because of the way Liberal members of Parliament appear so powerless and idle:
Liberal members of parliament-
For Quebec of course.
-must fully realize the extent to which they will be stabbing their province in the back by voting for the Liberal proposal. By doing so, they will be enshrining the principle of federal supremacy whereas in a federation all partners are supposed to be equal. Second, they will be endorsing the legitimacy of a unilateral action when the essence of federalism presupposes agreement between the two levels of government. Third, they will be giving the federal government the authority to alter unilaterally the balance of power between Ottawa and the provinces by means of a referendum whose rules would be set by the central government. And finally, they will be allowing the federal government to unilaterally establish the time-frame of an amending formula. The only ones who can stop irreparable damage from being done are the members of Parliament for Quebec. They must be reminded of their duty and told that their first loyalty is to the people who send them to a parliament which they do not and will never control but which they can still influence.
There is something I would like to ask the members from Quebec. In the last two months I have met thousands of Quebecers and they are concerned because they do not understand why, while you are sitting here, you do not express the views of the majority of Quebecers on this issue. They fully realize that the Prime Minister has decided to create a Canada in his image. But the majority of the Quebec people think that a group of Quebecers could stop this proposal. The greatest service you could do your province and your constituents,
March 5, 1981

would be to stop this Prime Minister before it is too late, before he completely tears this country apart, this country which is yours and mine. What I am asking my colleagues opposite is to show some courage, of course, and also some honesty and to let their heart speak out. I cannot believe that these 73 Liberal members from Quebec, 72 pardon me, there is one who wants to object to-


An hon. Member:: 74!


Roch La Salle: The member for Levis is not yet elected. 1 ask them: Please be sensitive to the interests of the voters in Quebec who sent them here to represent them and not to carry out the dictates of an obsessed Prime Minister who refuses to take into account the Canadian reality. What 1 ask my Liberal colleagues opposite, Mr. Speaker, is to convince their Prime Minister to immediately return to the bargaining table with the provinces.
Patriation of the Constitution and amending formula, which must of necessity accompany it, must come about through negotiations between equal partners. Never should steps of such vital importance to the country be taken unilaterally as is the case in this instance. That is what Quebec public opinion wants: an opinion that has been expressed not only by the government but also by all political parties in Quebec; an opinion that has been expressed by many editors and renowned constitutional experts; finally, an opinion that has been expressed through a petition signed by over 750,000 persons from all over Quebec.
This, Mr. Speaker, is my last speech in this House as the Progressive Conservative member for the riding of Joliette. As I promised and, of course, as the rules would have it, I shall resign, and this I intend to do when the next provincial election is called. Still, I should like to remind my colleagues from Quebec that some of their speeches have made me very sad; I have read several though not all of them. But I should like to appeal to their sense of honesty and objectivity and ask them to tell this House the truth about Quebec, to tell this House that the Liberals in Quebec do not agree with the Liberals here, so that Canadians might be aware of it. The leader of the Liberal Party, who failed to appear before the Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada-the committee would have been happy to see him there-went as close as 150 feet from it, where he stated his opposition to the proposal at a press conference, I believe, in which he delivered a message from his fellow-members from Quebec to the effect that the majority of Quebecers refuse to support this unilateral exercise and the idea that we should become a Unitarian state.
After 13 years, Mr. Speaker, I could not leave this House without saying also just how sorry 1 am to realize that the Prime Minister who is leading the country to its demise is responsible, first and foremost, for the tearing apart of Canada, for the rising tide of alienation, not only in Quebec but in other provinces as well. I imagine he says there are still
The Constitution
some Quebecers who have been encouraged to expose this unacceptable resolution the results of which will be unfortunate. It can be felt, it can be seen, but the stubbornness of that Prime Minister, and the lack of courage of those people who should reflect the Quebec views-I am referring to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), who was reprimanded for his extremely interesting study which reflected the Canadian reality and recommended remedial measures which, I think, would have solved some of our problems, a study that was shelved in no time flat, so that the Minister of Transport was unable to support and even respect his signature on that extremely important document which recommended solutions to the problems raised by the Constitution of Canada. The Prime Minister snuffed it, and a pity it is, Mr. Speaker. Still, there are people opposite who recognize the great value of that study which we no longer hear about. Instead, there is only the vision of one man, and his concept of an artificial Canada that does not exist, and that never will as the Prime Minister would like to invent it, and we all know that.
As a Quebecer, Mr. Speaker, I am ashamed to ask a foreign government to legislate on my basic rights. This is most shameful. You can laugh, you have been doing that for the past 13 years and you stoop so low as to ask a foreign parliament to do something that you should do yourselves if you were brave enough, but you refrain from acting because you know quite well that it would be difficult to induce most Canadians, through legally established procedures in Canada, to approve the proposal which you are asking a foreign government to support. It is embarrassing, Mr. Speaker.
1 hope that some Quebecers-we are not against the patriation of the Constitution nor against an amending formula-we all agree on that. I urge you to patriate them and you will get our support. I urge you to bring them back to Canada and to amend that Constitution with Canadians by Canadians. This is what we are asking you to do.


Miss Begin:: This is what we are doing.


Roch La Salle: The minister says: "This is what we are doing." No kidding! This is what we are doing! They say that to the people of Quebec who are unknowingly deceived by such comments, I think that it is sheer madness. I will not say any more.


An hon. Member:: What were you doing on May 20?


Roch La Salle: On May 20, I felt that you were hypocrites, and I was right, Mr. Speaker. I was standing up for Quebec and rejecting a proposal which suggested what I now feel is a constitutional reform of sorts that is a true reflection of the views of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I am being thanked for not supporting such a commitment. Moreover, you forget to mention that the leader of the Liberal Party in

March 5, 1981
The Constitution
Quebec has clearly stated that if he had known that he would be misled as he is now, he would never have chaired the No committee. Those Liberals did not perhaps deserve such a fate and all Canadians should be aware of that.


An hon. Member:: What is your position?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, for those who are still unaware of my position, 1 support a principle, the protection of provincial autonomy. My position is clear, I wish to keep my province within a Canadian federation respectful of the aspirations of my province and of provincial aspirations generally, respectful of regional identities and based, and 1 do not hesitate to say so, on the Pepin-Robarts report. I find in this report some very good recommendations which could bring about this national harmony we are seeking. But it is neither through unilateral action such as the one you are taking, nor with intentions such as those which the Quebec government is entertaining that we will achieve it, but by respecting provincial jurisdictions and favouring a wider provincial participation in major national decisions, by convincing the provinces to co-operate in building this country, working together and not going their separate way as they do now.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to send this message to my fellow Quebecers, and I hope others will oppose such an unacceptable measure. There is one among you who has already done so. Those hon. members were ready to stake their seats on the referendum. Well, let them do so, for this is the way you will secure your seats. The people of Quebec are waiting for you. Mr. Speaker, it is not without emotion that I must bid farewell to my colleagues of the Progressive Conservative Party. 1 salute also my colleagues on the government and NDP benches, as well as the support staff of the House.
For the past 13 years, Mr. Speaker, my electors in the federal riding of Joliette have renewed their trust in me.


