1981-06-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to introduce the following motion. Whereas the latest May figures show that inflation in Canada is now at 12.3 per cent, far in excess of that of our major trading partner, the United States, at 9.8 per cent, and higher than any other western country, with the exception of Italy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott):
That this House condemns the Liberal government for its inability to come to grips with inflation and for its callous disregard for the human misery caused by its policy of ever-increasing prices and the destruction of the Canadian people's savings.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRICING AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN FEDERAL
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Each day more orders are being cancelled, more people are being laid off, more rigs are leaving the country, more businesses are going bankrupt and more taxpayers' money is being wasted buying foreign oil at $40 plus per barrel when all of this could have been avoided had Prime Minister Trudeau accepted Premier Lougheed's offer last July. In addition, Alberta would have provided money for the Q & M pipeline, some $2 billion for transportation in the west, along with other national benefits. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon.
member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankoughnet):
That this House urges the Prime Minister even at this late date to accept immediately Premier Lougheed's offer and get this country back on its feet.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the need for the development of roads, schools and economic opportunities in northeastern Manitoba, and in view of the desire of the government of Manitoba to proceed with the Northlands II agreement, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion sign forthwith the Northlands II agreement between the federal government and the government of the province of Manitoba.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Inasmuch as it is now two years since the International Year of the Child and the government has taken no major action on behalf of Canada's children, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the federal government reform the child tax credit to benefit low-income children, beef up the Canada assistance plan to include preventive programs, and introduce a New Horizon type of program for "kids" so that young families will

June 29, 1981
5.0.	43
be strengthened and preschoolers in all regions of Canada will have a better start in life.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GARRISON DIVERSION
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It concerns the issue of the Garrison diversion project in the State of North Dakota and the fact that the United States Congress may overrule a recent United States court decision which halted construction of the controversial project. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That this House seriously consider sending an all-party delegation to Washington to impress upon the United States Congress the concerns of the people of Manitoba.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the announcement made over the weekend indicating that Canada will be withdrawing from the International Whaling Convention, and because many Canadians feel that Canada, although no longer a whaling nation, can still exercise a role of constraint among convention nations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That this House require the appropriate minister to make a statement on motions explaining the government's cop-out in backing away from a firm decision on the ban on whaling and, in particular, in withdrawing from full membership in the International Whaling Convention, thereby denying itself the role it ought to be playing in the international community and the preservation of endangered species.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. On Friday 25 representatives from 19 Outreach women's employment centres met in Ottawa in an effort to persuade a departmental official to recommend to the Minister of Employment and Immigration that the eight year-old Outreach program should be continued. Once again the minister, who is also the minister responsible for the status of women, refused to meet with these representatives. In light of the significant help women have received through Outreach centres in overcoming obstacles such as day care, housing, transportation, and insensitive husband problems, problems which Manpower centres are not equipped to address, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That this House demand the minister immediately meet with women's Outreach representatives, or if he continues to refuse to take a personal interest, to resign as the minister responsible for the status of women.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the energy service industries of western Canada have suffered an employment drop of some 20 to 30 per cent since the introduction of the Liberal energy policy, in view of the fact that many highly trained individuals are being forced to leave the country, and in view of the fact that most of these companies are 100 per cent Canadian owned and an important part of their local economy in the west, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this House urge the government to follow the lead of nine Progressive Conservative members of Parliament and arrange to have a group of Liberal members of Parliament travel to Alberta and meet with representatives of the industries to see first hand the damage being inflicted upon them by the Liberal energy program.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
June 29, 1981


RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise to request unanimous consent to move a motion. In view of the fact that Senator Perrault has said the federal government plans to ration western Canadian rail capacity because of congested rail lines, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That the federal government provide funds to upgrade and electrify rail lines in western Canada and that the President of the Privy Council begin issuing large rations of common sense to cabinet colleagues in light of the severe shortage of that faculty in the government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The inability of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) to answer in a cogent and complete manner any questions concerning the cost of the move of headquarters "E" Division, RCMP from Victoria to Vancouver, at least up to the present time, has clearly indicated that he authorized the move without the faintest notion of what it would cost in either financial, human or social terms. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That this House direct the Solicitor General to put this mistaken redeployment on hold until he has completed social and economic impact studies on the whole matter.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE LATE TERRY FOX
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, it occurs very rarely in the life of a nation that the courageous spirit of one person unites all the people in the celebration of his life, and in the mourning of his death. Such
Tributes to the late Terry Fox
a man was Terry Fox, whose death yesterday at the age of 22 has touched all of us with a sense of personal loss.
Canadians wanted desperately for Terry to live, to win his personal battle against the ravages of cancer. Yet it does not occur to any of us to look upon his death as a defeat or a failure. The reason, of course, is that we do not think of this remarkable young man as a victim, but as a victor. We do not think of him as one who was defeated by misfortune, but as one who inspired us with his example of the triumph of the human spirit over adversity.
When Terry lost a leg to cancer in 1977, he must have been sorely tempted to give up on life, to sink into the depths of self-pity and despair. Who among us could say that, in similar circumstances, we would not have done exactly that? Learning to walk again, after such a soul-searing shock, would have been remarkable enough. But Terry went beyond the merely remarkable, and gave new meaning to the word magnificent. [Translation]
Terry Fox chose to react most audaciously to his personal misfortune. He chose to set for himself a challenge which even our best athletes would likely consider to be beyond their ability. He decided not to walk but to run, and not only to run but to run across a continent. And he decided to do all that not for his own satisfaction but to bring hope and help to others.
For the magnitude of his courage and of the task he accomplished, we pay him tribute and quite rightly consider him as a hero. For the way he was able to inspire the country, we will be grateful forever to him. Terry did not complete his marathon of hope. He left us a part of it so that we may run it together. Let us get down to that task, while keeping in mind the example of a young man who devoted all his energy to that noble and generous objective-to spare others cancer, or at least to give them a better chance of recovering from it.
Let us keep fresh in our minds his example of boundless hope and courage. To that end the Government of Canada will establish the Terry Fox Humanitarian Award program, an endowment fund which will finance scholarships for some 250 young Canadians each year.
The program will give help and encouragement, in Terry's name, to young people who are pursuing excellence in their academic studies in the fields of fitness, health and amateur sport, or in fields related to community service. That will be one way of keeping the spirit of Terry Fox alive in our land, one way of remembering a young Canadian who gave far more to his country than his country was able to give to him.
In the midst of mourning, let us also celebrate the inspiring life of one who has touched all our lives and enriched all our lives.
I know, Madam Speaker, that all hon. members would want you to convey to Terry's parents and his family the profound sympathy of the House of Commons. But I also believe we
11022

June 29, 1981
Tributes to the late Terry Fox
want you to express to them more than our sympathy. We would like you to express as well our profound gratitude for the gift which Terry gave to all of us, the gift of his own boundless courage and hope, the gift of his magnificent and unselfish generosity, the gift of a life which has inspired us all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I want to join the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in expressing both the deepest sympathy and the deepest gratitude of this House and the Canadian people to the family of Terry Fox.
I think some images last forever in our memory. None of us who saw it will ever forget that one young man, running alone against impossible odds; running, because quitting was no part of Terry Fox. He called his run the Marathon of Hope, and it did bring hope to millions of people who have battled cancer or other disease, or who have battled despair. But, Madam Speaker, hope was the result. The cause, the essence of the man we mourn, was courage. He ran alone and proved to all of us who have lesser troubles that one individual, alone with his will, can change our world. He did what Parliaments and philosophers talk about, and he enlarged the lives of everyone who knew his story.
[ Translation]
I know that today all Canadians mourn together for the death of Terry Fox, a son of whom Canada can be proud. He led a long and hard fight against death, and his courage will remain a great source of inspiration for all those who have to cope with illness or fear. Terry has done more things during his short life than most of us ever do in many more years.
[DOT] (M20)

Terry Fox was a Canadian hero whom the youngest children could understand. Yesterday morning he lost one battle, but his life was a victory, a victory of hope, of courage, of example. I pray that we in this Parliament and this country may be worthy of the standard of Terry Fox.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I am honoured to have the privilege of associating the members of the New Democratic Party with the tributes which have been given so eloquently by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).
We are all deeply conscious of what a hero Terry Fox has become in the life of this country. There seems to be a bit of significance in the fact that this man, though most of what he did was done last year, has in this International Year of the Disabled become such a hero. Indeed, he has shown by his courage and his determination that there are many disabled and afflicted people who are prepared to try to turn disability
or affliction into a challenge to the spirit. We believe this young man has done that for all of us.
Death is always hard to take or hard to understand. It is not so difficult when many years have been lived, but when it comes at such a young age it is very hard to take. Even so, as those who spoke before me have said, who could live a more creative, a more successful and a more effective life than Terry Fox has lived in the few years he has been on Canadian soil? We pay our deepest respects to him and to his memory.
There are times when older folk are inclined to wonder whether the younger generation has what it takes to carry on and build a better world. No one in Canada is saying anything like that today. If the generation between the ages of 20 and 30 can produce a Terry Fox, the future of this land is in good hands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board, who will be well aware-as, unhappily, the nation is-that some 23,000 postal clerks and mail handlers are on the verge of a national strike at midnight tonight. The minister knows that when such a situation develops the people who suffer most are Canadians who are in need of government cheques, and Canadians who are in need of the services of the Post Office to keep their businesses functioning.
I wonder if the minister, on this eve of a strike which could be so damaging to the country, could tell the House of Commons what steps the government is taking to ensure that those vital Canadian postal services will be maintained for the Canadian public in the event of a strike?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, as in the past, arrangements have been made, not for postal service per se, but for distribution through the Department of Supply and Services of all socioeconomic payments of the kind referred to by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


CONCILIATION BOARD REPORT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we are in this situation in part because the government, through the Treasury Board, which had invited the union to return to the bargaining table, has now rejected the
June 29, 1981

union's request that the conciliation report be used as a basis for agreement.
Since the government appointed a neutral conciliator to make recommendations and to submit a report, why does the government now refuse to accept that report as a basis for bargaining?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, today the union has refused to return to the bargaining table unless the government agrees in advance to accept those specific areas of the chairman's report which the union wants accepted. I might add, we, on behalf of the government, have accepted a large number of the chairman's recommendations, including those related to wages and COLA. In addition, the union has also indicated it wants to negotiate the other items on the basis of the minority union nominee's report. A combination of these things taken at their maximum would increase costs by approximately 28 per cent over last year's payroll costs.
However, I should advise hon. members that I issued a release at lunchtime indicating we have delivered a full package on our position as a government on all the outstanding issues, and also indicated our willingness to return to the bargaining table and negotiate specifically maternity benefit leave provisions.


GOVERNMENT'S POSITION ON INDIVIDUAL ITEMS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, there seems to be some dispute at least between the publicly stated positions of the union and the government. I, naturally, will not challenge the government's interpretation of the elements in dispute as the minister has just given it, but I wonder if the minister could tell this House which elements, if any, of the conciliation board chairman's report the Government of Canada is not prepared to accept, and why?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, in the hope that the parties will be returning to the negotiating table some time today, and we have an outstanding invitation to that effect, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to deal specifically with these items. I believe hon. members are aware of the report's terms and conditions, items I have discussed in the past, and 1 really think it would be appropriate to let the parties get to the negotiating table and obtain a fair and just settlement for both sides.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State and it has to do with labour problems in another sector of the public service. Why is
House of Commons
it that the CBC is not content to accept the very major concession from the union which gives the corporation, for the first time, unrestricted access to independent television producers to produce programs which would increase the amount of Canadian content? Instead, it is demanding the right to use independent producers to do current programming and to produce parts or segments of programs, and the ability to hire freelancers to do technical work without the necessity of ensuring that CBC's own staff of NABET members are fully employed.
Does the minister not agree that what the CBC is proposing will inevitably lead to duplication of effort and services, forced featherbedding, and inefficient use of manpower, resources, and public funds?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I met with members of NABET's executive on Friday. They had the opportunity of making their point of view known to me, which is exactly along the lines of the question the hon. member has raised. I am meeting with CBC management tomorrow morning to go over those specific items.


TELEVISION COVERAGE OF SUMMIT CONFERENCE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, does the minister not agree that already the corporation has wasted several millions in relinquishing the coverage of the 1981 Summit conference in Ottawa, rather than negotiating a settlement with its employees? In addition, thousands of northern Canadians who rely on CBC as their sole communications link with current affairs have a right to expect an early restoration of this vital public service after 40 days of footdragging.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, obviously we would like to see the strike settled as soon as possible. That is one of the reasons why the CBC is indeed continuing to negotiate.
As far as the Summit conference is concerned, the CBC offered to host the conference once again. It asked NABET for guarantees that it would be able to do so but they were unwilling to give those guarantees. That is why the CBC has had to relinquish its rights as host broadcaster. Of course on this side of the House, as on the other, we would very much like to see the situation resolved before the Summit, and in any event as soon as possible.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SIR MALCOLM FRASER, PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to draw the attention of the members of the House to the presence in our gallery of Sir Malcolm Fraser, Prime Minister of Australia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 29, 1981
Oral Questions


POST OFFICE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, my question also relates to the postal situation, and it is for either the Right Hon. Prime Minister or the President of the Treasury Board. I hope my question will not be taken as asked in a provocative sense, but in an effort which we all share to get the dispute settled before midnight tonight.
In view of the fact that the postal workers requested today that the government side of the bargaining be transferred from the President of the Treasury Board to the Postmaster General, due to the fact that the Postmaster General has had success in recent occasions, would the President of the Treasury Board consider stepping aside, or would the Prime Minister consider making that change in the hope that, in the last minute bargaining this afternoon and this evening, a postal strike might be avoided?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member would recognize that in all forms of negotiations, but particularly in the matter of industrial relations, each side should be left free to designate its negotiators. I have designated, as is the custom, the President of the Treasury Board. I feel we cannot find a more expert negotiator on behalf of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: If developments this afternoon indicate that the suggestion of a change should be implemented, I hope it will yet be considered.


ITEMS SELECTED FOR NEGOTIATION
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, may I say to the President of the Treasury Board that we welcome his offer to put maternity pay on the table at any meetings which take place this afternoon. Is it not possible to put one or two other items there, such as 12 statutory holidays per year? What is wrong with that in this day and age?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are now 11; one a month is not out of the way. Another item could be the discontinuance of further installation of television surveillance in the hope that, although postal workers are saying they want the whole package recommended by Mr. Jasmin, if there is a willingness to compromise there might yet be a settlement.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I should like to repeat my comments when I responded to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. As much as I would love to engage in dialogue with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I really believe this is not
the appropriate forum. Let us hope the parties get back to the negotiating table this afternoon and I will have good news to report to the House tomorrow.