An hon. Member:: It won't last!


Roch La Salle: I want to thank them from the bottom of my heart for this demonstration of friendship and faith in me. I want to tell them that I am not leaving them. On the contrary, I want to get closer to them to fight for their interests, certainly in a different way, but always with the same dedication, sincerity and enthusiasm. 1 consider accepting the leadership of a party in Quebec like a new challenge which is not inconsistent with the actions I have taken in the federal political arena over the past 12 years. I feel that it is a normal development, in view of the political climate which has existed in Quebec for the past few years.
1 wish to thank the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) for the trust and support he bestowed upon me from the moment he became leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. That man stood out in the minds of several Quebecers and Canadians as an outspoken supporter of provincial rights and of a renewed federalism in keeping with our constitutional
traditions and the Canadian reality such as it is experienced today in the various regions of this large country. To me, Mr. Speaker, he will always remain a politician who deserves our respect and admiration.
Mr. Speaker, during the 20 seconds I have left, 1 appeal once again to all my Quebec colleagues to ponder over the best way to serve their country and their province. Tonight I detected the same old arrogance I have felt for 13 years, and I forgive them before leaving, Mr. Speaker. But that is the kind of feeling which makes it easier to say goodbye to such people. For years I prevailed upon them to join with those who understood the importance of a real constitutional reform which would respect the integrity of the provinces and of the present-day Canadian reality.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that a majority in this House will succeed in defeating that diabolical scheme which can only tear this country apart. I hope we are going to revert to a better arrangement, and I trust the British government will understand we want our provinces respected and will not yield to the proposal of this government. I think this will be the most positive action we could take for the Canadian people whatever their languages, whatever their walks of life and I think this will be the greatest gesture we can extend to our provinces, and that it will make it possible for Quebec to retain its place within this confederation, a confederation respectful of the rights of all Canadians, within which Quebec will feel more at ease and very happy.


An hon. Member:: As the hon. member for Simcoe-South (Mr. Stewart) said, only one language. Tell that to Quebecers.


Monique Bégin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare on a point of order.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, would you allow me, as a Quebecer, as a Canadian, on behalf of all of us on this side of the House, perhaps for the benefit of all those in the galleries who sometimes witness our shouting matches and wonder whether our hate for each other is equal to the pitch of our voices, to point out just the same that tonight we have heard the last speech of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) who will be leaving this House. After all, the task of all members on both sides of the House is thankless, and whatever we may think, sometimes we get carried away, but one can impute to other members but one motive for their actions, namely that once elected, they came here to do their best for all those who voted for them. I would like to urge all my colleagues to join with me in wishing the hon. member for Joliette all the best, not in his political life, because I cannot go that far, but in his private life.
March 5, 1981


Mr. Cousineau:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) allow a question from the hon. member for Gatineau?


Roch La Salle: Certainly!


René Cousineau: Instead of criticizing the Quebec members who are fighting for bilingualism in this country, does the hon. member for Joliette intend to reject and dissociate himself from the position taken by the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) in his speech last Tuesday?


Roch La Salle: I am pleased to answer that the hon. member did not fight against bilingualism. He discussed the manner in which it has been implemented. There are always two ways to implement something. I have read the hon. member's speech. He condemned the manner in which bilingualism has been implemented not its principle.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order!


Harvie Andre: Go drown in the Gatineau River.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It would be much easier for the Chair to-


An hon. Member:: The only thing you want from Quebec is their vote. That's all you want.


Harvie Andre: Why don't you ask Jack Horner his view, you jerk?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. It would be much easier for the Chair to recognize hon. members who, if they wish to speak, might stand up.


Mr. Forrestall:: Do you want me to stand up?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: If the hon. member wants to be recognized, he should learn to stand up. I intend to now recognize the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) unless I have a point of order. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forestall) on a point of privilege.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, one wonders what it is that this House is all about when, on the eve of an hon. member's distinguished career in this House, when he is making his last comments to this assembly, we witness a cheap, cheap, low question such as that posed by the hon. member opposite, among witnesses.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Now the difficulty grows because, if the hon. member has found some fault with comments that have been made by a member on the other side, then I am sure the other side can easily find fault with comments being made now. Perhaps we can settle it in the following fashion:
The Constitution

I am reasonably sure that everybody wishes the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) a brilliant career and a long and happy life, as others have already said.

That is sufficiently non-political, to wish the hon. member well.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 wish to join with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) in wishing all the best to my good friend Roch La Salle who has just made his last speech in this House. I have known the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) for a long time. He was elected to this House in 1968 along with me and many others. He was re-elected in the next five general elections. The hon. member for Joliette has always been strongly motivated and strong-minded, and I want to wish him, on behalf of all New Democrats and on my own behalf, great success in his private life. We have been friends ever since we were elected to the Canadian Parliament, that is almost thirteen years ago.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I begin my remarks tonight following those of the distinguished member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle). I think the members of this party view his departure with a certain degree of poignancy and regret, because he has been the "Lone Ranger", if I may use a western expression, and we have been able to make the proud boast that the party of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has been represented in every province and in the territories, from sea to sea. With the departure of the hon. member, we can no longer make that claim. However, I am sure that in the days ahead, after we have overcome the madness that has generated this divisive debate, there will come a time when the people of the province of Quebec will come back to that old blue party, the party of confederation; the Conservative Party which made confederation happen and which now is engaged in the most critical debate in respect of the continuation of this nation, from sea to sea, we have ever experienced.
In my 30 years in Parliament, this has been the most extraordinarily confusing debate. It is the first time I have faced a government which is doing everything possible to divide the nation. It is beyond understanding why they should pursue this divisive course.
I sat under Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent, who had the image of the father of the nation, so much so that he was known as "Uncle Louis"; what a contrast between Uncle Louis and the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
I sat under Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, who initiated the policy of co-operative federalism, and when everything possible was done to make this country, which historically has been a difficult nation to govern, function as a united nation from sea to sea. I sat under Lester Pearson, who carried on that same spirit of co-operative federalism; and then, more

March 5, 1981
The Constitution
recently, the right hon. member who led the Conservative government for a short period.
It is a puzzling circumstance which finds me taking part in this debate, and 1 want to spend the time 1 have tonight trying to impress upon hon. members opposite that if they persist in this course, they will completely fracture this nation.
It would be different if the government had a mandate and a power base that was representative of the country; but this government has no such mandate. During the recent runoff election in 1980, not one word was mentioned about constitutional affairs. It was sort of a peek-a-boo, Goldfarb oriented election, where the main concern was keeping the leader of the Liberal party out of sight. In 1979, large areas of Canada had voted the Liberal Party out of office because of the right hon. gentleman's increasing unpopularity. So we have a government which has no mandate, its power is located in the two central provinces, using that power to force a constitution through Parliament that is opposed by 64 per cent of the people of Canada-by eight provinces-and what is most important, by the four western provinces and two territories.
As a matter of fact the two territories are not even mentioned in the Constitution. They are going to remain in a state of limbo. Their problem is to get into confederation, not to get out of it. The government is going to endeavour to enshrine in the Constitution the domination of this power base, Quebec and Ontario, in the Canadian body politique in perpetuity because of the veto power of the Victoria amending formula.
1 think you will understand, Mr. Speaker, why the feeling of alienation in western Canada has been growing by leaps and bounds. Just before I came into the House tonight I was reading the Brandon Sun from my home town. The city of Brandon and western Manitoba never succumbed to all the problems of alienation there were in the early thirties with the party splintering, that saw the emergence of the CCF movement in Saskatchewan and the emergence of the Social Credit movement in Alberta. My own particular bailiwick in Manitoba never succumbed to that feeling of alienation. When I came to this House the CCF was known as "the crazy Canadian farmers" because it was part of this western agrarian protest.