RELEASE OF INFORMATION ON GOVERNMENT'S FINAL OFFER
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramiehi):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Realizing that disclosure now might hamper negotiations, might I ask the President of the Treasury Board if, in the interests of public awareness, he will release the details of the government's final offer immediately upon the commencement of any strike action?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I believe it important the public be aware of the respective positions of the parties should such an event occur, and I imagine that is what we would do.


THE ECONOMY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Today it was announced that Canada has the highest rate of inflation of all industrialized countries in the world with the exception of Italy. Our inflation rate today is well above the average for industrialized countries, but of greater concern is the fact that it is about 2.5 percentage points higher than that of the United States, whereas a year ago we were three percentage points below the United States. Thus there has been a deterioration of about 5.5 per cent.
Has the government undertaken any studies of the performance in the United States to see whether we in Canada can learn anything to improve our performance?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member uses the consumer price index to make his comparisons. It is quite obvious, and a study of the consumer price index confirms this, that a short-term analysis based on this index often shows a wide gap between inflation rates in the United States and in Canada. However, if the same figures are applied to a longer period, the gap tends to get narrower. Other measurements might be used and considered by the hon. member. I urge him, for instance, to look at the inflation rate included in the GNE. He will see that for the last four quarters, including the fourth quarter of 1981, the inflation rate in the GNE is 9.6 per cent in Canada and 9.4 per cent in the United States. Of course, the hon. member may reply that you can use whatever figures best prove your case. However, one must take all the figures into account in order to draw logical conclusions.
June 29, 1981

[English}


CONSIDERATION OF NEW POLICIES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker,
1 was using a longer term than the minister. I was talking about a full year's experience where we have seen a very major deterioration. It is not who is playing with the numbers; it is he.
One of the major causes of the deteriorating performance in Canada relative to the United States is the inflationary expectations which are much more prevalent here than in the United States. We see that in the differential in wage negotiations and also in the wide spread between borrowing costs for long-term borrowers in the two countries.
My question is directed either to the minister or the Prime Minister. Is the government considering any new policies to broaden the battle against inflation so that it is not just a monetary or high interest rate policy, but a broader package of policies which would give Canadians the confidence that something is being done up here to fight inflation, similar to the package which was developed in the United States? If a package is not developed here, the credibility of the government will stay where it is now, that is, nil.


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I am very glad that the hon. member has stressed in his preamble that inflationary expectations are more prevalent in Canada than in the United States. He is well aware that those inflationary expectations must be checked if both the monetary and the fiscal policy of the government are to be effectively supported. However, I would point out to him that these inflationary expectations are often fed by the comments made by his colleagues when they talk about interest rates or other effects of inflation. I would also like to remind him that, in the October budget, the Minister of Finance undertook to reduce government spending and the government deficit. These commitments support the monetary policy advocated by the Bank of Canada, and if we succeed in putting a stop to these inflationary expectations, these measures combined together will help us reduce in the middle term the inflationary pressures in Canada.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Given the fact that the minister's special assistant met with the mayors of Ancaster and Glanbrook in my riding last week on the subject of compensation for property owners adjacent to the expanded Hamilton Civic Airport, and since those people who will be drastically affected appeared before an official expro-
Oral Questions
priation hearing all last week, is the minister now in a position to say what possible compensation will be available to those who could be really badly hurt by this airport expansion?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the answer is none. When the decision was made to expand the airport at Hamilton, it was known that the runway would have to be extended. This has affected a number of houses located nearby, and 16 or 17 houses are now being expropriated. A number of houses-possibly 80-will be affected noisewise. The answer in that regard is that, first, the noise effect will not be substantial and, second, there is no policy for expropriation of houses in the situation where noise has an effect.


REQUEST FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker,
I have a supplementary question. Given the fact that many of these people bought their land before the airport was developed, could the minister not assure my constituents that his department will update the policy to take into consideration the injurious effects on the people? Will the minister judge the Hamilton airport situation on its own merits as a unique situation, and not ask the people to bear the cost of something which benefits the whole region? In short, will he listen to the concerns and the representations made by the people at the expropriation hearing?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have in mind, as I am sure the hon. member does, the very strong representations which were made to me a few months ago before a decision with respect to the extension of the Hamilton airport was made. The hon. member was one of those who pressed me so hard I could barely stand up straight!
This is a policy which has been reviewed a number of times, that is, of no compensation for noise. I repeat that the noise factor in this instance is not of a considerable nature. If the department does not have a policy of compensation for the effects of noise, it is simply because of the consequences of creating a precedent. We would obviously have to revise our position for every airport in Canada. This is a position which we cannot sustain, unfortunately. I regret that.


INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Perhaps he will answer; I am not sure.
Over the weekend the government announced that it was withdrawing from the International Whaling Convention. The Prime Minister and I have exchanged correspondence on this

June 29, 1981
Oral Questions
matter over the course of the last few months. I simply ask him why?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I quite honestly thought that was the thrust of many of the environmentalists supported by the hon. member, that is, the thrust of their wish.


Erik Nielsen: Their what?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The thrust of their wish, their desire, their expectation, their hope.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We had the choice of either staying in the IWC and incurring the blame of environmentalists or of getting out, and now we fail to obtain the support of the hon. member. I think what is crucial to the understanding of this matter is that we are withdrawing as members but we will still be present as observers.
We are not ourselves a whaling nation. We will still be able to express whatever arguments we can to the commission. Simply put, we will not be a full member and, therefore, we will not be part of its decisions, of those nations which continue to be whaling nations and which, if I understand the hon. member's representations correctly, are catching too many whales for the good of the cetacean species.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, since we are in fact dealing with the endangered species of whales, and since those nations which will remain on the commission, if every other nation took the same position which Canada has taken, will be whaling nations, which are the very people who are endangering the species, surely it would make more sense for the Canadian government to continue to sit at the bargaining table, to continue to have a vote and to continue to have an opportunity to influence the outcome, rather than to abdicate responsibility and ultimately destroy the entire species?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I remember using that argument myself, particularly in an exchange I had with the hon. member. But this did not result in the withdrawal of the pressure which he and other environmentalists were placing on us. We were being blamed for the decisions of whaling nations with which we did not agree. I repeat that is why we have given notice that within a year we will withdraw from the commission as a member but will continue to participate as an observer.


REASONS FOR WITHDRAWAL
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Given the fact that Canada's withdrawal from the IWC amounts to a shameful international cop-out,
and given the fact that our withdrawal from the IWC will seriously impair our ability to influence the two principal whaling nations, the U.S.S.R. and Japan, and since that will have serious consequences on our own ability to regulate the situation in our own waters where whales are destroying the gear of fishermen on the Atlantic coast, will the minister tell the House why Canada decided to withdraw? Is Canada prepared to reconsider this shameful international cop-out?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, when Canada first entered the International Whaling Convention in 1946 we were a whaling nation. But since commercial whaling was abolished by government order in Canada in 1972 our policy has been under constant review. In the last year we have had an intensive review of this question, and as a result of that we have decided to remain associated with the International Whaling Commission as an observer and in its scientific work, using its scientific conclusions and contributing to them but no longer being a formal voting member of that body. It seems to me this is perfectly consistent with our interest at the present time, which is that of a non-whaling country.


CANADIAN RESPONSIBILITY
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, given the fact that only two of the 25 signatories to the IWC have a commercial whaling operation and that if all other member countries were to follow the rationale of Canada there would be no international whaling convention, there would be no conservation, no control, surely Canada has a responsibility not only to preserve these magnificent animals but it also has a responsibility to our own fishermen. Given all of these facts, surely Canada has an obligation to remain a member of the IWC. Will the minister reconsider?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, it seems to me our obligation is not to a convention but to the conservation of the species. We are living up to that obligation. We are continuing to work with the scientific division of the International Whaling Commission. We are continuing to offer them our support. We continue to urge that a larger whaling convention, and a better one, replace the 1946 convention. In all of these areas we are completely and fully involved. That is our obligation, one which we are fulfilling.


STEPS TO PREVENT EXTINCTION OF WHALES
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Now that Canada has not only removed itself for all practical purposes from the International Whaling Commission but has also undermined that major international body by withdrawing in the fashion in which it did, would the minister tell the House, the people of Canada in particular, and conservationists and environmentalists around the world who are concerned about the fate of the whale, what specific steps the government
June 29, 1981

intends to take outside the International Whaling Commission to prevent the extinction of this important mammal?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I was not speaking of steps outside the whaling convention but of steps in accord with the International Whaling Commission and in accord with its scientific mandate and interest. We are continuing our association with that body. As I mentioned before, we are also continuing our interest in a large and better whaling convention which would replace the 1946 convention.


IDENTITY OF ADVISERS
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. Surely he would admit that all the initiatives to which he has referred would be much more effective if Canada were a full member of the International Whaling Commission rather than a second-class member on the outside looking in. In view of that fact, would the minister share with Parliament and the people of Canada, upon whose advice did the government act to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission, thereby undermining this important international body? Is it not true that every single major environmental and conservation group in Canada has urged against the action which the government has now taken? How can the government justify such stupidity against expert opinion, both within government and outside it, including expert opinion from its own advisory committee on the subject of whaling?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, as I have said, every year before the meeting of the International Whaling Commission we have a review of all aspects of the whaling problem, and of our continued participation. After last year's meeting we launched an intensive review within the government, and I am sure the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will join with me in assuming the responsibility for persuading cabinet, on the basis of advice from our own officials, to take this step after full consideration. At the same time we reiterated our determination to contribute to the conservation of the species.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Last Friday the minister met with his counterpart in Montreal and announced that the Canadian government would be contributing some $80 million to the upgrading of public transit in greater Montreal. Mem-
Ora/ Questions
bers representing that area, who have been working towards this end for the past ten to 12 years are of course overjoyed by this announcement. My question is as follows: will the provincial government act alone as project manager? What was the provincial share announced at the press conference? Will the federal government have some visibility as far as its share is concerned, since this money was collected from taxpayers all across Canada, or will all the merit, credit and visibility for this project be given only to the province, as is the case in all other cost sharing programs?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, last Friday in Montreal I recognized the contribution of all those, either ministers or ordinary members of Parliament, who had taken part in the development of this project. The federal share of $80 million is made up of three components: $10 million from the CN, $30 million from UTAP, which is a federal program designed to assist the development of urban transportation in the provinces, and $40 million made up of special subsidies.
In view of this substantial contribution, the province and the Montreal Urban Community will now be responsible for developing the project. They will be project managers since they will be responsible for the operations as well as any deficit incurred. I strongly emphasize that the federal contribution is now paid out directly and I think that Montrealers will recognize that it is quite substantial. The federal money will be used strictly to put commuter trains back into operating condition. Any improvement, transformation or updating of equipment will be the responsibility of the Quebec government and of the Montreal Urban Community.


SITUATION IN TORONTO AND IN NATIONAL CAPITAL
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Now that the minister has made an announcement with respect to Montreal, when does he intend to make an announcement with respect to the promises made in 1974 with respect to Metropolitan Toronto, and the promises that previous governments have also made to deal in an upfront way with transportation commissions within the National Capital of Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am not too sure what my hon. friend refers to. If he refers to Toronto, the Go train was realized, if I remember well, after 1967. At that time, the federal government made a substantial contribution of $10 million which, if my hon. friend wants to index, constitutes quite a lot of money in today's terms.
I would like to ask the hon. member again what he has in mind when he talks about the Ottawa situation. Does he have air transportation in mind? I do not know. Therefore I had better ask him to start over again and restate his question.

June 29, 1981
Oral Questions RAILWAYS


FUTURE OF VIA RAIL PASSENGER ROUTES
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I would like to stay with the Minister of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Why?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Of course I would like to have my back to the wall and my gun loose in my holster while I am doing that.
A source which has always been very reliable in the past, as far as I am concerned, has informed me that the minister has received representations from departments of government and has proceeded to get cabinet approval for the abandonment of 16 VIA Rail passenger routes and reduction of five other routes, and that he will be making an announcement some time between now and the middle of July, certainly by the end of July, for these abandonments or reductions to take effect before the end of 1981. Can the minister tell me if that source of mine is reasonably accurate? Is he giving consideration to or has he received approval for such an order?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, a few months ago my hon. friend had a piece of paper and he informed Canada of its existence. Therefore, he is aware and knows very well that a study of the VIA economic situation has been going on for a number of months now. He is probably aware, better than anyone here, of some of the success of VIA in recent months, in the recent two or three years; but he is also aware of the extraordinary growth of VIA's operating deficit which was at the level of $300 million last year and will be going up to $550 million in 1983-84, unless something is done about it.
I am quite sure that the hon. member expects the Minister of Transport and the government to do quite a responsible job in trying to save the good aspects of VIA and, at the same time, rationalize it to the greatest possible extent.


ROLE OF CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, the minister said himself that there has been a magnificent increase in passenger handling by VIA Rail. In light of the fact that the Canadian Transport Commission has held hearings relating to 15 of these 21 routes, and recommended that they all be retained, may I first ask the minister whether it is correct that CTC has not been informed of any decision made by cabinet, or which will be made, that CTC will be bypassed, and there will be no public hearings held on any abandonments? In light of the return of the train, in view of the energy crisis, can the minister give any assurance that he will reconsider any decisions to abandon passenger train routes?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am quite sure that when the government makes a
decision, if and when it does so, CTC will be properly informed.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Given the recent bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor and the subsequent reactions and comments which have followed it, all of which have served to increase the danger of the manufacture and the use of nuclear bombs, and given that the major supplier countries in the world of nuclear materials and nuclear technology are the very countries which will be meeting here in Ottawa, for the Summit in July, will the Prime Minister indicate to the House if it is his intention to have this threat of greater nuclear proliferation added to the agenda of this Summit in July?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in at least one or two of our meetings we will be discussing the international political situation, including that in the Middle East. There is no sub-item on the agenda which would cover the area which the hon. lady suggests, but it is quite possible that it will be discussed, as it was in previous Summits which I and, I presume, she attended.