An hon. Member:: And the Progressives.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The Progressives were earlier, in the twenties. I am referring to the thirties. The Progressives was a party of the twenties if we want an historic reference.
Last Thursday evening in the city of Brandon 750 people attended a meeting of West-Fed in the Keystone Centre. 1 would be lucky to get a hundred people out to a meeting, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. MacLaren:: That is easy to understand!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: 1 want to tell the hon. member that even when the Prime Minister was out there two weeks ago he did not get that size audience either. The article in the Brandon Sun on February 27, reads in part:
During his speech, Mr. Knutson was interrupted several times by applause from the enthusiastic audience, one of the largest crowds he said he has drawn while
criss-crossing western Canada in the one year since West-Fed was formed as a separatist movement.
I want to inform the hon. member for Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren) who is from central Canada and does not appreciate the degree of alienation rampant in western Canada at the present time, that what the government he supports-


Roy MacLaren: I am from Vancouver!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -is contemplating through its unilateral action to force a constitution over the united protests of the four provinces will contribute in a special way to the growing alienation in western Canada.
I do not know why the Prime Minister is doing this. Perhaps he anticipates what is going to happen should his Constitution pass by the use of his central Canadian based majority. He is already behaving as if Canada were a unitary state. What would happen if unitary-statism were ever imposed on the Constitution? It causes one to shudder.
The present critical imbalance of power resulted from thrusting Canada into an election six months after the people had voted for a change. The inevitable result was to split the country right down the middle. As all hon. members know, there are no government representatives west of the Red River. It is not the first time the Liberal Party has used the divide and conquer formula. It was used by the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King. He managed to keep his Upper Canada and Lower Canada power base pretty well intact during most of his long reign.
A moment ago I referred to the splintering of parties in Canada during the thirties. An hon. member seated behind me asked, "What about the Progressives of the 1920s?" It is not a happenstance that all the protest parties, all the splinter parties have had their origin in western Canada. During the twenties, thirties and forties it was possible to play these divisive political games without threatening to destroy Canada as a federal state because finance, industry and population were concentrated in the golden horseshoe area of Quebec City, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton and Windsor. This is no longer true. Economic power has moved to western Canada. Unfortunately, political power remains in Ontario and Quebec. The unilateral action of the Prime Minister who has changed the rules in the middle of the game, is designed to ensure that it will remain there forever.
It is not a coincidence, for example, that in the two-pronged attack on western Canada, almost the same vehemence is given to the government's support of the National Energy Program and that will make it possible for the central government to invade the economic prerogatives of western Canada.
The Prime Minister moves unilaterally, using his majority based in central Canada. Unfortunately, at the present time the numbers in the other place support him, although it is encouraging to note that some very responsible voices in that other place have been heard to warn against the foolishness of unilateral action of this kind. It is becoming increasingly clear from the debates in this House, and reports in the newspapers, exactly what the Prime Minister is doing to Canada.
March 5, 198!

In a recent visit to British Columbia the message was made abundantly clear. A front page story in the Ottawa Citizen under the byline by Iain Hunter, national editor, put that situation in focus. In part the article said:
Prime Minister Trudeau admitted Thursday he is dividing Canadians by pushing through his constitutional reforms. He's not sorry about it, he declared-in some cases he finds it 'exhilarating.'
How can a national leader find a fundamental division in Canada exhilarating? In my experience in the House up to this time, I have observed that the main purpose of a prime minister has been to find the modus vivendi, some common ground, so that the process of reconciliation can go on, rather than the process of divisiveness. The newspaper article goes on:
Trudeau told more than 200 cheering Liberal supporters-
The hon. member for Etobicoke North referred to the 100 that came out to cheer me. I do not know whether or not there are any more than 200 Liberals in British Columbia. The story goes on:
Trudeau told more than 200 cheering Liberal supporters here that if the country breaks apart in five or 50 years because of his unilateral action to patriate the Constitution with an entrenched charter of rights and his own amending formula-
I am quoting now from the press article:
-"then I say it wasn't worthy of living another day''.
In other words, "apres moi, le deluge-If I don't get my way, the country is not worth saving."
I have heard of other political leaders in fascist countries who have expressed almost the same thought. I propound the question, why would a national leader deliberately want to create division in Canada? It has taken us a long time to reach the point of unity out of the diversity that we have at the present time. It has resulted from a spirit of tolerance and good will.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but, as he may know, under the extended hours provisions of the House order we are expected at this time to proceed to private members' business.
It being nine o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions, private bills and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Does the House agree to stand all items under the heading notices of motions.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Royal Canadian Legion


David Michael Collenette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I thought it would be wise to put the motion before the House first.


David Michael Collenette: Before we start with the consideration of Bill S-15, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and it has been agreed that all stages of this bill will be disposed of before ten o'clock tonight. The sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins), had discussions with the other parties about the length of time that various speakers will participate in the debate. At Committee of the Whole stage questions may be directed to the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. I would request a House order to the effect that this bill be disposed of by ten o'clock tonight.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 have consulted with the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) who is in charge of this bill in the House. That is the agreement. There is unanimity both with respect to the substance and the timing suggested by the parliamentary secretary as far as he and I are concerned. This is a good piece of parliamentary work and we should have it completed by ten. We consent to a House order so that the Royal Canadian Legion will have its legislation as it expects.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, both the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) have stated the situation as it is. We gladly agree to the House order for we would like this bill to be given second reading, Committee of the Whole stage and third reading by ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette), I will put to the House the suggestion that the motion by the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins), that Bill S-15 respecting the Royal Canadian Legion be read a second time, put through Committee of the Whole stage and given third reading and be through all stages before ten o'clock this evening. Is it the pleasure of the House to proceed in that fashion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is agreed and so ordered.


ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke) moved: that Bill S-15, respecting the Royal Canadian Legion be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.