REPROCESSING OF NUCLEAR WASTES
Flora Isabel MacDonald: The
Prime Minister will remember, as I stated in the recent foreign policy debate, that with the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor the world crossed a new threshold in nuclear proliferation. Now we have the fear of nuclear bombing leading to an attack, or to a hostile act by one country against another.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not feel, on Canada's behalf, that he should be prepared to put forward proposals by which the reprocessing of nuclear wastes or the enriching of uranium could be added to the agenda of the Summit so that these matters could be dealt with and not be allowed to escalate into greater fears of nuclear proliferation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the hon. member knows, these matters have been discussed in a very consistent way by Canada in its bilateral meetings with-the hon. lady says no. I presume she did not discuss them, but we discussed them. I remember discussing them very specifically and urgently in a tour which I made to Germany, Italy and several other countries in 1975. We were then attempting to impress-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Do you not consider it more urgent?
June 29, 1981


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. lady has a supplementary question, Madam Speaker.


URGENCY OF ISSUE
Flora Isabel MacDonald: I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he does not now consider this issue to be more urgent and pressing, following what has happened in recent weeks with the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor, than it has been in the past.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I cannot say I feel it more urgent, because I have always felt it to be extremely urgent. Indeed, the hon. lady herself will recall that when she was foreign minister, one of the reasons why Canada was not able to sell a nuclear reactor to the Argentine was because we felt more strongly about safeguards than did one of our competitors. It was under her government that this contract was lost. Therefore she must have felt it was urgent then to make the point; otherwise she would not have lost a great contract for Canada.


EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Does the minister's department follow the stated policy of his government on mobility of labour, namely, that geography plays no role in hiring practices?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, it is the purpose of our department to assist workers who are out of work to make choices to move to other areas. Of course we agree with the general commitment of this government, which is clearly enunciated in our charter of rights, that Canadians have the right to choose where they want to work in this country, to do so by right, and thereby overcome many of the false barriers raised by other jurisdictions which prevent workers from going to areas which they consider to be under provincial jurisdiction.


ELIGIBILITY OF JOB APPLICANT RESIDING IN NORVAL, ONT.
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, can the minister then explain why his department will not consider an application of a constituent of mine, a civil servant, who wants to be placed in a competition for an immigration counsellor, because he lives in Norval, which is one hundred yards outside an arbitrary boundary set by those who do the hiring? Will the minister ask that this method of weeding out applications cease immediately?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, it is difficult for me to respond to a
Oral Questions
specific case not having been given prior information. However, I will be very pleased to receive the information from the hon. member and to look into the case to determine the facts and how we can deal with them.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that the province of Manitoba has been ready to sign the Northlands II agreement and that roads, schools and economic development are desperately needed in northern Manitoba, about which there have been a number of communications with the minister, could he give us an answer as to whether or not he has signed the Northlands II agreement on behalf of the Government of Canada? If not, when does he expect to sign it?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Yes, Madam Speaker, I have authorized the expansion of that agreement for a year so that both governments will be able to study further the proper measures that should be continued in the north and also the kind of mechanism that should be used to continue development of the northlands.


REASONS FOR DELAY
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, the minister knows that the year's extension was not in keeping with the general agreement that was to be signed namely, that there was to be a general secondary phase agreement. Why is it just one year rather than the normal general agreement that had been signed earlier? Is it because cabinet has not authorized additional money? If we take a look at some other supplementary agreements, they are not being signed either. Why the delay in this matter?


Pierre De Bané: The delay is certainly not for the reasons outlined by the hon. member, Madam Speaker. It is so that both governments can study what the best avenues are to continue development of the north.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the CBC, and it is supplementary to an earlier one. It relates to the provisions for coverage of the Summit conference.

June 29, 1981
Oral Questions
A very substantial investment has been made in plant and equipment under the original CBC host broadcast proposal. In the arrangements with CTV to act as host broadcaster is it the intent that all of that equipment which CBC built be dismantled and the money spent be paid back to the government as planned, or is it the intent that CTV take over that equipment and use it as host broadcaster? If that is the case, the government will put the NABET CTV technicians in a position that they must not work because they will be in a sympathy strike position.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should know that the organization for the Summit is not in the hands of the Minister of Communications. It is in the hands of another department. As far as the CBC is concerned, I believe that it took the only position it could take at this stage, that it would try to see to it that the Summit was covered. The only way to do so was to ask its technicians for a guarantee that they would allow it to proceed if the CBC did proceed with coverage. In the absence of such guarantees I do not believe that the CBC had any other option but to release its hold on the Summit as the host for the conference, and to allow the Summit organizers to retain other people to bring coverage to Canadians and to the world.


ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN CORPORATION AND SUMMIT ORGANIZERS
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I asked the question specifically of the minister responsible for the CBC because it is a labour question within the CBC. Perhaps I can repeat the question because it has not been answered. Is it the minister's understanding that when CBC released its host obligations that it intended the equipment which it has, paid for by the government, be turned over and used by the Summit, or is it not to be used? The minister will know that if the CBC does that, the NABET technicians at CTV will be put in a position whereby they must not work because of the work stoppage existing at the CBC by NABET technicians. It originates because the CBC was granted the deal in a sweetheart way rather than the government understanding that it would be offering these things in the beginning to all broadcasters.


Francis Fox: Madam speaker, I will be pleased to check into the details of the arrangement between the CBC and the organization for the Summit. As the hon. member knows, this government does not interfere in the normal operations of the CBC. The CBC, when it has labour relations problems, is responsible for negotiating those problems, and that is what the CBC is endeavouring to do.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In April the minister received a report which indicated that foreign domestics working in Canada are contributing $2 million a year in the form of payments to unemployment insurance and the Canada Pension Plan, yet domestics are not able to collect benefits from either of these programs. Given that these people are not the most affluent in the country, what steps has the minister taken to correct that iniquitous situation?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the purpose of the report was that it be used as a basis for discussion by a wide variety of groups, including my colleagues and members of provincial governments, to determine how we could revise regulations relating to domestic workers. That report has now been distributed. A number of replies have come in during the past month or two and we are looking at them. I hope that we will be able to bring forward a series of changes and reforms by September of this year.


PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS MADE BY FOREIGN DOMESTICS
David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, approvals of applications for domestics are only being registered, I understand, for those domestics who are prepared to live in the home of an employer. Applications of domestics in the country for renewals, or new applications for domestics who want to work in Canada but live outside the employer's home are not being processed. Would the minister explain the reasons for that kind of a decision?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, that has been the state of affairs for several years now. As I said, I am looking at that particular issue in the report as to what are the requirements. There is no specific requirement to stay within the home itself, that is the basis for the application to come into the country. I indicated about a month or so ago that if a domestic runs into problems with an employer and wants assistance to go to another place of employment, the individual should contact the local office of the employment commission and we will provide advice and assistance in making that move.


GARRISON DIVERSION
Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of External Affairs but since he appears to
June 29, 1981

have left the House I will direct it either to the acting minister or to the Prime Minister, if I can get his attention.
It has to do with the question of the Garrison diversion project in North Dakota. The United States Congress may be very near the process of overturning a recent court judgment on the Garrison question. If that is done it would allow further construction to take place. Is the government prepared to allow an all-party committee of the House of Commons, made up of a member from each party together with a member of the provincial legislature of Manitoba, to appear in Washington before the various committees dealing with this issue so that the concerns of the province of Manitoba may be carried directly to the politicians who are making the decision at that particular level in Congress?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, if I might answer as the Acting Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, on the occasion of the meeting with the President of the United States the matter was raised, as well as with the external affairs minister. They have received assurances from the new American administration that there will be no action taken on the Garrison diversion that will in any way endanger Canadian waters. That seems to be a very firm assurance. Therefore it would not require the kind of representation the hon. member is suggesting.


LOBBYING OF UNITED STATES CONGRESS
Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, that is exactly the same line being given to almost every representation made to Washington by any Canadian official. Frankly, people from the province of Manitoba, certainly members of Parliament, are getting sick and tired of that kind of official line. It is not working. Obviously construction does, from time to time, take place. I will repeat the essence of my question. Is the government prepared to allow a committee to go to Washington to lobby directly with the Congress of the United States on this very matter? That seems to be the only thing that would work. If we do not do that, the Garrison diversion may become a fait accompli.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I again suggest to the hon. member that he is raising false expectations. Very firm assurances have been given. I met personally with representatives of different groups in Manitoba which deal with or are concerned about the matters of Garrison. Their fears and anxieties are not nearly as severe as those of the hon. member. They realize that a very firm commitment has been given. There has been no action taken whatsoever to extend the present project. We must deal through official channels until proven wrong. In this case, the good faith is being lived up to.
Committee Reports AIR TRANSPORT


MEASURES TO PREVENT WORK SLOWDOWNS BY AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the United States air traffic controllers union will appeal a federal district judges' decision upholding a 1970 injunction against a work slowdown, and in view of the fact a work slowdown at airports creates utter chaos in passenger services, will the minister ensure that no work slowdowns of air traffic controllers will take place in Canada and, if necessary, make such work slowdowns illegal?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the air controllers in Canada are still under an injunction. Therefore, should they proceed to do anything which is not according to contract, the injunction would apply. I want to emphasize that we are, nevertheless, trying to get a good working relationship with the air controllers. Bill C-65, the superannuation for air controllers bill which was passed last Thursday, is a good indication of the willingness of this House and the Canadian government to deal with them in a fair fashion.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the fifty-seventh report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Watson.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[Stage Direction]
June 29, 1981
Introduction of Bills PETITION

Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by 630 Canadians resident in British Columbia. It is a petition that was circulated by the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association concerning the landing fees at Vancouver International Airport and other major airports which have been tripled from $1.65 to $5 each. This is particularly important because no alternative landing site to Vancouver International Airport has been provided, as has been done at some other airports. The petition asks for a delay in the imposition of the new fees pending a complete review.


ANIMAL DISEASE AND PROTECTION ACT
Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-70, to amend the Animal Disease and Protection Act.


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

[ Translation]

Pierre Bussières: for leave to introduce Bill C-71, to amend the International Development Association Act.


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

Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-72, to amend the National Housing Act.


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

Francis Fox: for leave to introduce Bill C-73, to amend the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act.


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

Francis Fox: for leave to introduce Bill C-74, to authorize financial assistance to be provided to certain international financial institutions.


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

Francis Fox: for leave to introduce Bill C-75, respecting a Home Insulation Program for certain provinces in Canada.


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

Francis Fox: for leave to introduce Bill C-76, respecting a Home Insulation Program for certain Maritime Provinces in Canada.


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


June 29, 1981

Francis Fox: for leave to introduce Bill C-77, respecting oil conservation and the substitution for oil of other energy sources.


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

Francis Fox: for leave to introduce Bill C-78, to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code.


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

[ Translation]

Francis Fox: for leave to introduce Bill C-79, to amend the Veterans' Land Act and to amend the Veterans Benefit Act in consequence thereof.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,298, 2,353, 2,354, 2,355, 2,356, 2,560, 2,591, 2,602, 2,603, 2,604, 2,606, 2,619, 2,620 and 2,621.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Igor Gouzenko recommended for the Order of Canada and, if so (a) on what date (b) was the award turned down and, if so, for what reason?
Order Paper Questions
2.	Does the government consider Igor Gouzenko to be a man who performed great and considerable service to the national interest of Canada?


David Michael Collenette: 1. Recommendations for the appointment of Canadian citizens to membership in the Order of Canada are made directly to His Excellency, the Governor General, by the independent advisory council of the order which is chaired by the Chief Justice of Canada. Any Canadian may make nominations for consideration by the advisory council. The whole process, which is conducted by the Chancellery of Canadian Orders and Decorations at Government House, is confidential. The government has no role in the nomination or selection process.
2. Yes.


Mr. Deans: 1.	Did the Foreign Investment Review Agency conduct a yearly review to determine the fulfilment of all short-term and long-term commitments made by Murata Manufacturing Company at the time of approval by FIRA?
2.	For each year since the approval, did the company live up to all public commitments and, if not, what (a) commitments were not lived up to (b) action was taken by FIRA to insist that the original commitments be fulfilled by the company?
3.	Were new commitments agreed to by FIRA and, if so, what were they and were they kept?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned: 1. The investment proposal was allowed on April 10, 1980, and the agency's annual review of undertakings commenced on or about April 10, 1981, but is not yet completed.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Deans: 1.	Did the Foreign Investment Review Agency conduct a yearly review to determine the fulfilment of all short-term and long-term commitments made by Avco Canadian Engineering Ltd. at the time of approval by FIRA?
2.	For each year since the approval, did the company live up to all public commitments and, if not, what (a) commitments were not lived up to (b) action was taken by FIRA to insist that the original commitments be fulfilled by the company?
3.	Were new commitments agreed to by FIRA and, if so, what were they and were they kept?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned: 1. The investment proposal was allowed on March 27, 1980, but Avco Canadian Engineering Ltd. has informed FIRA that they have not implemented their investment.
2. Not applicable.

June 29, 1981
Order Paper Questions
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Deans: 1.	Did the Foreign Investment Review Agency conduct a yearly review to determine the fulfilment of all short-term and long-term commitments made by Butler Service Group Inc. at the time of approval by FIRA?
2.	For each year since the approval, did the company live up to ail public commitments and, if not, what (a) commitments were not lived up to (b) action was taken by FIRA to insist that the original commitments be fulfilled by the company?
3.	Were new commitments agreed to by FIRA and, if so, what were they and were they kept?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned: 1. The investment proposal was allowed on March 12, 1980, and the agency's annual review of undertakings commenced on or about March 12, 1981, but is not yet completed.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Deans: 1.	Did the Foreign Investment Review Agency conduct a yearly review to determine the fulfilment of all short-term and long-term commitments made by Nokia Products Ltd. at the time of approval by FIRA on March 28, 1980?
2.	For each year since the approval, did the company live up to all public commitments and, if not, what (a) commitments were not lived up to (b) action was taken by FIRA to insist that the original commitments be fulfilled by the company?
3.	Were new commitments agreed to by FIRA and, if so, what were they and were they kept?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned: 1. The investment proposal was allowed on March 27, 1980, and the agency's annual review of undertakings commenced on or about March 27, 1981, but is not yet completed.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	(a) Was Mr. Jim Roche described in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of May 23, 1981, as "executive assistant to Transport Minister Jean-Luc Pepin" (b) does Mr. Roche hold a position in the Department of Transport and, if so (i) which position (ii) what are the qualifications for the position (iii) what qualifications does he have, such as a university degree or experience in the private sector or government?
2.	Does Mr. Roche or any other non-elected officer in the Department of Transport or the government have authorization to announce legislative changes to be made to the National Harbours Board Act or to any other act of Parliament?
3.	(a) Did the Minister of Transport instruct Mr. Roche to announce changes in the National Harbours Board Act, as reported in the Halifax Chronicie-
Heraid of May 23, 1981, (b) was Mr. Roche authorized by the President of the Privy Council or by any other cabinet minister to announce when amendments to the act would be introduced in the House of Commons?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1, 2 and 3. Mr. Jim Roche is executive assistant to the Minister of Transport and as such assists the minister as directed. Mr. Roche was appointed to his position following post-graduate education and service with a previous minister of transport.