March 5, 1981
Royal Canadian Legion
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a deep sense of pride and honour that 1 accepted the privilege to move second reading of Bill S-15 in the House of Commons. It deals with four important amendments to the act of incorporation for the charter of the Royal Canadian Legion. It is very fitting that this bill should be seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) whose "chief residence" has been the House of Commons for many years and who has been very active on behalf of veterans.
At this time, also, I would be very remiss if I did not state that the House leader of the Conservative Party was very willing to second the motion for second reading of this bill, but he willingly gave that privilege to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Therefore, 1 sincerely thank these gentlemen, members of their parties, for their co-operation.
The willingness on the part of political parties on both sides of this House to agree to these arrangements tonight is symbolic of the traditional non-partisanship that is practised in Parliament on matters dealing with the Royal Canadian Legion and veterans' affairs. The Royal Canadian Legion supports all veterans and their families, regardless of whether they are members of the Legion and at the same time are exceptionally strong supporters and promoters of the Canadian Armed Forces.
The Legion does not go around bragging about all the good work it does. Instead, its membership simply gets on with completing its many projects, be they of an individual nature, a community-oriented venture or national in scope. One thing that we. Members of Parliament, take great satisfaction from is the close co-operation that exists between the Royal Canadian Legion and the people in the Department of Veterans Affairs.
One thing that cannot be stressed strongly enough is that more than 1,800 branches of the Royal Canadian Legion across Canada take an exceedingly sincere and deep interest in the youth of our nation. The same can be said with regard to their fine treatment of senior citizens. By their many deeds, the Legion members of today are indeed keeping faith with their fallen comrades.
The bill before us tonight proves in a very concrete way that the Royal Canadian Legion is continually renewing itself and is keeping up with changing times, but is doing so without compromising the principles upon which it was built and upon which it has functioned successfully over the years.
The purpose of amending the act of incorporation is to regularize the position of the Legion. Over the years Dominion conventions have voted to admit other groups of people they thought worthy of joining the Legion, never realizing that these groups were not covered by the act of incorporation. This anomaly was brought to the attention of the executive and the convention of 1980 instructed the executive to seek an amendment to the act to cover the many groups which had been accepted into the Legion.
There must be other groups who served in some capacity during the wars and who might in future be proposed for membership in the Legion. This is why the Legion would like
Section 4(a) to be changed. The result would cover both those who are in and those who might be accepted at a later date.
The purpose of the second amendment they are seeking is quite clear. In days gone by, they used to have most of their branches in the city core because that is where people used to live. Nowadays people have moved to the suburbs and in many cases branches in the city core have hardly enough members to keep them going and they often wish to amalgamate. The act will authorize them to amalgamate branches.
The third amendment they seek concerns the election of officers at Dominion Command. The fourth amendment that is sought is designed to protect the badge of the Legion.
I can certainly report, Mr. Speaker, that the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs, like his predecessor, the late Daniel MacDonald, supports this bill and, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the late Daniel MacDonald's record during a lifetime of service to his country will always be looked upon as the ideal model for all members of the Royal Canadian Legion to emulate.
The Legion has been a critic of government action-or inaction-from time to time. Certainly there have been occasions when it has objected to the pace of the progress being made toward improving benefits. I know that any criticisms are regarded as genuine attempts to stir Parliament and the public so that justice can be achieved more quickly. Similarly, briefs and resolutions prepared by the Legion are not merely acknowledged and then disregarded by the Department of Veterans Affairs but studied carefully because it is known that the Legion has done its homework and knows its subjects, as any past or present member of our Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs can confirm.
This spirit of dedication and co-operation is a healthy thing for Canada, and when at international conferences of veterans' organizations this country is praised for having the most progressive veterans legislation in the world, members of the Royal Canadian Legion can quite rightly share in that credit.
1 also know that the present minister who, as we all know, is a Quebecer, was proud of the way the Royal Canadian Legion rallied around the federal forces during the referendum campaign last year. Once again when Canada needed them, members of the Legion were there.
Tonight we are dealing with a five-page bill, Bill S-15, which brings in four key amendments to the charter of the largest organization in all of Canada. The Royal Canadian Legion-with over 1,800 branches-over 546,000 members- over 315,000 saw active service in two world wars and Korea-there are over 800,000 veterans in Canada. These are the people who taught our nation what Winston Churchill meant when he said: "Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees all the others". These are the people whose influence on the national life of Canada has lived up to Harry Lauder's statement: "I could tell where the lamplighter was by the trail he left behind him."
March 5, 1981

We in this House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, congratulate the members of the Royal Canadian Legion throughout their organization across Canada for the many "trails" they have built in Canada, and we know that they, as lamplighters, will continue to influence the lives of present and future generations of Canadians. We thank them and wish them well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be speaking about a veterans' bill again. In reality tonight we are talking about a Royal Canadian Legion bill, and one should be careful to differentiate.
This bill will add some clauses to the charter which will enable people who are not veterans to become members of the Royal Canadian Legion. It is right that this should be done. The veterans are really people who served in World War I, World War II or in Korea. They are getting older, as we all do, and need more younger people to keep the Legion healthy as an institution, among other reasons.
I am pleased tonight to see that the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs is in the House. I have some suggestions I intend to put to the Legion which it might wish to pursue. Possibly the minister will pay attention to some of them and perhaps even solve some of the problems this evening.
I think the broadening of the base of membership in the Legion is a welcome amendment, and the Legion should not lose sight of its aim. It says in the bill that the Legion will now take other persons who support the purposes and objects of the Legion. I have always believed that the principal purpose and object of the Legion was to look after the welfare of the veterans of the two world wars and the veterans of Korea. 1 hope the Legion will continue to do that.
Also in the bill, before it was amended, the Legion took in members who were members of Her Majesty's armed forces or any auxiliary force thereof whether or not they are still serving. I hope the Legion will take an interest in these ex-servicemen, and particularly long service pensioners. They are very concerned as to what will happen to their pensions.
Recently I wrote to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) on their behalf for an assurance that the indexation of their pensions would continue. The reply from the Minister of National Defence, who is responsible for long service pensioners' pensions, was that he would only guarantee it for this year. He said it would be up to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) with respect to future years. That is rather alarming news for the long service pensioners who have a pension fund of something over $8 billion-at least in theory-to which they have contributed their share, and they believe that the fund is of a size which should be able to take the strain of the indexation of the annuitants' pensions.
Another area for Legion prodding might well be on behalf of the widows of disabled veterans. Their pensions are being phased in over an extended period, which should be shortened for two very good reasons. The first reason is that only one third, I understand, of the widows thought to be eligible in the
Royal Canadian Legion
first phase have actually applied for the widows' pensions. Therefore, there have been and will be unexpected savings in this area. The second reason is that when the Conservatives brought in the veterans' bill we brought it in to provide a breakthrough in widows' pensions; there was a period of restraint when the Progressive Conservative government of the day was trying to reduce the annual deficit. As the Liberals have shown no desire to reduce the deficit, their profligate spending might better go to a deserving cause than to some of their present causes.
Finally, the Legion might wish to pursue the cause of disabled veterans' pensions and their supposed connection to the take-home pay of five categories of civil servants. The pensions are at present below the civil service pay rates and have not been adjusted for several years. I have not been able to see why the adjustment cannot be made on an annual basis. 1 hope the Legion will actively campaign for this.
The final question I have is about the estimates of the minister. I realize we will not have a stage of this bill during which I can directly question the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs, but I notice in his estimates-and he might wish to comment on this during his intervention-under the heading of assistance in accordance with the provisions of the assistance fund regulations this year there is a drop of $3 million or something over $3 million. The estimates have been reduced from $4,150,000 to $1 million. If that could be explained, I would appreciate it very much.
Finally, it is a pleasure to support this bill, and agree, as we have tonight, to put it through in one hour. It shows the flexibility of our parliamentary system when some bills can take one hour to go through all three stages and when, on the other hand, we have a resolution which might take a year to go through all the stages.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) for permitting me to be the seconder of the motion for the second reading of this bill. I am honoured to have a few minutes to speak in its support.
As has already been suggested, there are times when we seem to take an eternity to get certain measures through this Parliament, but here we have ready agreement tonight to put this bill through second reading, Committee of the Whole and third reading, all in an hour or less. That does not set a pattern which is likely to be followed very often, but the fact we are prepared to do that indicates how warm is our affection in this House of Commons for the Royal Canadian Legion. Indeed, I suppose this hour will see members vying with each other to say the nicest things they can about the Legion. When all the nicest things have all been said, they will all be deserved. We are all conscious of the interest this organization has had and the things it has done.
Like others, I should like to pay tribute in particular to the persistence and the continuing effort with which the Royal