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of Public Works issue a contract in the amount of $150,000 to Day Personnel Advertising, Toronto, and, if so (a) were public tenders called (b) what services were to be provided (c) what was the name of each bidder and the amount of each bid submitted (d) what are the names of the principals of the company?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: awarded a contract to Day Personnel Advertising, Toronto, on behalf of the Department of Public Works, for an amount of $150,000.
(a)	No.
(b)	To purchase media space to meet the requirements of DPW for announcements to run at the end of April, 1981, and the beginning of May, 1981, and to place orders for space for announcements due to commence in June, 1981.
(c)	N/a.
(d)	Mr. A. Day and VOBCO Management Inc.


Mr. Stewart: 1.	Did Le Groupe des Communicateurs receive $280,000 from the Department of Justice for advertising services and, if so, what services were provided?
2.	Were public tenders called and, if so, in each case, what was the name of the bidder and the amount?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. DSS
awarded a contract to Le Groupe des Communicateurs, on behalf of the Department of Justice, for the amount of $280,000. The services provided were for the development of a creative concept, media information and rationales in support of program objectives as approved by the Canadian Unity Information Office.
2. No.


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of Employment and Immigration award a contract in the amount of $15,300 for writing services to Wordsmith, Ottawa, and, if so (a) what are the names of the principals of the company (b) what services were provided?
June 29, 1981


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: DSS awarded a contract to Wordsmith, Ottawa, Ontario, on behalf of Employment and Immigration Canada. The total value of the contract was $15,300.
(a)	The principal of the company is: Miss Tunder Nemeth, President.
(b)	The contract was for the provision of editing, layout and final production of camera ready copy.


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of the Environment lease a Piper Aerostar 601A aircraft from Buffalo Airways for $68,277 and, if so (a) what was the duration of the charter (b) for how many hours over how many days?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: A contract was awarded by DSS to Buffalo Airways Ltd., Fort Smith, N.W.T. on behalf of Environment Canada. The value of the contract was $68,277.
(a)	The period of the contract was from May 25, 1981, to August 10, 1981.
(b)	A minimum utilization of three hours per day for a total of 234 hours during the period of the contract (78 days).


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of the Environment charter an Astar 3500 helicopter at Schefferville, Quebec, from Sealand Helicopters Ltd. for $50,000 and, if so, what was the (a) duration of the charter (b) total number of hours over how many days?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: A contract was awarded by DSS to Sealand Helicopters Ltd. St. John's Newfoundland, on behalf of the Department of Environment. The value of the contract was $50,000.
(a)	The period of the contract was from June 15, 1981, to July 15, 1981.
(b)	A minimum utilization of 75 flying hours during the period of the contract (31 days).


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of Supply and Services contract with Scottish and York Insurance Co., Montreal, in the amount of $651,000, for the provision of commercial insurance services and, if so, which chattels and/or persons were insured?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Yes. The contract was for the provision of insurance coverage for the personal effects and belongings of public servants, members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP transferred to other geographical locations in Canada.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of Supply and Services contract with Northumberland General Insurance Co., Edmonton, in the amount of $651,000, for the provision of commercial insurance services and, if so, which chattels and/or persons were insured?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
Department of Supply and Services awarded a contract to Northumberland General Insurance Co., Edmonton, Alberta. The value of the contract was $651,000.
The contract was for the provision of insurance coverage for the personal effects and belongings of public servants, members of the Canadian Armed Services and the RCMP transferred to other geographical locations in Canada.



DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development charter a Britten Norman BN2A-27 Islander aircraft from Wolverine Air Ltd., Fort Simpson, and, if so (a) for what purpose (b) for how many flying hours (c) over how many days?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: contract was awarded by DSS to Wolverine Air Ltd., Fort Simpson, N.W.T. on behalf of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The value of the contract was $72,000.
(a)	The contract was for the charter of one Britten Norman BN2A-27 Islander Aircraft based at Fort Simpson, N.W.T. to transport personnel, equipment and supplies for the detection and suppression of forest fires.
(b)	As estimated utilization of 270 flying hours.
(c)	The period of the contract was from May 16, 1981, to August 15, 1981, (93 days).



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if questions Nos. 2,053, and 2,521 could be made orders for returns these returns would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 2,053 and 2,521 be deemed to have been made orders for returns?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 29, 1981
Order Paper Questions



COMMUNITY SERVICES CONTRIBUTION PROGRAM

Mr. Lewis: 1.	What is the definition, under the Community Services Contribution Program, that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation uses for (a) soft (b) hard services?
2.	Which of the following are soft services and which are hard services using such definitions (a) sewer (b) water (c) storms (d) social and cultural facilities (e) recreational facilities (f) neighbourhood improvements (g) municipal buildings (h) fire (/) housing?
3.	If there are no definitions for hard and soft services under the program, what definitions does CMHC suggest are normally used for the terms?
4.	What were the final allocations for (a) 1979 (b) 1980 under the program by (i) program year (ii) province (iii) type of project (iv) community receiving allocation (v) amount of contribution in dollars?
Return tabled.



CANADIANS HOLDING TOP POSITIONS AT UNITED NATIONS AND ITS AGENCIES

Mr. Fretz: How many Canadians hold top positions in the United Nations and in its agencies such as UNICEF, HABITAT, the World Bank, etc. and, in each case (a) what is his/her name and position (b) is he/she seconded, on sabbatical or a permanent employee (c) which department or non-governmental organization (NGO) does he/she represent?
Return tabled.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Stevens:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I was wondering whether the parliamentary secretary could indicate why we have not received a reply to questions Nos. 1,774 and 1,775 which were put on the Order Paper last November 20?


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I cannot give any specific reason at this point in time, but I will look into the matter for the hon. member.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Again, Madam Speaker, I would ask the parliamentary secretary whether he can indicate why question No. 2,042, which was put on the Order Paper January 29, five months ago, has not been answered? It deals with the Prime Minister's December-January world tour and the expenses therefor.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I have to give the same answer.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether he can give any indication when questions Nos. 1,548 and 1,557, placed on the Order Paper on October 6 and October 7, will be answered? The first relates to airport improvements at the
Victoria International Airport, and the other relates to the exempt staff of the leader of the government in the Senate. Both are very simple questions I would have thought, particularly since the airport improvements are, I understand, almost terminated, and I am sure the exempt staff should be well known since the cheques are being issued.


David Michael Collenette: I will look into that too, Madam Speaker.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Francis Fox: that Bill C-37, to amend the Holidays Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
He said: Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech I would like to echo the remarks expressed in the House earlier this afternoon by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the House leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Knowles), and extend my condolences to the family of Terry Fox.

I think we all know that Terry Fox's bravery and stamina have made an indelible impression on this country, and particularly on the youth of this nation. His deed and his name will live to inspire young Canadians. His courage knew no barriers and exceeded all bounds. I am honoured to have the opportunity on Friday to announce the opening of the Canada Youth Centre in Ottawa which will bear the name of Terry Fox. I can think of no name more appropriate for a Canadian youth centre than the name of a young Canadian who has shown so much courage and so much commitment to his country.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I would now like to bring to the attention of all members of the House the importance of Bill C-37, to amend the Holidays Act. The bill, as we all know, received first reading on June 19, 1980, just a little more than a year ago today.
As hon. members of the House know, many attempts have been made over the years to change formally the name of that special national day on our calendar when we as Canadians proudly celebrate the founding of our nation.
I do not want to give a detailed legislative history concerning the subject, but I would like to point out that since 1966 some 22 private members' bills have been introduced concern-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HOLIDAYS ACT
[Stage Direction]
June 29, 1981
[Stage Direction]
ing the name of our July 1 holiday. This underlines the continuing interest shown by numerous members of Parliament and governments over the years in changing the name of our national anniversary to reflect more accurately our true sense of national identity.
An act of Parliament in 1879, 12 years after confederation, first established July 1 as a legal holiday under the name of "Dominion Day". The word "dominion" was the term which had been adopted at the time of confederation, some say at the suggestion of Sir Leonard Tilley, to refer to the union of the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick into one political entity. The term, as we all know, was taken from Psalm 72:8 "He shall have dominion from sea to sea". In fact, the choosing of that psalm in 1867 showed a degree of optimism. It was to take many more years, the building of a great railway and the influx of thousands of new citizens from other lands before Canada could truly reach a mari usque ad mare.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker, the word "dominion" has always created problems for us and they are rather well known. According to Grolier's Encyclopedia Canadiana, and I quote:
One of the difficulties it creates is that it has no satisfactory equivalent in French.
They indicate that over the past ten or twenty years people have had a tendency to avoid using it, opting instead for adjectives such as "federal" or "national".
Professor W. L. Morton shares that point of view. He states that "Dominion of Canada" is an historic expansion which does not mean much in English and even less in French when it is translated by "Puissance du Canada". According to Professor Morton, and I quote his translated opinion:
Failure to define precisely-and with the required solemnity-what was in gestation, namely a new country in the British Empire, was at the source of much confusion in the minds of Canadians.
The word "dominion" was used for the first time in 1867 to designate Canada. Before that it had been used for Virginia, then a British colony, which was described as a former dominion. After the birth of confederation, the British were to use it to designate New Zealand in 1907. And in the Statute of Westminster of 1931, that word applied all at once to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland. The word "dominion", which seemed appropriate at the time of confederation, has certainly lost some relevance with the passage of time. Canada has changed drastically over the past 114 years. The same thing goes for the way Canadians look upon themselves.
[Stage Direction]
Little more than a century ago, Canada had just begun to take its first faltering steps as a sovereign nation. Canada's national identity was only beginning to emerge. Our evolution has been from a colonial entity, part of a great and far-reaching empire, to a mature nation, a mature nation assuming an important place within the family of nations. We have, indeed,
Holidays Act
come a long way from what Sir John A. Macdonald referred to as "a subordinate kingdom in the empire". Even that great empire from which we grew has itself evolved. Today that empire has become a Commonwealth of Nations, each equal in status.
This evolution, with respect both to Commonwealth members and to Canada in particular, has been a natural and progressive process. Moreover, a necessary part of this process has involved the reappraisal of the various symbols of our nationhood in order to ensure that such symbols properly reflect our attitudes and collective sense of identity as a sovereign and mature people.
Since the end of World War II Canada has steadily moved away from the word "dominion". This has not been motivated, as some may suggest, by a rejection of our heritage. Rather, it has been a manifestation of our need for a more modern and, perhaps more accurate description of our national self. Today Canadians see themselves not as citizens of a dominion-with its suggestion of control, dominance and colonialism-but as citizens of a proud and independent nation, Canada.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: Consequently, it is time, after 114 years of nationhood, to adopt for ourselves a truly Canadian day on which to celebrate, together, the anniversary of our nation's birth.
The name for this day must surely reflect the true nature of our collective identity. It must reflect the self-image which, I am sure all hon. members will agree, is already deeply and securely entrenched in the consciousness of today's Canadians. It must reflect, in a formal way, the consensus which exists across this land, reaffirming who we are and what we have become.
The annual observance of Canada's national day is a relatively recent phenomenon. Between 1868 and 1958 our national day was celebrated on precisely three occasions-once in 1868, again in 1917 marking the fiftieth anniversary of confederation and again in 1927 on the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary, or diamond jubilee, of confederation.
[ Translation]
Since 1958, Canada's national holiday has always been celebrated on Parliament Hill, except in 1976, when there were no great festivities to mark that day, even though there was a citizenship award ceremony. So we can say that since 1958, we have always celebrated our national holiday.

It has now become customary throughout Canada to talk of July 1 as "Canada Day". Indeed, the words "Canada Day" are used by literally millions of Canadians in all parts of the country in referring to our national day.
I think it would be fair to suggest that the word "dominion" means very little to present generations of Canadians to whom colonial days are past history. This is not a reflection on the words "Dominion Day" or on that honourable and historical

June 29, 1981
Holidays Act
title, "Dominion of Canada". The phrase "Dominion of Canada" has been a proud and worthy appellation but, as the Montreal Gazette said in an editorial on March 10 of this year, and 1 quote:
The word "dominion" does have a secure and honoured place in Canada's history. But not all historical labels remain accurate; this one certainly has not.
At the time of confederation the word "dominion" was hit upon as a new coinage to describe a country which was not, in fact, a sovereign state (as Canada was not in 1867).
But for the past 50 years Canada has been, in all but a narrow constitutional technicality... a truly independent nation. It should not retain a label which was coined to describe a colonial link.
Furthermore, "dominion" is not nearly as felicitous a word in French as in English. For French-speaking Canadians it is a verbal oddity which serves mainly to inflame old colonial wounds.
It is time to retire "Dominion Day" gracefully in favour of a name of July 1 which surely no one can find objectionable, Canada Day.
Surely it is time to call our national day by the name by which this country is recognized at home and abroad- Canada. Such recognition is in keeping with the growing sense of national consciousness shared by all Canadians.
Once again the Parliament of Canada is called upon to act on behalf of all citizens of this nation to change the official designation of Canada's most important national holiday. Will this call to action be answered, as in the past, by indecision? Will 1981 be added to the long list of dates whereon recognition of our national identity was once again proposed and once again denied? In proposing that the Holidays Act be amended to change "Dominion Day" to "Canada Day", Parliament is asked for no more than formalization of the consensus on this matter which already exists among the vast majority of the people of Canada.
Undoubtedly there will be some Canadians who will question or will even oppose such a change. It was not that long ago that similar concerns were voiced when proposals were brought forward to give Canada its own truly Canadian flag. Yet in the relatively brief period since its adoption by Parliament in 1964 our flag has become a proud and universally cherished symbol of our national identity.
On July 1, 1980 we proclaimed "O Canada" as our national anthem. Hon. members will agree with me that the adoption of national symbols is part of our growth process as a nation. The year 1981 could be the year we decide to make more relevant that one day of the year on which we celebrate the anniversary of Canada's birth.
This bill is representative of the pride we have in this great country called Canada. It is symbolic of the hope we have for the future of the Canadian people, the future which will be built by Canadians for Canada. It is fitting, therefore, that the special day on our national calendar when we Canadians proudly celebrate not only the founding and past of our nation but also the strength of its future should be called "Canada Day".
Undoubtedly there will be some hon. members who will speak in opposition to this bill.