March 5, 1981
Royal Canadian Legion
Canadian Legion has sought to protect the interests and the well-being of its members and of all veterans who have served this country. It was said a moment ago that the Legion could take some share of the credit for the legislation we have on our books for the veterans of this country. I think that share has to be very large one. There is no doubt that over the years the Legion has pressed, intelligently and with good background in terms of research, for legislation to take care of disabled veterans, older veterans, and of those who are in economic difficulties but do not have disabilities for which they could get pensions under the Pension Act and they have stayed with the job.
We are talking about an organization which has been working hard for over half a century, and my contacts with officers of the Royal Canadian Legion make it clear to me that they are just as active as ever. We commend them for the part they have played and we look forward to their continued contribution in this way.
Not only have they helped to raise the standards in terms of benefit, care and health protection for veterans, their families and their survivors, but to the extent they have persuaded governments and parliaments to bring in legislation on behalf of veterans, their families and their survivors, they have aided the cause of the protection of all people in our society. They have done a good job and they deserve whatever tributes are paid to them by members who speak in this hour tonight.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). I do not want to use this occasion as an opportunity to put pressure on the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs. We do not want to make this into a partisan matter, and I shall not do so. We have other opportunities to make representations to the minister, but since we are talking about a bill on behalf of the Legion perhaps I can say I was delighted when, last Thursday, the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs told me and told the House that some time soon, I believe it was to be this week, he would be meeting with officers of the Royal Canadian Legion to discuss a number of matters.
I do not direct my plea to him tonight, I direct it to the Legion. When he meets with them, I hope they will press very hard for some of the things that need to be resolved. The list, of course, is not as long as it used to be. There is the question of getting rid of that phasing-in period with respect to pensions for widows of disabled veterans. There is the question of getting the 100 per cent pension tied to the average take-home pay of the five designated categories in the public service. There is the question of reconsidering the rates of compensation to former prisoners of war, and a few other items.
We are all pleased that in these days more attention is being given to older veterans, and I believe one of the things that has happened amongst the Legionnaires themselves is that as they have become older and faced the prospect of leaving widows without pensions, they have become more interested in legislation which affects the pensions of widows. A decade or two ago that question was down a few notches on the Legion's agenda; now it is right at the top.
I hope the Legion will be encouraged by the good things being said on their behalf tonight to have a really friendly heart to heart talk with the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs when he meets with them. This is not a speech on veterans affairs, and I am not making an appeal to the minister; I am just telling it as it is.
The last time I had the privilege of being at a gathering of the Dominion Command of the Legion, the minister was there, everything was warm and friendly, and I know that he knows how anxious the members of the Legion are to see still further progress in matters of veterans' legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I have tried to make my comments in terms that befit the spirit of this hour, but I return to the main thing I wanted to say, and we all wanted to say tonight, that we are happy to endorse the bill before us. We are pleased that the Legion has decided that this far away from wars-and we hope we will get still farther away from them-they would like to open up their membership so that people who are not veterans can join their ranks, and all of us in the House tonight extend our greetings and our best wishes to the Royal Canadian Legion.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, it is with genuine pleasure that I speak in support of Bill S-15, an act respecting the Royal Canadian Legion.
Old soldiers may never die, but we cannot hide the fact that there are fewer veterans and therefore an increasing need that other persons who support the purposes and objectives of the Legion participate on an equal basis in the Royal Canadian Legion.
Though so many years have passed, I will not forget the pride I felt when I joined the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve and became Airman 1394281. Nor will I forget the tumultuous welcome we received when we landed in Halifax to participate in the Commonwealth air training plan. The warm hospitality continued in Montreal, wide open Montreal, with a 3 a.m. closing and the generously donated Air Force house on Sherbrooke Street, which was so easy to visit from the Lachine Manning Depot. Then we were off to elementary flying training at St. Eugene in Ontario. I see the member in the party opposite who, I believe, was at the school at about the same time I was there. It was there that I got to know so many of the kind people of Hudson, Quebec, the town where my family and I have lived since the war.
It was here at Uplands, Ottawa, that I got my wings and commission and became Pilot Officer No. 136664. Who will forget those wonderful weekends across the river in Hull at the old Standish Hall. Next it was to Summerside, Prince Edward Island, and the not so dry hospitality of a dry island, and I suppose people know what I am talking about. Then it was to Europe for the more serious work. I lost 50 per cent of my buddies in the period when I was on operational flying. In so many ways, the Royal Canadian Legion ensures that we do not forget their sacrifice along with that of too many others who could never return to their families and friends.
March 5, 1981

The Legion is not just an association for socializing and for swapping wartime stories. It brings together veterans and their families with a common interest in caring for the needs of their sick and disabled comrades.
In my constituency of Vaudreuil, some 1.200 veterans are cared for in the magnificent Ste. Anne de Bellevue Veterans Hospital. The Royal Canadian Legion watches carefully to ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs gives to these less fortunate ex-servicemen and women the standard and quality of care and attention they deserve. The Royal Canadian Legion branches have also been instrumental in providing housing for veterans. The General Vanier Branch No. 234 in Roxboro, the Churchill Branch No. 91 in Ste. Anne de Bellevue, the Pointe Claire Branch No. 57, and my own branch of which 1 am a proud comrade, Hudson Branch No. 115, joined together to build a block of 95 apartments with the assistance of veterans' housing legislation.
_
Those of us who were fortunate enough to survive unharmed the horrors of war, the bombs, the ack-ack, the box barrage, the machine guns and rifle fire, must ensure that our children are occasionally reminded of those frightening experiences, even if it is only once a year when Legion members sell the red Flanders Field poppies for the assistance of veterans and to commemorate the end of the First World War on November 11.
1 salute the Royal Canadian Legion and support quick passage of Bill S-15.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is comforting to experience the friendly manner of members of the official opposition and the New Democratic Party in the consideration of Bill S-15. I hope members will be as friendly for the rest of this week, or even the rest of this month.


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


Mr. Lamontagne:: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very happy to take part tonight in this debate on the Royal Canadian Legion. 1 must say that 1 am most pleased to do so because 1 believe the merits of the Canadian Legion are well recognized by all Canadians. 1 think we must also pay tribute tonight not only to the leaders of the Legion, the executive, but also to all those who work all across Canada, in the towns, cities, and communities, where they try, by all possible means, to give the best possible care and treatment to all our veterans. For those who would wonder how many veterans there are left in Canada, I will say there are still more that 700,000 of them. So, as far as veterans are concerned, they are a significant part of the Canadian population which is worth taking care of, and this is what we have been doing for a long time.
Royal Canadian Legion
By the way, Mr. Speaker, 1 excuse the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who were understandably tempted to make some suggestions to the minister responsible for veterans. I suggest they took the opportunity even though they knew that this was a bill respecting the Royal Canadian Legion. I took their comments in good part and I know their purpose in doing so was to try to advise the minister in order to speed up the process and to find means to better the welfare of our veterans.

I am pleased to participate in the consideration of this bill. The Royal Canadian Legion has great merit and should have the recognition of all Canadians for its work over the past many years. I assure hon. members that I support the bill; this is why I wanted to say a few words tonight.
I thank members of the official opposition and the NDP for supporting Bill S-15. I assure the hon. member for Victoria and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that we are aware of the problems concerning the phasing in of widows' pensions and the allocation to veterans of whatever they deserve. We recognize the impact of inflation upon their pensions. This is perhaps one of the most important things we have to take care of. We recognize their position in regard to the poverty line. In fact, we are aware of all their problems, as are the four agencies which administer the Department of Veterans Affairs. These agencies are attempting to do their job as efficiently and as rapidly as possible, so that the veterans will be given what they deserve.
1 do not want to prolong this debate, especially considering the agreement that we pass it in all stages tonight. Again I thank hon. members opposite for their co-operation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder whether we could proceed with the adjournment debate at this moment. If that is agreeable, I should like to call it ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement to proceed with the adjournment debate at this stage?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) is present. Since his question is the first one on the list, I think it would be appropriate to proceed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the third member is present as well, the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky), so let us proceed.

March 5, 1981
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, as reported at page 7606 of Hansard for February 24, I directed questions to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Lapointe). 1 asked him what he had done to represent independent oil distributors in the downstream sector of the petroleum industry. His answer was entirely unsatisfactory. In his answer he said:
All necessary action is being taken to ensure a regular supply to the independent distributors in Quebec and we are monitoring the situation daily.
Well, if that answer was correct, why are independent distributors in Quebec so distressed and so short of the raw material they need for their livelihood?
My second question was answered by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). Part of my supplementary question was:
Will there be more or less competition now that Petro-Canada has joined the majors?
In other words, it is the refinery gate price and the cartel at the refinery gate which are strangling the life out of independent producers in Canada.
1 am one of the few members in the House-perhaps I am the only member-who took the time and trouble to make a major presentation to the Bryce commission on corporate concentration, as 1 am very concerned about the ongoing collectivization in Canada in terms of larger and larger corporate entities in the marketplace. Conglomerates and monopolies are strangling individual initiative and the small and medium-enterprise sectors.
What we have here is study upon study, commission upon commission, all delaying the inevitable day of either a fascist state or a communist state. This is so because we are allowing everything to come under the umbrella of large corporations or under the umbrella of state ownership. It is right in the heart of this issue to which 1 was directing my question.
The independents at large across Canada, the independent distributors and retailers of petroleum products, distribute about 15 per cent on a national average. But it is very interesting to note that in the province of Quebec they distribute over 35 per cent of the product in that province. In that province, particularly as a result of the control that the majors have over the refinery gate price, they cannot get the product they need to survive and expand in a normal way. Now that the state has entered into the downstream sector of the
petroleum industry, my questions were directed at whether it would continue to smother and stifle the independent sector or whether it would break the stranglehold and cartel on the refinery gate price which controls the independent sector.
There are independents in Quebec which have been very successful, but while they need 4,000 barrels a day they are only getting 2,000 barrels a day. They are in trouble. They are being smothered and stifled. I hope that with PetroCan entering that aspect of our lives this will open up some of the crude supplies and allow the independent sector in the petroleum industry to expand and grow. The independents are cost-efficient in this area where the majors have not been. I think that has been borne out by the Ontario Royal Commission on Petroleum Product Pricing, and it said so in 1975. From 1974 to 1978 the majors activities did not make a satisfactory return in the downstream sector. It was not until OPEC opened up, as we have just found out from the report of the director of combines, and this has been supported-it was not until that world problem opened up that the majors moved in, in a substantial way, in the downstream sector, and survival and growth of the independents all of a sudden came to a screeching halt. They found themselves in a completely controlled position.
In the few minutes I have left, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate one of the examples I used in my questions to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. This was the example of Petro-Canada purchasing Merit Oil in Burnaby, B.C. Merit Oil Company was one of the companies in the private sector that cracked the monopoly and went into the pay and save and the self-service stations. They gave the consumers that break in life. They became very successful, selling up to 50 million gallons a year. But when this OPEC pricing started and the refinery gate became controlled by a cartel, Merit found itself in a condition of being smothered. Merit asked Imperial Oil, which was one of the four majors supplying it, the others being Gulf, Shell and Pacific to the tune of about 5 per cent to 10 per cent, if it would allow Merit a little more room at the refinery gate price in order to survive. It has been reported to me that Imperial Oil said no, it would allow Merit 13 per cent. When the owner of Merit heard that and when he understood it was the final word from the cartel controlling the refinery gate price, he turned to his lawyer and told him to go and accept the PetroCan offer. That is what is happening to the private and the independent sectors in Canada.
I was asking the two ministers concerned; with PetroCan coming in and state ownership taking over more of the Canadian operations under the guise of Canadianization, how they can Canadianize something which is already Canadian-owned. That is complete nationalization, Mr. Speaker. I am asking if Petro-Canada's entry into this area will continue to nationalize Canadian-owned independents, or will it crack the cartel which exists and break the stranglehold at the refinery gate with respect to price over the independent petroleum distributors in this country? They cannot grow unless something happens.
March 5, 1981

This problem exists in Newfoundland where an independent cannot sell out and it cannot get supplies at a fair price in order to survive. Irving Oil in the Atlantic will not supply independents. Imperial is not renewing contracts with independents. In Europe and in the United States the independents are much stronger because the governments there want to encourage and strengthen the independents, and as a result there is a far broader section of competition available to protect the interests of the consumer.
I want to know if this government is joining the cartel of the majors through Petro-Canada. Will it control the refinery gate price or will it be using its substantial powers to open up refinery product supply and prices to the Canadian-owned independent companies? The answers of the two ministers have not cleared this question up.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's remarks this evening are timely, given the release this week of the eight-year study entitled "The State of Competition in the Canadian Petroleum Industry", to which the hon. member has made reference. The report suggests that certain developments:
-have considerably enhanced the ability of the major domestic petroleum refiners to restrict the operations of independent suppliers of gasoline and fuel oil.
I am sure all members will await with interest the hearings and the recommendations of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Put your notes down and just give the answer.