Mr. Neil:: You bet.


Mr. Gamble:: You can count on that.


Francis Fox: Hon. members opposite say, "You bet". Their party has spoken of constitutional change and wants constitutional change to take place in Canada by consensus, but the refusal of some hon. members to make even the most minute change, such as changing the words "Dominion Day" to "Canada Day", is a clear indication of the attitude of some hon. members opposite which would see any kind of evolution in this country paralysed. I know that is not the general I attitude of hon. members opposite, but it surely is the attitude of some.
I call upon all hon. members of this House to act, hopefully by giving approval to the proposal that henceforth July 1 be known and celebrated with pride by all Canadians as "Canada Day".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of attention to the fitting and appropriate opening of the speech of the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) a few moments ago when he referred to Mr. Terry Fox, but I express a sense of true sorrow that in the latter part of his speech he departed from that magnificent view he has of a person who was a magnificent Canadian and sullied that view by an attempt-I think in the wrong way-to raise a sense of partisanship about an issue which is important to the country.
At the outset let me say that I associate myself completely with the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the words today of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the words of my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), about the importance to our country of the contribution which has been made by Mr. Fox to that sense of togetherness as a nation for which we all continue to strive. I applaud wholeheartedly and without reservation the steps the government has taken to establish in the name of Mr. Terry Fox a youth centre here in the national capital. I join with every Canadian in recognizing the appropriateness of Mr. Fox being named a member of the Order of Canada.
When the news of his death came on Sunday morning, it occurred to me that there was a sense of grief shared in this country in the same way and to the same degree that there was a sense of joy at his undertaking and the great success of his undertaking. It was grief over his being removed from this earth when he had made a contribution larger than anyone could make after a full life. Canada's birthday on July 1 will be dulled somewhat by the fact he will not be here to celebrate it with us.
That brings something else to mind. He has demonstrated, 1 think in a very humane, direct and understandable way, the importance of the concept that this country is greater than the sum of its parts, and that there is a depth of humanity, courage and determination in ordinary Canadians that sur-
June 29, 1981

prises us all from time to time. As Canadians we have a great duty to treat everything, including national symbols and their creation, with respect. I hope that will be the spirit of this debate as we talk about an important symbol, a name for a day.
I do not agree with Professor Morton who, in effect, said Dominion Day is only an historical term, with emphasis on "only". To many Canadians it is much more than that. I do not agree with those who say that the 22 private members' bills over the years, given the way they are dealt with in this House, is a way for us to consider and determine absolutely, without reservation, that the time has come to act. I intend to speak about that a little later.
However, the government has brought in a bill, the first time since I have been here that this matter has been dealt with as a government bill, and I intend to deal with it that way. The bill before us prescribes a change in the name of our national holiday which the government and many Canadians would like to see. Equally so, it is a change many Canadians do not want to see. This difference of views is one which the Parliament not only should but has a duty to consider carefully. We are not debating a law in the ordinary sense of defining a code of justice or a standard of behaviour; we are judging the patriotic response Canadians give to the long standing and legal name of our national holiday, Dominion Day, as contrasted with the proposed name Canada Day.
I believe that before we make this change the government must satisfy the House that the overwhelming majority of Canadians will respond enthusiastically. They must show there will not be millions of Canadians who will feel they were irrationally robbed of the benefits of an imaginative compromise reached by the Fathers of Confederation in 1867. It will not be enough to say that we are simply confirming current usage.
We all know the promotion of the change is government policy, and the name-in-waiting has been vigorously pushed through government usage and ad campaigns. Dominion Day is never mentioned. All around us the government's propaganda machine talks of Canada's day and sometimes, very daringly, of Canada Day.
We might ask: Why bother about the bill at all? The government has abandoned Dominion Day without legislation. Perhaps the legal change will save money by eliminating the need for a yearly advertising campaign. It is really right that the name Canada Day, reasonable as it may seem as a name for Canada's day, should be imposed by the government and its advertising? Must the answer to that question inevitably be yes? If it is to win the hearts and minds of Canadians, should it not emerge from Canadians themselves? Is it really proper to adopt the name by executive decision in majority vote without consulting Canadians themselves? Is it proper to drum it into the Canadian people as an accomplished fact by lavish advertising, and then introduce a bill on the pretence that everyone seems to want it anyway? Symbols of nationalism should emerge from the people. We should be sure that
Holidays Act
Canadians want this change before we impose it on them. Is it unreasonable to be sure before we act, Mr. Speaker?
According to the government the change is desirable for three reasons. First, Canadians use Canada Day all the time anyway. I suggest that even if Canadians feel uncomfortable with Dominion Day, it is reasonable to ask if a spontaneous cry has gone up for Canada Day across the nation. It is reasonable to suspect instead that it is part of a government inspired larger pattern over the past 15 years of putting "Canada" in front of, behind and on top of every agency, body, function or activity of government in this country.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


Walter David Baker: Second, we are told it is perfectly natural to name the national holiday after the nation. Well, it may be natural but, oddly enough, it is not common around the world. I did a survey among Commonwealth nations. I have to tell my friends that Australia has called their holiday Australia Day since 1901. Apparently they have no hang-ups over that; it is their tradition.
However, New Zealand called their day Waitangi Day, or New Zealand Day synonymously. Quite a controversy surrounding the day has arisen in New Zealand because it commemorates the ceding of Maori lands to the British on February 6, 1840. The native people are very sensitive to the symbolism and the land issue there. When they tried to change it to New Zealand Day there was a great deal of protest. The preference of the majority is for Waitangi Day.
India has two national holidays. They call one Independence Day, August 14; and Republic Day on January 26, commemorating their constitution. In Nigeria, October 4 is National Day and it has never been called anything else. If you go to Great Britain, it is not called England Day, English Day or even United Kingdom Day. It is called St. George's Day. That happens to be a holiday when they do not close the shops or anything like that but they celebrate the great tradition of St. George. There is another day there called the Queen's birthday. It is not a holiday but it is celebrated on the closest Saturday to the Trooping of the Colour ceremony. So, Mr. Speaker, if the Secretary of State's argument is that it is traditional, I have to say with respect that he is wrong.
Then thirdly, Mr. Speaker, we are told that "dominion" conjures up the wrong spirit among Canadians, that there is something wrong with the word. There maybe something in that, and I will return to it in a moment. There are some good arguments for calling July 1 Canada Day. Whether or not the demand for the change is spontaneous, which I doubt, it is not inevitable that a country's holiday should bear the name of the country.
I have mentioned St. George's Day and the Queen's birthday. In France it is Bastille Day; in the United States it is Independence Day. There is a reason for those names. Each of those names in those countries evokes a moment of glory or a decision from the nation's past. It is a reason for a celebration.

June 29, 1981
Holidays Act
To say U.S. Day, England Day or France Day, would tell us nothing except that people are more likely to be at the beach than at home. Should we not consider whether Canada Day, instead of being inevitable and obvious, is perhaps somewhat sterile, neutral and dull?


An hon. Member:: And plastic.


Walter David Baker: Perhaps plastic. I wonder whether we have not finally satisfied the national mania for playing cute name games with the name of our country and threatening to kill our reverence for it by overuse. Things used to be described as they were. Now we sacrifice description in favour of making the obvious point that this is Canada. Obviously this is Canada.
We are no longer content to refer to the Department of Transport, the Bureau of Statistics or Dominion Day. It must be Transport Canada, Statistics Canada and Canada Day. I suspect somebody will bring in a proposal which will shock the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; they will call this place "Commons Canada". The hon. member for Mount Royal will be very fortunate if he does not become "Canada Prime". Perhaps the Secretary of State will become "Canada Sect State". I am glad he smiles. Let us seriously think for a moment whether we have not had enough of this cloying, homogenizing cuteness. Let us assume this year that we are Canadians and start describing things as they are.
It may be that the term "Dominion Day" leaves many Canadians unmoved or puzzled. We all know its origins in the Seventy-Second Psalm, as the Secretary of State said, and of Sir Leonard Tilley's imagination in choosing it as a replacement for the unacceptable word "kingdom", as part of a compromise at the beginning of the country in 1867. If we look at the meanings of "dominion" in the Oxford English Dictionary, we can see the problem. There are six different definitions, including one referring to its incorporation in key statutes here in Canada.


Mr. Evans:: Read them.


Walter David Baker: I will. The first one is:
The power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority; lordship, sovereignty; rule, sway; control, influence.
This is the word "dominion" about which I am talking.


Francis Fox: What is it in French?


Walter David Baker: There is here a sense of someone controlling something. Since we do not wish to celebrate being controlled, obviously this definition is not the relevant one. The second one is:
The lands or dominions of the feudal lord.
This is unsuitable unless we accept the Prime Minister as a feudal lord. Perhaps some hon. members opposite accept him as a feudal lord.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A funeral lord.


Walter David Baker: Some would wish that he would be accepted as a funeral lord. The other part of that definition reads:
The territory owned by or subject to a king or ruler, or under a particular government or control.
This is obviously our sense of the word as Canadians. In fact the Canadian usage is the prime modern example given by the Oxford Dictionary for this meaning. This is how we use it, as Oxford defines it. The other meanings listed are: "ownership, property; right of possession" and "domination". I think they are also unsuitable.
Reading the usage of the word in the Oxford English Dictionary drives home a number of points. First, the word is no longer in common usage in most of its meanings. Second, most of the meanings refer to domination rather than freedom. Third, for its usage in the Canadian sense, Canada itself is listed as the example. It would not be surprising if many Canadians were unsure of the appropriation of the word as a description of a free and independent nation of the twentieth century. It ought not to surprise any of us.
Does it follow that our use of an unusual word should be ended? When Sir Leonard Tilley chose that word, he did what most of us do every day as politicians. He racked his brains and pulled out a word which allowed the Fathers of Confederation to reach a compromise. Perhaps it was the final compromise of three years of colonial diplomacy leading to confederation. It was a compromise which has not lost all of its validity, even if the word is more out of the ordinary now than it was then. It nicely describes our government as one grounded in the traditions of constitutional monarchy but separate and free. It recalls the Christian-Judean tradition which underlies the faith of our ancestors and much that is worth preserving in our present culture. Not least, its usage is identifiably Canadian. As a description of the legal and emotional basis of Canada, the word "dominion" has had meaning for Canadians for over a century.
The government would like us to believe that this is a simple housekeeping issue. Well, it is not. Hon. members opposite would have us believe that the name "Dominion Day" has no merit at all and that "Canada Day" is the natural replacement. I have tried to show why .1 believe the issue is not quite that simple. I wish it was, but it is not. Dominion Day may be confusing or outdated to some Canadians.


John Leslie Evans: Obsolete.


Walter David Baker: Or obsolete to some Canadians, as my hon. friend says. But whether or not hon. members opposite like it, it is rooted in the history and traditions of Canada. Canada Day may appear patriotic and inevitable, but it does not tell us what it is about our country or its history that we are celebrating on that day. We are not celebrating the name; we are celebrating something much more profound. We are celebrating a concept.
A former member of the other place, Senator Eugene Forsey, said it best in a speech to the Men's and Women's Canadian Clubs of Edmonton on June 19, 1956. 1 think these
June 29, 1981

comments are worth while for every Canadian to remember when they are talking about the concept of what is embodied in Dominion Day or Canada Day, indeed in the country. The question put was: What do we celebrate? He answered it this way:
Dominion Day celebrates one of the greatest feats of modern history: the making of a new nation, and a new kind of nation, by a handful of people of differing origins, differing languages, differing creeds, differing histories and differing interests, and in the face of obstacles that might well have daunted the boldest and most resolute statesmen. Everything was against them. The country was huge; most of it was empty; the Americans were pressing in upon the territories of the Hudson's Bay Company, threatening to cut off the new Dominion from any expansion West or North. There was hardly any industry: manufactured goods came overwhelmingly from Britain, and to central Canada for five months of the year through American ports, so that at any moment the Americans could strangle the economic life of Ontario and Quebec.
Central Canada and the Maritimes knew little of each other, and many Maritimers feared "Upper Canadian" domination. Communications were poor: there was no railway from the Maritimes to central Canada, and, what was worse, the main central Canadian railway, the Grand Trunk, came in from the United States and went out into the United States. If the Fathers of Confederation had followed their economic interests, there would have been no Confederation. They would not have gone to Charlottetown, and from Charlottetown to Quebec. They would have gone to Washington, and asked to be let into the American Union.
Then something happened which he describes as "A Supreme Act of Faith". He said:
Confederation was a supreme act of faith, faith that defied geography, defied economics, defied the "manifest destiny" of the Americans to rule the whole continent from the Rio Grande to the North Pole.
Faith in what? In something beyond economics, beyond the material; faith that the British North American colonies had a heritage worth preserving, worth developing, worth paying an economic price for; faith that on this rock our people could build a great nation, part of a great Commonwealth.
We sometimes forget two of the basic things that mark Canada off from every other country in the Americas. First, she is the only American nation which has deliberately chosen not to break with its past, both French and British. The most important thing for Canadians about the American Revolution is that we refused to have anything to do with it. We deliberately chose to keep our roots and draw nourishment from them. Confederation reaffirmed that choice.
I believe in the spirit of those words. We owe it to the Canadians whom we represent to proceed thoughtfully. There is no need for sudden deadlines. Canada will be around, we all pray, for a long time.
This is not the first time the symbols of Canadian identity have been debated in this House. Perhaps we can learn a bit from the past debate. Even those of us who were not here at the time remember the anger and the acrimony of the flag debate. It all started reasonably sanely, with a committee examining several possibilities. At one time a flag was emerging. It had two blue bars and a red maple leaf. However, the emerging consensus was lost.
A second committee recommended the present flag and it was imposed by the government. It is not worth arguing as to whether our present flag is completely entrenched in our consciousness, but it is clear that in its early history a great deal of hostility had to be overcome, not just from those who preferred to salute the old flag, but from those who wanted the first new flag. Canadians have come to accept the maple leaf
Holidays Act
but not without a large commitment of funds for free flags, pins and advertising.
We have just finished almost all of the Constitution debate. Again a package has been imposed. Again many feel our best constitutional and legal traditions have been needlessly violated. Once again the public is being bombarded with advertising, to persuade it not only to embrace, but to demand, the new order. Even if the Supreme Court finds the package barely legal, lawyers will be fighting over the constitutional provisions for a generation.
Now Dominion Day is to become Canada Day, not by emergence or consensus, but by contentious legislation backed by clever advertising.
Next year, July 1, 1982, we could see the most absurd evidence of this wrongheaded approach to forging a national identity. On Canada Day, a name approved by this House over the objections of millions of Canadians, our national flag, created by this House over the objections of millions of Canadians, will be raised to salute our new Constitution- perhaps certified as barely legal after being guillotined through Parliament.
Is this creative nation-building? Is this the stuff of pride, partiotism and inspiration? Or is it the stuff of cynicism, manipulation and force?


John Leslie Evans: It is the stuff of Parliament.


Walter David Baker: The hon. member opposite interrupts, but I will ignore him as usual. One paradox which may even strike the hon. member opposite if he is alert is that at next year's celebration the crowds will be singing our national anthem in two entirely different languages, with the English-language singers struggling to remember changes made in the wording of a song accepted in its old version for 50 years, and the other language group singing the version used for generations. But no one will be bitter; no one will feel frustrated and ignored.
Why? Because when we confirmed "O Canada" as our national anthem on June 27 last year and made some wording changes, we concluded a process which has been open and deliberate, a process which had been going on for a great many years involving this institution, and I think rightly so. That is why that bill passed last year in the way in which it did. That is why we had that marvellous ceremony on the Hill last July 1-because the evolutionary approach to national symbols had been utilized by the government. I pray it uses it with respect to all symbols.
We drew explicitly on the unanimous recommendations of a committee which reported on February 16, 1968, only three years after the destructive and acrimonious flag debate. Canadians had been heard. They agreed with the changes. There was little dissent and there is no bitterness. Every one of us who was here on that Friday afternoon rose and sang together, each in his own way, in his own language, but with the same feeling, the national anthem which had been proclaimed on that day. That is the model of co-operation we

June 29, 1981
Holidays Act
should look to. Our symbols of common nationhood should not be conceived in controversy and preserved to remind us of our quarrels. They should emerge from the spontaneous sentiment of Canadians and remind us of our common triumphs as a peaceful and productive people.
I suggest that this bill should not be passed-not right away, at least. We should send the subject matter to a committee, listen with respect to the views of Canadians, and then debate a new bill based on our conclusions. We may, after consideration, decide that we want "Canada Day". We may see the link to our history in "Dominion Day". We could opt for "Confederation Day" or "Dominion of Canada Day" or any other name evocative of a proud moment in our history.
I think it is important that we do this, and do it in the right way, having regard to the best traditions which we have established in this Parliament, the culmination of which took place prior to July 1, 1980.
I feel so strongly about the evolutionary approach to the development of national symbols that I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after "that" and by substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-37 an act to amend the Holidays Act, be not now read a second time
but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on
Communications and Culture."
It is important that we begin this process and carry this process the right way. I think this suggestion that I have made will satisfy most that the Parliament of Canada will not act precipitously, but, rather, will gather unto itself the views of Canadians so that we can have, at some day in the reasonably near future, the same kind of celebration and the same kind of proclamation with respect to the name which we would apply to July I in each year as we now use with respect to the National Anthem. This is the course of wisdom. I grant you, Mr. Speaker, it is not the course of speed, but it is the course of wisdom.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words today in support of changing Dominion Day to Canada Day. I do so by reflecting back a number of years ago and thinking of the words which were said in this House by the Conservative House leader, that we need an evolutionary approach toward changing national symbols. I happen to agree fully with the leader of the House for the Conservative party that we need an evolutionary approach. We need a national consensus. We need input from Canadians. We have to democratize this institution and other institutions of Canada so that ordinary people will have their voices heard.
I was speaking earlier this morning about that issue through the House leader of my party, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He reminded me that in the year I was born 1946, or perhaps 1947-


An hon. Member:: You are not sure when you were born?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -an hon. member of this House, a Mr. Cote from the riding of Matapedia-Matane, introduced a private member's bill to the House of Commons requesting that we change Dominion Day to Canada Day. Does Your Honour know what happened with the private member's bill some 35 years ago? It was passed by the House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All three readings.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: All readings in the House were passed by the House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All in one day!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says, they were passed all in one day. Not only was the bill passed, with a few members perhaps objecting verbally as it went through, but it was passed unanimously, with all members of the Conservative party, the Liberal party, the CCF party in those days, the Social Credit party, supporting unanimously the private member's resolution to change the name of Dominion Day to Canada Day.
Does Your Honour know what then happened? The democratic process ended in the Senate and the Senate said "no" to changing the name of our day from Dominion Day to Canada Day.


An hon. Member:: Let us put Walter Baker in the Senate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We had democracy thwarted in the Senate of Canada some 35 years ago.
I fully endorse the evolutionary approach to national symbols enunciated by the Tory opposition leader today. However, I think we have had that process. We went through all stages, except for the archaic Senate, in 1946 or 1947. I think that ever since then the overwhelming majority of Canadians I have met anywhere in the country have said to me, "Why do we not come into the modern era and change the name of our national day to Canada Day?" On behalf of our party, I want to plead strongly that cause with my friends in the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I also want to say that I recognize that some people, a very distinct minority of people in this country, now feel very strongly about Dominion Day, because Dominion Day for many people in this country symbolizes a link to the British past and to the British Commonwealth. I can say, as half of my family background came from England back in the early part of this century, that for many people that link is very important. I think a link has to continue with Britain and with the British Commonwealth. However, I believe we can do that in many other ways. I believe that changing the name of the day would not sever that relationship which is so important to many Canadians. I think that what it would do instead would be to allow Canadians of British ancestry to feel proud of Canada, along with people of French Canadian ancestry and people who come from other countries of the world which have no historic ties with either Britain or France. I believe it
June 29, 1981

is very important that all of us unite around this symbol, and this symbol is Canada Day.
I listened with interest as well to the House leader of the Conservative party when the spoke about "Why Canada Day?" In France, it is "Bastille Day", and not "France Day"; in Britain, it is "St. George's Day", and so on. I found his argument very interesting, except that I have searched my mind for an alternative but I do not really see any alternative.
I fear that perhaps someone might want to call it "Constitution Day" at some time.


An hon. Member:: "Trudeau Day".


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: "Confederation Day" was mentioned. One Liberal across the way mentioned "Trudeau Day". However, I think of all those alternatives. The only one in which there is a broad consensus across Canada is calling it Canada Day to symbolize the country from coast to coast.
Much has been said about the contribution which was made to this country by Terry Fox, his courage and vision. This was referred to as well both by the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) and the opposition House leader. I want to associate ourselves with that courage and vision which Terry Fox showed Canadians. I think he showed us a number of things; but one thing he showed us in his Marathon of Hope, the run from Newfoundland to British Columbia which, of course, he had to abandon about two-thirds of the way across the country, is that Canada is bound together by some pretty strong threads, and that we are all Canadians. Even though we are diverse and we have our disagreements, we are still all Canadians. I think that in honour of people like Terry Fox, the rest of us should stop arguing and bickering once we reach a major consensus, and at least agree very quickly on the bill which is before the House today.
The other thing I wanted to say, in conclusion, is that symbols are very important. The national flag of this country is very important and the National Anthem of Canada is very important. I think the name of Canada Day will be very important. However, even though these symbols are very important, it is crucial that we also try to define for ourselves what Canada really means. What kind of a country are we? What kind of a country do we want to become?
In the past our pioneers did very well in creating a country which was basically open, free and democratic. In doing this, they often sailed against the tide, they climbed many long hills, and many people fell by the wayside during those struggles. We have to pick up the torch of many of these pioneers and look back at what they practised. What they practised, when they spoke about Canada and dreamt about Canada, was a country which was built on co-operation, on sharing, on freedom and on democracy. What we should be doing in the future is instilling some of those principles in the Canada of tomorrow. Because I do not think we can build a Canada if we are going continuously to have confrontation after confrontation between various governments and regions. We have to recognize that this country is immensely diverse, that we can cherish that diversity, that we can have harmony in that
Holidays Act
diversity, that people are different one province from the other, and that in the modern world of today people are proud of their differences and their diversity.
In the modern world today people will be expecting to have more control over their own lives and to have a more democratic Canada-I mean that in the true sense of democracy- because I believe that in this country Parliament, or this government, and many other institutions are becoming less and less democratic. People are having less and less input over their lives. I think people are now demanding that they have more meaningful input over the direction of their country, that there be more localized democracy, that people's differences be allowed to flourish.
Are those differences we are developing a unique state called Canada? We are not the great melting pot the United States is to the south of us. We are not trying to create one Canadian from coast to coast who is similar and speaks the same language, who eats the same food, who goes to bed at the same time every night and who practises the same culture. We have to be proud of our differences, and we have many, many differences.
As well as being proud of our differences and diversities, when it comes to co-operation we have to learn more from the past and from our pioneers. Co-operation built this country in the early days. It was a dream of people working together. It did not matter whether they spoke the French language or the English language. Later on people from many lands, with diverse backgrounds co-operated in building a great state. We have to apply that principle to some of the complex problems that we are facing today, such as revenue sharing, energy and constitution building. These are the things that will cause us a great deal of strain in the next few years to which some of these principles should be applied.
Lastly I want to mention the principle of sharing. This country was also built on sharing. My own province of Saskatchewan in the 1930s and 1940s was almost bankrupt. Many of the things that were accomplished then were accomplished, in part, because of the sharing we had in this country. For example, we had an equalization plan, a Crowsnest Pass rate agreement which helped farmers to sell their grain at lower costs, and a Canadian price for oil so we could get a better price for the oil we produced. Some of these things helped to build my province and helped to build the west.
In the Canada of tomorrow, I think we will have to remember that we must continue to share so that we have equality of conditions in each and every province and each and every region. If we can do that, if we can recognize our diversity, allow it to flourish and to grow, then I think there will be less friction and fewer suspicions. If we can co-operate and work together, recognize that we are multicultural and a bilingual country, and combine that with a real sense of wanting to share things so that we can use some of the new found wealth in western Canada to help the Newfoundlanders and perhaps use some of the wealth that is still in Ontario to help people in

June 29, 1981
Holidays Act
the Atlantic provinces, then, in the long run, all of Canada will benefit.
Finally, we should be putting more emphasis and stress on making all of our institutions truly democratic so that Canadians from all walks of life have a real input into what Canada should be. If some of these things could be done, then perhaps some of the visions and the courage which Terry Fox had would, in the future, be rewarded with actual legislation in Canada.
Yesterday I happened to hear an open-line show which was discussing the impact Terry Fox had on this country. Many people said positive things about his courage, his determination, his spiritual and emotional strength. But one lady really summed it up by saying that this is all fine and well, but if we really want to do something for his memory, then legislators in this country should do something to solve some of the causes that he stood for.
I believe that in this House we can resolve some of the problems he stood for. We can do a lot more to bring Canada together and to unite this country. We could be putting more funds into things such as cancer research and aid to the disabled than we are. We could be building a Canada of hope for the future where everyone, regardless of one's background, would have a much fairer chance at an equal and happy life.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, may I also commence my remarks by adding my own word of distress at the news of the death of Terry Fox. If I can coin a phrase from my comrades in the legion, it is that "we shall not forget".
I am very proud to have the opportunity to speak today in support of Bill C-37, an act to amend the Holidays Act. This is a bill to officially entitle July 1 "Canada Day". Is it not strange that we should be debating such a bill 114 years after the original July 1 when our great country of Canada was born? I must admit that I always found it strange that July 1 could be called by any other name but Canada Day.
The House leader of the Official Opposition when speaking on this bill said there is no need for sudden deadlines. He said the bill should not be passed, not right away at least. He stated that we should not act precipitously. The Conservative party is, as usual, trying to have the best of both worlds. The Conservative party will not let the bill pass, but it will try to stay onside by suggesting that the subject matter be sent to a committee. In the nine years that I have been a member of this House, we have done just that, but to what avail? Let me put on the record today some of the events that have taken place.
As I said, I found it strange that we could designate July 1 by any other name but Canada Day. On October 15, 1974, I tabled Bill C-231 in this House for first reading. That bill came up for debate on March 14, 1975. At the end of the debate on March 14, 1975, the subject matter of the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. That bill was essentially the same bill as the one we are debating today, a bill to name July 1 Canada Day.
On October 14, 1975, the then secretary of state, the Hon. James Hugh Faulkner, said, as reported in Hansard at page 8158:
The government feels that the majority of Canadians accept the terminology Canada Day/Fete du Canada.
The subject matter of Bill C-231, to which I have referred, came up for discussion in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on Tuesday, February 24, 1976. Unfortunately, the opposition did not see fit to let a report come back to the House of Commons.
We tried again. On October 22, 1976, I introduced Bill C-373, an act to amend the Holidays Act, again in an attempt, if possible, to designate officially July 1 as Canada Day. That one did not go very far.
On December 21, 1976, the secretary of state introduced Bill C-30, with exactly the same intent. That bill was entitled "an act respecting certain holidays".
Still carrying on in the same effort to achieve one small step for Canada, we tried again on October 30, 1978, when we introduced Bill C-232, with exactly the same objective. The bill was entitled "an Act to amend the Holidays Act". This bill came up for debate on November 30, 1978. If I can quote one sentence from my remarks, as reported in Hansard at page 1669,1 said:
-what this bill seeks to do is regularize a situation which for all practical purposes is a fait accompli. In most parts of the country the July 1 holiday is at the present time designated Canada Day.
Bill C-232 arrived in the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration where it was debated on March 7, 1979. At the end of the debate it was finally reported back to the House. We now seemed to be making some progress. On March 13, 1979, one week later, in this House, I moved:
-that Bill C-232, to amend the Holidays Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, be concurred in.
That motion was agreed to, whereupon I then moved "that the bill be read the third time and do pass". Debate followed and members of the Official Opposition talked out the motion so that it could not be brought to a vote. So much for our House rules.
We tried again on May 2, 1980, when we inroduced bill C-201, an act to amend the Holidays Act. I wrote a note to the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox). I quote:
Attached is a copy of Bill C-201, an act to "legalize" the terminology "Canada Day". This Bill has been introduced in every Session in the last several years and has always been "talked out" by a half dozen Conservative MPs who are vehemently opposed to the change.
It should be recognized that even a government Bill brought before the House to achieve the same objective, cannot expect to be passed without closure or lengthy debate.
It is an example of the power of a very small minority that is able to block the passage of legislation that can obtain all-party support and would pass a House vote with an overwhelming majority.
It is appropriate today to recall some of the comments over the years in our nation's press. On June 29, 1963, a lead
June 29, 1981

editorial in the Pembroke Observer was entitled "Wanted: A new name for Canadian birthday". A July 2, 1963, Kingston newspaper states: "There is nothing wrong with the term 'Canada Day' ", An article in the April 29, 1970, Globe and Mail was entitled "Canada Day title tops in poll". I quote from that article:
-president of Canada Jaycees told a press conference... that Edmonton residents polled were 90 per cent in favour of Canada Day-
I quote from the October 6, 1969, Regina Leader-Post:
-the Saskatchewan Jaycees ... are trying to get the national holiday renamed Canada Day.
An article in the April 15, 1970 Toronto Telegram asked the question in the leader "Why not Canada Day?". I quote from that article:
We . .. have our own flag, also a national anthem ... so why not a distinctive name for our birthday that no longer reflects filial piety for Britain?
On June 30, 1970-
[ Translation]
-in Le Devoir under the title Next year, Canada Day.
Then I read:
A private bill introduced in the Commons proposes to call this day Canada Day. This year, as before, Canadians will take advantage of this day to play golf, or to take to the parks, the beach or the road.