Roy MacLaren: On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the federal government has done a number of things to ensure the viability of the independent wholesalers and retailers in the petroleum industry. For example, in response to the tight supply conditions prevailing during 1979, the federal government advised Canadian refiners and terminal operators of the government's position that the vialibity of efficient retailers must be maintained. It requested that the major companies act to alleviate any problems which existed at the time. Government guidelines specifically directed that refiners and terminal operators, (1) not alter substantially their trade class mix, (2) continue to supply customers of record according to current requirements-historical off-takes unless superseded by recently made contractual renewal or cancellations-and (3), not arbitrarily deny contract renewal.
Continuous contact has been maintained with the independent oil distributors. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Lapointe) have met several times in recent months with representatives of the independent companies. Government officials have been monitoring the market. The market share of the independents has been maintained, in accordance with government policy and guidelines. In fact, the gasoline marketing sphere of the independents increased in 1980.
Adjournment Debate
As a result of the recent acquisition of Petrofina by Petro-Canada, the role of that Crown corporation has become more clearly defined in eastern Canada. Petro-Canada and the government are now carefully examining new crude oil supply possibilities, in the light of this acquisition, with the intent of determining how the independents can be further assisted. The National Energy Program is specifically designed to maintain a strong and vigorous independent sector within our petroleum industry. The recent initiative by Petro-Canada is in full support of this objective.
While an important aim of the National Energy Program is to increase Canadian ownership and control within the oil and gas industry, this will not be done through increasing concentration of power in the hands of a small number of Canadian companies. A concentrated Canadian industry is an unsatisfactory substitute for a concentrated foreign-owned industry. Competition is the consumers best protection. It is the intent of the federal government to promote an increase in the number of Canadian participants within the industry.


THE CONSTITUTION-QUERY WHETHER CHARTER OF RIGHTS COVERS UNBORN CHILDREN
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have come here tonight to alert the House and the country to an issue which has not yet received attention. In my judgment, it is a sleeper issue and one which will have profound effects on the life of our country for decades to come. It is the abortion issue as it relates to the charter of rights, which is now before the House.
I want it understood that this brief presentation I am making tonight is not an attack on the charter, as such, and it is not a partisan appeal for any support. Rather, Sir, it is an effort to bring to the attention of the House my contention and my belief, supported by a legal opinion, that within the charter of rights, as it now stands before the House, Sections 7 and 15, contain therein not only the prospect but the likelihood of what will happen as a result of the entrenchment of Sections 7 and 15; that is, that in future any law on abortion will become unconstitutional.
I do not think this is what the public or members of the House want. I think we want a situation in which we can give a political response to the abortion issue, taking section 251 of the Criminal Code into consideration, which allows women to have abortions when the life or health of the mother is in danger. Since that amendment came into the Criminal Code in 1969, abortions have grown to the point where they now exceed 65,000 per year, and it is a very serious situation.
Tonight I only want to focus on what the charter of rights will do. I ask the parliamentary secretary to respond directly to the legal opinion which I will put before him and to draw this to the attention of the minister, because on February 20 I asked the minister whether the words "everyone and every individual", as used in Sections 7 and 15, would apply to the unborn child, and the minister said the government did not

March 5, 1981
Adjournment Debate
intend to affect the abortion question with respect to the charter.
The legal opinion I have is from the distinguished firm of Stephens, French, McKeown & Taylor, in Toronto. It was presented to the members of the all-party committee on prolife. It is a non-partisan committee, and there are representatives from every political party. One of the co-chairmen is the distinguished hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale), who is in the House tonight, and this opinion was presented to members yesterday. I cannot take the time of the House, at the moment, to go through it all.
I would like to point out to the parliamentary secretary and to the House that the operative law with respect to the rights of human beings today, connected to the abortion question, is a case from the Ontario Supreme Court, in which Mr. Justice Robins, in September, 1979, reiterated the law which has been upheld since then by the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. Mr. Justice Robins said:
-the law has selected birth as the point at which the foetus becomes a person with full and independent rights.
It will not be possible under the charter, as it is now written, given the context of the law under which we are now operating, for the foetus to be considered to be a human being and given rights. In order for the foetus to have rights, it must be born, and become capable of asserting its right to life under section 7. That is the part of my contention.
I point out that the only rights and freedoms which will exist in Canada after the charter becomes law are those presently in existence. I have already said that Mr. Justice Robins' decision is the operative court decision. In order to make any change in that, if this charter of rights becomes entrenched, we will require a constitutional amendment. We know how difficult that will be to obtain. It will probably never come in our lifetime, and we will be entering a situation in which, under Section 15, which says the right of the woman is protected, there will be a conflict between the right of the mother and the right of the foetus.
I submit, and I believe a wide body of parliamentarians and the public would agree, that the day has come when the law must say that life begins in the womb, that the foetus is a potential human being, a human being in the process of formation, and should be afforded those rights.
I close by pointing out that if the government is sincere and does not want to upset the abortion question, it will accept an amendment that would specify, as the firm of Stephens, French, McKeown & Taylor has suggested, that everyone, including the unborn, has the right to life, that life begins at conception, and that right is assertable from conception. That is the amendment we seek.
I ask the parliamentary secretary to take this into very serious consideration. He will recognize that I have not given him any kind of a partisan argument tonight; I am giving him an argument which goes to the heart of the charter applied to the right to life.
What do the words "everyone has the right to life" actually mean? The government cannot get out from under by saying that it will not affect the abortion, because if we do not act to amend that charter, we will be entrenching abortion. I suggest that the members of the House do not recognize that this will happen. They do not wish it to happen, and certainly all those Canadians who are very concerned with the 65,000 abortions per year do not want that situation to occur.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ron Irwin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) for his concern about this very important issue.
During the hearings of the special joint committee, the views on the issue were very divided. The right to life advocates argued that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms shou ld make it very clear that the unborn child has the right to life. The pro-choice groups contended the right of a woman to have an abortion should not be put in jeopardy.
Mr. J. Robert Kellerman, legal counsel, Canadian Abortion Rights Action League-CARAL-speaking of the right of life applying to the embryo or the foetus, stated the following to the special joint committee:
We have already expressed the opinion, and I think it is a fact, that the majority of the Canadian people do not subscribe to that belief. It is a minority view and it is a view which should not be allowed to express itself as if it is an entrenched right in the Constitution of Canada.
On the other hand, Major John J. H. Connors, LL.B., a health services consultant with Alliance for Life, spoke to the special joint committee along the following lines:
Consider, if you will, the stages of life as links in a chain. Canada's pensioners, our infirmed and incapacitated, our labour force, our students, our children and, even younger, our babies, are linked together, because all are human whatever might otherwise be their status. So, too, are unborn children a link in the same chain, similarly human and even more deserving of protection because of their vulnerability. Their very weakness dictates their need of the special protection of being named under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which we respectfully request include a provision that everyone, from conception to natural death, has the right to life.
Because this is a matter on which there exist fundamentally differing views in Canada, the charter does not seek to take a position on the rights of the unborn and abortion, believing this is a question better left for determination by Parliament in the exercise of its ordinary legislative jurisdiction which can be adjusted from time to time as social and moral values evolve.
As long as abortion remains an evolving social issue with a divided public opinion it is best dealt with through the flexibility of legislation rather than entrenchment of one view or the other.
The Canadian charter of rights and freedoms enjoys the support of the majority of Canadians because it protects our basic rights and liberties. With respect to the abortion issue, the charter will not in any way alter the right of Parliament to
March 5, 1981

legislate concerning abortions but provide only that such legislation shall be consistent with principles of fundamental justice. The will of the people of Canada, as expressed through Parliament, shall continue to be the arbiter of the abortion question. The charter does not at all affect the current provisions of the Criminal Code respecting abortion; rather it provides a framework within which the question can be addressed by all Canadians.


COMMUNICATIONS-AM RADIO TRANSMISSION-PROPOSED CHANGE IN DIAL POSITIONS
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my remarks to a question I raised on January 28 in this House about the proposed change of the dial position of the AM band. At that time the response of the minister who was dealing with communications, the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) said they were "favourable to maintaining the spacing of ten kilohertz" and that up till then there had been no change in their position.
I also addressed a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan), which he took as notice. In a subsequent letter to me he indicated that the position the government will take at the conference will be that which best meets the requirements of Canadian broadcasters and the interest of the public, while at the same time recognizing the need to co-ordinate and co-operate with other countries in the region. This reply is very non-commital and does not really satisfy my constituents who were making the inquiries.
Since that time I have received a number of resolutions opposing the change on the AM dial from various municipalities such as Dauphin, Grandview, the rural municipality of Gilbert Plains, the rural municipality of Glenella, the rural municipality of Shellmouth and the local government district of Alonsa. Many people have come to see me in the constituency, such as the manager of the local radio station, Hugh Dunlop, who strongly opposes any such changes. Some of my colleagues have passed on representations from radio stations in their ridings where the changes are also opposed. This is indicated in letters to the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) and the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Parker). It is because of these representations that I should like to deal with the subject this evening.
When I met with Peter Nykolaishen the engineer at CKDM radio station, he indicated what this means to a rural station such as Dauphin. In the case of CKDM they would have to purchase new crystals, change their number from 730 to 739, shift the antennae, bring in specialty people to make the changes, and there would be a great inconvenience to the public which has been listening to the station for 30 years. There would also be problems for other members of the staff, such as sales manager, Jack Henderson, who indicated that promotional literature and letterheads would have to be changed, listeners would have to become adjusted to the dial change and for a time would be confused. Small transistor radios may not be able to pick up all the changes that would occur.
Adjournment Debate
Other constituents have written to tell me what the change means to them. The secretary treasurer of the rural municipality of Gilbert Plains, Mr. Drebnisky wrote:
For example we have a few hundred people in this area alone that like to listen to the CJOB Winnipeg station broadcasts of the Montreal Expos baseball games, Winnipeg Blue Bombers football broadcasts and the Winnipeg Jets hockey games. Daytime listening is fine but as soon as dusk arrives there is such interference from an American station that it is impossible to listen to the broadcasts.
In the south end of my constituency which is close to Winnipeg, the resident administrator of the district of Alonsa, Mr. Hryciuk, writes:
I would like to state that I know of one station in Manitoba that has problems now and that is CJOB. It happens to be one of my favourite stations and if this same should happen to the great number of our Manitoba and other stations, then I say, let's keep what we've got.
In addition 1 have letters and representations from organizations such as the Broadcasters' Association of Manitoba. The president, John Cochrane writes:
Rural listeners will be inundated with an even greater number of foreign signals at night and some of our Manitoba stations' signals will have more interference from these stations.
He goes on to note that 95 per cent of the AM stations will have to change their dial position, that there will be a reduction in the sound quality of stations and that the usefulness of future technical improvements such as AM stereo will be limited.
1 have received similar representations from the Arctic Radio Corporation Limited which indicates the prohibitive costs that small stations would face in rural Manitoba. I have also had representations from the Hall-Gray Broadcasting Company Ltd. in British Columbia. This is a problem right across Canada and is one that should be addressed by the department.
On behalf of our constituents we would like to have a clear statement, not merely a neutral statement. We urge the government to actively promote the retention of the ten kilohertz interval spacing on the AM dial at the coming convention.


Roy MacLaren: The selection of a preferred spacing for frequency channels for AM radio transmissions is a complicated issue involving a comparative evaluation of the costs that would be borne by Canadian broadcasters if closer spacing were adopted and of the benefits from such a change in the form of opportunities to establish new or to upgrade existing AM broadcasting stations.
As the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) said in responding to a question on January 28, our traditional position has been to retain ten kHz spacing. Indeed, it was the Canadian delegation at a conference in Buenos Aires in March, 1980, that provided the crucial support to the Brazilian delegation to bring about an 18-month delay in the decision on whether to adopt nine or ten kHz channel spacing as the international standard. This decision will now be taken at a conference to be convened in Rio de Janeiro by the Interna-

March 5, 1981
Adjournment Debate
tional Telecommunications Union in November. The sole purpose of this conference will be to establish a frequency assignment plan for the 9,000 AM broadcasting stations currently operating in North, Central and South America, and to adopt co-ordination procedures for the establishment of new stations during the next five years.
In preparation for this conference, Canadian officials, in close consultation with representatives from the Canadian broadcasting industry, are studying all technical and operational aspects of AM broadcasting in Canada, including the channel spacing issue. Indeed, a technical expert from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters was an important member of the Canadian delegation in Buenos Aires. He will continue in this role in Rio de Janeiro in November.
Some members of this House have had an opportunity to discuss this matter with officials of the Department of Communications. For those who have not, I should like to note two important factors.
First, the decision at the ITU conference will be arrived at by means of a vote in which each country, regardless of size and population, will have one vote. If the majority adopts a channel spacing different from that proposed by Canada, we
should be forced to conform to the international standard because there would be extensive interference to Canadian broadcasting stations if they were spaced at different intervals from those stations in the rest of the Americas.
Second, we are in close contact with other administrations in the western hemisphere, including the United States. Canadian officials are participating in a series of working groups convened by the inter-American telecommunications conference. We are a member of an eight-country international panel of experts established to study the issue. As part of our participation in these meetings, the Department of Communications has established a Canadian government-industry working group for detailed working level discussions both before and after the international meetings.
I can assure the hon. member that the government intends to finalize the Canadian position in full consultation with Canadian groups which have expressed an interst or concern over this issue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock.
At 10.08 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, March 6, 1981