A week later in the July 6, 1970 Montreal Gazette reference was made to the attempt in 1946, which was referred to by the previous speaker, to change the name. I quote from the article:
Since then, a number of MPs have tried their hands at a Canada Day bill...
. . . this year-or next-things may be different.
I quote from the May 5, 1972, Montreal Gazette:
Canadians will probably celebrate the upcoming July 1 as "Canada Day" for the first time in the nation's history.
We can always live in hope. On May 5, 1972-

-in La Presse, July 1st would be Canada Day.

An article in the May 8, 1972, Ottawa Citizen was entitled "Make it Canada Day". In the July 15, 1972, Financial Post there is a reference in the lead to Canada Day celebrations. Not to forget the newspapers of my own constituency, the April 24, 1975, News & Chronicle, an English newspaper in my constituency, carried an article headlined "Pierrefonds plans Canada Day". So it is abundantly evident that the press has long since accepted the terminology Canada Day.
I would like in my brief remarks to make reference to a document entitled "Canada Day: A Conception, an Approach and a Proposal". This document was prepared for the Department of the Secretary of State by Betty Weinstein, Ruben Nelson and Paul-Emile Lamy. It is dated October 30, 1979. I wish to quote from it briefly.
We recommend ... as ... basic principles . .. Canada Day belongs to Canadians ... not to... governments . .. Canada Day (should) be an occasion for Canadians to enjoy themselves and have fun by participating in recreational,
Holidays Act
popular, cultural and community activities ... Canada Day (would) be non-ideological.. . non-partisan and non-political.
In the recommendations we read:
The Government of Canada should undertake to create a Canada Day organization-
Canadian TV stations should broadcast entirely Canadian programming on July 1.
Canadian radio stations should broadcast a larger percentage of Canadian music on July 1.
Radio Canada International should present special programming on Canada Day.
Popular events should be organized on the Hill and throughout the country.
Canadian embassies and consulates should give a simple reception for Canadian citizens on the morning of July 1.
The National Museums should hold an open house on July 1 and use the occasion to make the work of Canadian artists known.
Early in the last great war I came to Canada to train as a pilot. After the war I returned with my family to settle in Canada. I chose Quebec. Despite all the economic and social turmoil in Quebec today, I do not regret that original choice and would very happily make the same decision again today. I am very proud to call Quebec my province. I am especially proud of the very warm reception that I always receive in the constituency of Vaudreuil, the region of Canada which I represent in this House. However, being a proud Quebecer makes me no less proud to wear a flag of Canada pin, to wave our Canadian flag, to sing our national anthem "O Canada" and to speak out loudly of this country, Canada, that surely is the finest country in the world in which anyone can live.
It saddens me that members of the official opposition try to hang on to the past instead of building with pride for the future. Fortunately their attempts to continue our colonial status are already doomed to failure. Those who hang on to their antiquated memories can talk out this bill, but I in company with a huge majority of the 24 million persons who proudly call themselves Canadians will sing loudly and proudly their national anthem "O Canada" on Wednesday of this week, July 1, 1981, Canada Day.
Some hon. Miembers: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in rising to comment on Bill C-37 I want to associate myself first of all with the comments by all speakers today regarding the courage of Terry Fox. I think one aspect of his life that has not been mentioned sufficiently in this House was the fact that not only was he a person of great courage and spirit, but he reflected very clearly in the last period of his life the deep faith he had which sustained him. I think it is also important in terms of the young people of Canada that this young person could express very clearly his faith in God and was able to express that faith to the whole world.
When one relates this bill to the situation in Canada today one might ask whether this is the right period of time to change the name from Dominion Day to Canada Day. On the one hand, with the constitutional debate that has been going on in the country over the last year or so one might argue that

June 29, 1981
Holidays Act
this is an auspicious time to do this, that it is a natural follow-up to the year's activities. On the other hand, one might ask whether it is the natural thing to do in view of the fact that the whole constitutional question is still in limbo, in doubt and before the Supreme Court.
One thing we can say is that Canadians, unhappily after this last year, are more divided in terms of the symbols of the country than when we started this year. There is no doubt about that. So I question whether at this stage it is auspicious for us to add more to the whole concept of change in terms of our national institutions, symbols and our Constitution.
Let me say to the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) that I found it rather interesting that he talked about the rules of this House and that it said so much for the rules of this House that a member of the opposition had talked out previous bills. 1 think if the hon. member looked at this record honestly he probably would find he is the record holder in this House for talking out private members' bills, and I question whether he was being very sincere when he said the bill had been talked out and derided the very rules he has used so adequately and so well in the past. Maybe he applies this only to his own bills and not to other private members' bills.
What is before us today is how we preserve from the past which is best, and how we also prepare plans and take steps to create in Canada the symbols needed for the future? Is there a happy middle ground for those two views? I am sure all members of this House would agree that our symbols are to be those that best reflect the Canada of today. In order to best reflect the Canada of today those symbols and words must also have a bearing on the past. In other words, a symbol cannot stand in isolation in an immediate time-frame; a symbol must also have its sustenance in, and have been built on, the foundation of the past.
What worries me about this bill is not necessarily what it purports to do but the manner in which it purports to do it. That is, if you are not for the bill somehow you might be against Canada, you are against change or you do not want national institutions changed. At least as I view the bill, that is not the question that is before us, but rather how do we best preserve that which has been and build for the future. That is the issue. It is for that reason I believe, with all respect to the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) that his motivation for the bill is wrong. I have no question about his sincerity in wanting to change Dominion Day to Canada Day.


An hon. Member:: You don't understand the bill.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Just a minute. Let me finish and I will read it to you. If you have a few minutes I will tell you all about it.
The motivation of the Secretary of State is clearly spelled out in both his speech today and the press conference he has given as carried by the Canadian Press. The changes he wants are related to this statement: "We are no longer a colony of the British empire". That is the motivation. In other words, anything that might smack of the past, by natural extension, is colonial. Therefore everything we change in this House is valid, new and relevant. I reject that kind of thinking.
I do not believe that because something has been preserved over many years it is, first of all, obsolete. Second, I do not believe that people can look to the future without looking back as well. In Roman times there was a two-headed, two-faced figure.


An hon. Member:: A Conservative.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He might have been a Conservative, and if he was I give him credit because he was successful. The point of the symbol was this. He both looked to the past and to the future, which indicates there can be no future without having looked to the past. That is the issue I want to relate to today.
When one looks at the Canada of 1864, and even before then-


An hon. Member:: Get up-to-date.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If you want to speak and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the House leader give you time, you should rise on your feet. I am sure it would be a new experience for you.
Canada in that period of time had many small isolated communities clinging basically to the 49th parallel. In addition, it was a country made up of people who had vision for the future and wanted to create the country on the basis of the experience they had either in the old countries or in this country. That is the kind of people they were.
The word "dominion" in itself is not a word that should be denigrated in this House. It should not have any demeaning connotations put to it such as I have heard today. It should not be regarded as colonial. I do not understand why members would feel that word is negative. Most of us who obtained our education in this country were given a very special sense of pride. When we saw a map of Canada with the countries around it shown in various colours, the one colour Canada generally had was red and across it was printed "The Dominion of Canada".


An hon. Member:: Liberal red.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It might have been Liberal red, if that makes you feel better. What made me feel good was that it was a Dominion of Canada that belonged to all of us. Having said that, I do not know why that attitude should necessarily be thrown in the ash can today.
The Canada of that period was a Canada under attack. In the United States the argument of manifest destiny was very strong. It was an attitude that saw the United States expand its territory to the Pacific, both through war and through land acquisition.
In 1858, twelve years before Manitoba, with a population of
11,000,	became known as the postage stamp province, a resolution was passed in the Minnesota state legislature indicating a desire by the legislators of that period to annex Red River. There were other places in this country which went through that same type of turmoil during that period of time.
June 29, 198

With respect to the name chosen for our country, if we read the journals of that period we find there was much debate on what the name should be. Should it just be "Canada"? Should it be the "Kingdom of Canada"? The resolution finally proposed the "Dominion of Canada".
It has already been stated here that Psalm 72:8 was the basis. I want to dwell on that for a minute because not only is it found in Psalm 72:8 but the ancient prophet Zechariah also spoke of the same words and uttered the same words. The name had a very religious meaning to the people of that period of time. It was felt that He, not the Prime Minister of Canada and not even the Monarch in the same sense, was to be supreme and sovereign. He should have dominion from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth. No matter how much people want to denigrate that, that remains part of our history.
I for one do not believe we as people or as legislators do service to the present generation or future generations by hanging crepe over the word and saying it does not apply or that it is colonial and that therefore we must end its use. I do not think we serve ourselves or future generations by doing that.
The sovereignty which is inherent in those verses was important not only for religious reasons but also for political reasons. I want to deal with that for just a minute. I say openly that I am indebted to Senator Eugene Forsey for much of the material to which I am going to refer. My House leader also referred to it. I will not quote it, but I believe Senator Forsey-some 25 years ago, in fact-put forward some very cogent arguments as to why Dominion Day had meaning. First, I believe the words "Dominion Day" had a religious connotation; and if we are people who believe that faith does not change and principles do not change, then that principle still remains today and is still valid today. That is the first point.
Second, the material pointed out to everyone that the Fathers of Confederation felt that Canada had a manifest destiny. While we might have gone about it in a way different from that of our American friends to the south, we also had a manifest destiny, and that manifest destiny was also to create a dominion. From how far to how far? From sea to sea. We did it through means other than those used by our American friends. We allowed provinces in. My own province comes to mind. Because of its area and economic base one might have said it was not yet qualified to become a province in 1870. However it was allowed in. Why? Because the Fathers of Confederation knew that if the manifest of the Canadian people was to be realized, they would have to bring in these colonies and make them feel part of the dominion.
I say with a great amount of pride that I believe that the concept of dominion from sea to sea went even further in the time of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, not because he was a member of the party I support but because I think Canadians generally recognized that he developed that concept one step further. He developed it to the northern sea. We were a
Holidays Act
people who had our manifest destiny, and it was as valid as the manifest destiny of those to the south of us.
There was another reason why the word was chosen. The Fathers of Confederation wanted a constitutional form of government similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom. Perhaps it is here that I have the greatest difficulty with the argument of the Secretary of State. The reason I have difficulty with his argument is not because of his sincere desire to want to change the word and because he feels that "Canada Day" better reflects Canada today. What it seems to be based on is that the principles we inherited from the United Kingdom somehow have not served us well. I say they have served us well.
Some hon. Members; Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If we believe this country is bilingual and therefore say that that is valid to preserve, and if we go further and say that this country is multicultural and therefore it is valid to preserve those cultures, then why is it suddenly not valid to preserve a basic culture which has been so influential not just in this country but right around the world? If one takes a look at a constitution which is to be similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom, where better can we reflect it than in this Parliament or in the parliamentary system? Surely all members of this House, regardless of what background they come from, will argue with every breath they have that this is the best system under which we can serve the people who elect us. Surely there are defenders of the parliamentary system in this House who will argue that this is the best system.
Oh, yes, there might be a need for change, and I have a few changes in mind myself.


Francis Fox: You have to be kidding. There is no need for change on your side.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: However, if someone wants to argue that this system and the principles on which it is founded are wrong, yes, he will have arguments from me and many others as well.


Francis Fox: Come on, don't change anything.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: There was another reason that the word "dominion" had importance for the Fathers of Confederation. Over this last year we have been arguing in the constitutional committee, in this House and across the country about the balance between the powers needed by a federal, national, central government and the powers of a province or the provinces. In the United States an argument developed for a long period of time over the so-called concept of states' rights, namely, that the individual states had exclusive powers and that they would simply devolve certain powers to the central government for the benefit of the entire nation.
The word "dominion" in Canada had another concept. The Fathers of Confederation wanted a strong national government. Residual powers would remain with the federal government, and I have always been a believer in that. The Fathers of Confederation understood and knew that if the federal

June 29, 1981
Holidays Act
government did not have certain powers, that string of colonies hugging the 49th parallel not only would be faced with threats from the south but also would not have the cohesion needed to develop a country stretching from sea to sea.
As I read the journals, in the minds of the Fathers of Confederation the concept of dominion was important because of the states' rights argument they were hearing and also so that a feeling could be developed within the consciousness of the people across 3,000 miles that there was a central government which had over-all power in those areas in which it had been granted by the British North America Act.
There is another reason I believe it was important. That is the matter of a constitutional monarchy. The word "dominion" also had effect regarding the monarchy. I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, when I hear members opposite say, both in private conversation, in the newspapers and confirming it in committees that I have sat on, that they would like to see the monarchy abolished in Canada. That might not be a view held by everyone, and I am sure it is not. However, I believe they would also agree-I will not mention names today -that there are members on that side-


Some hon. Members:: Name them.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -who very clearly have said-


An hon. Member:: That is a smear.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, it is not a smear. They have said very clearly in the press that within two years of the passing of the Constitution that they would be able to-
[ Translation]


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing a bill which, in fact, could be summed up in two lines. The bill proposes to change the name of the July 1 holiday, as found in the Holidays Act, from Dominion Day to Canada Day. The hon. member, on the other hand, is talking about the abolition of the monarchy in Canada, which is certainly not the topic under discussion today. I would ask the Chair to call the hon. member to order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. As we have indicated on various occasions and as pointed out by hon. members, I was waiting to hear the remarks of the hon. member to see if they had any bearing on the bill before the House. Generally speaking, if I understand his arguments correctly, the hon. member is afraid that if this bill is passed, further steps could be taken in that direction. Those are the remarks I have heard, and that is why I should like to hear the hon. member further.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether this is a question of privilege or a point of order, but clearly the remarks of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) contravene the House rules as laid out in Beauchesne's Citation 316. A few moments ago he imputed bad motives to members on this side to the effect that some on this side wanted to do away with the monarchy. I would remind you that according to Citation 316(g) it is also out of order for any member, while speaking, to-
-use the Sovereign's name for the purpose of influencing a debate;-
I think it is very shameful that the hon. member for Provencher is breaking the rules of this House by bringing in the Sovereign's name and imputing bad motives to members on this side as to their views on the constitutional monarchy.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is a very interesting citation because it says:
Besides the prohibitions contained in S.O. 35, it has been sanctioned by usage that a member, while speaking, must not:
(g) use the Sovereign's name for the purpose of influencing a debate;-
What the hon. gentleman was referring to, of course, was the institution of the monarchy. It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, as you know, that the same rule provides in paragraph (b) that he must not-
-refer to any debate in the Senate-
Early today I heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the oracle of Delphi, refer to a private member's bill which had been debated and dealt with in a rather unceremonious way in the Senate. The Chair, quite rightly, did not call the hon. member to order because he wanted to continue the debate. This is hardly a point of order either, and I suggest, with respect, that the Chair might dispose of it in the same way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I think hon. members wanted to express their differences on the manner in which the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) expressed himself, but I cannot find a point of order on this matter.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I regret the members opposite do not know their members better, or their attitude and views.


An hon. Member:: We know you better.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: However, I am sure that if they were to ask the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimaiel), he would be able to confirm the quotes that have been in the papers.


David Michael Collenette: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Provencher has mentioned the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimaiel) directly, and I would like to reserve the right to have the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean raise a question of privilege at a later date. I will draw these remarks to his attention.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The parliamentary secretary's remarks are well taken.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather interesting that the members opposite feel that as long as one is referring to the word "dominion" they think we are not referring to the bill. Maybe they do not like the argument, and they can hold that
June 29, 1981

position, but we are talking very specifically about what the word "dominion" itself means. I said that I feel the constitutional monarchy in this country is not only to preserve but to enhance. 1 believe also that, for many of us whose background is neither French nor English, it has been the constitutional monarchy which has enabled us-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. After hearing the previous arguments, I would ask the hon. member to convince me that he is referring to the bill before the House.
1 was listening to the hon. member with the thought that he was saying that if we do adopt this bill we would eventually be trying to abolish the monarchy. I think he is now debating it as if we had before us a bill to abolish the monarchy. That is not before the House, so I would invite him him to speak on this bill.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak on that issue. It is my intention to show why the word "dominion" itself, which I believe is part of this bill-in fact, if you want me to read through it you will find the word is not mentioned. It is headed "An Act to Amend the Holidays Act". What I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all members, is that the institution of a constitutional monarchy in this country has been a means of continuity and preservation of rights. That is the point I was trying to make and I would think, Mr. Speaker, you would agree that that is not only very much a central part of this bill, but a central part of the whole concept of the day we are sharing.


Francis Fox: Nonsense.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, what they want to do and have been trying to do for some period of time is to change our Canadian institution and argue that anyone who is against the change they want to make is not truly Canadian.


An hon. Member:: That is a pretty broad brush.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is a broad brush, and I meant to use it because the fact remains that they feel their concept of the country is the valid one and all others are less than valid. When one takes a look at the change the government is proposing, they will argue, to some degree rightfully, that the majority of Canadians are in favour of the change. However, if you use that argument, the majority of Canadians are also not in favour of the process the government has used for constitutional change. However, that does not stop them.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Irwin) says they are in favour of a charter. So am I and so is my party, but there is still a valid process which Parliament demands. So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the Secretary of State that I believe we and Canadians would be well served if this bill were to be taken to a committee for a specific period of time-
Adjournment Motion


Francis Fox: Let's adopt it. Second reading and let's go.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: For instance, we could use one of the proposals and call it-


An hon. Member:: Let's follow the route; let's give it second reading.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: My House leader has very clearly said what the route will be; we can go that route.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, they can make as much fun as they want or feel that a majority is always right, but the Secretary of State and Canada would be well-served if we used some period of time in committee to look at whether or not the procedure is the best we can use and whether we would use an appellation for July 1 in such a way as to preserve the past. Let us not reject simply that which has been good in the past.
And hon. Member: Let us take it to committee.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I hear the hon. member saying that we should take it to committee. That is what my House leader said. This will happen, but obviously we have the right to put the views of our constituents on the floor of the House. This is what I have done. I ask the Secretary of State to consider the manner in which he is proceeding. I believe it is wrong and is not in our best interests.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: 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 Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain)-Employment-Summer works program-Request for extension of application date deadline; the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy)-Aviation industry-Manpower training- Negotiations between government and industry; the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)-Veterans affairs-Appointment of full time minister-Decentralization of department.

June 29, 1981
11050_______________________________________
Holidays Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fox that Bill C-37, to amend the Holidays Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton) (p. 11042).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Berger).


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Berger). I used the name of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el); I attributed those remarks to the wrong person. I want to withdraw them and to apologize. The person who made those remarks was in fact the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, just to set the record straight, I take notice of the remarks of the hon. member and reserve the right of the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) to raise a question of privilege.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, in starting my comments I, too, should like to pay tribute to Terry Fox. Earlier today the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) expressed how all Canadians feel about his accomplishments and contribution to our country. The only Fitting tribute, as was indicated in several newspaper editorials, that Canadians could render to him would be to double our efforts in an attempt to find a solution to the terrible disease which cost him his life.
The bill before us seeks to replace the name "Dominion Day" with the words "Canada Day".

In French, today's bill would substitute the words "fete du Canada" for "fete du Dominion".

It is with great pleasure that I take this opportunity to suggest why the proposed change in the name of our national holiday is not only fitting but also profoundly significant.
I should like to stress three points in my comments. First, the word "dominion" has an ambiguous meaning, both legally and even in dictionaries.

Second, since the word "dominion" has no French equivalent, the act overlooks or ignores one third of Canada's population.

Third, I stress the necessity to have symbols, holidays and institutions in Canada to which all Canadians can relate.
I should like to turn to the matter of the ambiguous meaning. The word "dominion" has a time-honoured place in our nation's history, dating from the birth of confederation. The hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) and other speakers referred to this today. The name was suggested, as we are told in the history books, by Sir Leonard Tilley as an alternative to "kingdom" and was taken from the Seventy-second Psalm:
He shall have dominion also from sea to sea-
This line will always have special significance for Canadians. The phrase "from sea to sea" conveys perhaps better than any other the pride we feel in our vast land, yet the word "dominion" has an ambiguous meaning. In 1921, Prime Minister Lloyd George asked the British House of Commons:
What does Dominion Status mean?
He was speaking on a motion that the House approve the articles of agreement for a treaty between Great Britain and Ireland signed on December 6, 1921, in the opening words of which the following was stated:
Ireland shall have the same constitutional status in the Community of Nations known as the British Empire as the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa.
Mr. Lloyd George said that it was difficult and dangerous to give a definition. Indeed, he explained that at an imperial conference held earlier in the year all the dominion delegates had been anxious to avoid a rigid definition.
I see the hon. House leader of the official opposition is returning to his seat. I hope he pays some attention to my remarks because I think some of my points have significance.


Walter David Baker: Lloyd George knew my father.


David Berger: As I was saying, Lloyd George indicated in the British House of Commons in 1921 that it was difficult and dangerous to give a definition to the words "dominion status". Also he explained that at an imperial conference held earlier in the year all the dominion delegates had been anxious to avoid a rigid definition. They had felt that to define precisely was "not the way of the British Constitution". Mr. Lloyd George continued:
Many of the Premiers delivered notable speeches in the course of that Conference, emphasizing the importance of not defining too precisely what the relations of the Dominions were with ourselves, what were their powers, and what was the limit of the power of the Crown. It is something that has never been defined by an Act of Parliament, even in this country, and yet it works perfectly.
I suggest to the House leader of the official opposition that this is fine for constitutional lawyers, but a country such as Canada needs something which is more precise and has more meaning for its national holiday.
These quotations were taken from a book by K. C. Wheare, "The Statute of Westminster and Dominion Status", published in 1942. I do not intend to get into a long discourse on the meaning of "dominion status". Suffice it to say it was the term used to describe the constitutional position of the territo-
June 29, 1981

rial communities known as the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland. In his book Wheare attempts to define dominion status and the significance of the Statute of Westminster in that definition. However, in the final paragraph of his 303 page study he wrote:
It is doubtful whether the Statute has succeeded completely in the first of the tasks which, in the words of the King's Speech in 1931, it was intended to perform-"to make clear the powers of Dominion Parliaments".
That question is very much an unsettled one today.
The House leader of the opposition said that on July 1 we celebrate a concept. I take issue with that. Yes, dominion status is a concept. The extent to which the federal and provincial governments have powers in relation to the mother parliament is a concept. But Canadians need more than that when it comes to our national holiday. We need more than a concept; we need something about which we can all be proud. I suggest to the hon. member that it is hard for Canadians who are not so familiar with our constitutional past to feel pride in a concept, to get their teeth into it and to get their minds and souls into a concept.
Some references were made by the House leader of the opposition and by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) to remarks made by Senator Eugene Forsey. With all due respect, I suggest to those two hon. members that they are out of touch with reality. How many Canadians read Senator Forsey?


Walter David Baker: A great many, my dear friend.


David Berger: The hon. member answers "A great many". I suggest to him that perhaps he has talked to many high school graduates in his constituency lately. I have talked to many high school graduates and many grade school students in my constituency. It is sad to say that many of them-most of them-are lacking in a knowledge of Canadian history.


Donald W. Munro: It is not Senator Forsey's fault.


David Berger: That is correct, it is not Senator Forsey's fault. However, that is something which was not provided for in the Canadian Constitution of 1867. There was no provision for any kind of basic instruction in Canadian history. There was no provision for the Government of Canada to have any input whatsoever into the curricula of our schools. However, the sad fact remains that many young Canadians are not steeped in Canadian constitutional history, nor are they steeped in the origins of Canada by any stretch of the imagination. [Translation]
I also mentioned the fact that the word "dominion" has no equivalent in French. According to the Robert dictionary, "Dominion" means domination or power, and I quote:
Each one of the states, now independent, which makes up the British Union and whose foreign policy was inspired by the United Kingdom.
Holidays Act
[English)
I suggest to members opposite that any young Canadian who looked into a dictionary and saw this definition, which is in the Le Dictionnaire Robert, which says that Canada does not have control over its external policies, would be gravely misled. Nevertheless, this is the definition in a Canadian dictionary which is in use and which is sold in many provinces today.


Donald W. Munro: That is a French dictionary.


David Berger: The hon. member opposite says-

-a French dictionary, but the fact remains that that dictionary is used in most schools. Perhaps it will be found on the table before us today. It can be found in most bookstores in Quebec. Indeed, anyone looking up the word "Dominion" in one of those dictionaries to find out its meaning will have absolutely no idea whatsoever of its current meaning with respect to Canada.

That is the problem. The problem is that the word is fine to constitutional lawyers. The word is fine to parliamentarians who have time to reflect on the matter. However, it has no precise meaning for the vast majority of Canadians who do not have the leisure time to reflect upon great matters such as this.
The thrust of my remarks has been directed toward the necessity to have in Canada symbols, holidays and institutions to which all Canadians can relate. Not so long ago I felt that the Canadian lack of national pride was perhaps our greatest redeeming quality. The displays of emotion for flag and country as favoured by our neighbours to the south often seemed excessive to the more reserved Canadians. However, at the present time when our country is marked by division and lack of communication I feel that we need symbols to which all Canadians can relate. This is a point which I do not feel has been adequately considered by members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is an urgent need to define our country, to provide common symbols, especially in my riding of Laurier, in Montreal East, which spans St. Lawrence Boulevard, where East meets West. The national issue is urgently felt there. We put up a hard fight during the referendum campaign. Maybe that is something members opposite are not aware of, but I can tell you that the Canadian flag played a major role in our referendum victory, as Prof. Gerard Laforest pointed out so well before the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution when he said, and I quote:
Where do you think we would be if during the referendum there had not been a distinctive Canadian flag? Would you have seen those who favoured staying in this country, in Quebec holding up the Red Ensign everywhere?

June 29, 1981
Holidays Act
He also added, and I quote:
I think we very deeply need symbols in this country.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that the hon. members of the official opposition realize the war that we are waging today, at this very minute, for the hearts and minds of Quebecers. I can refer to an article which appeared in Le Droit last October 28, 1980, in which the newspaper pointed out that Quebecers, more than other Canadians, realized that the first of July was Canada's birthday. However, the study also revealed that Quebecers participated less actively than other Canadians in the celebrations for Canada's birthday. This may [DOT] perhaps be the result, or the natural result, of having another important holiday, la Fete Nationale du Quebec, which precedes it by only one week. The fact is that la Fete Nationale du Quebec was just celebrated in Quebec with a budget of over $3.5 million. This coming week, we will be celebrating Canada's birthday with a modest budget of several hundreds of thousands of dollars. I am talking about this on a provincial level. I do not think that hon. members opposite realize that particular point.
We parliamentarians here should look to the one-third of Canadians who are of neither British nor French origin. When I say one-third of Canadians, I feel that the figure is probably a lot greater than that. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition suggested that the government should wait and that it must satisfy the House that the overwhelming number of Canadians would be satisfied with this change prior to embarking upon it. He suggested that the decision should emerge from Canadians by some sort of magic.
I would suggest that the hon. members opposite have no concept of leadership, that they have no understanding of the fact that the Parliament of our country should try to set some sort of pace for the nation and not get too far ahead of it, as I think it has been said, but perhaps take a lead to show the way. It is quite obvious that they have no conception whatsoever of the importance of leadership and the importance of showing the way to other Canadians in matters of our national government. They would have us wait until the matter emerged from Canadians by some sort of osmosis. They would wait until people right across the country got up and started walking up and down the streets crying out for such a matter. I would suggest that if governments waited that long to act in any matter, there would be very little activity conducted in the affairs of any nation.
As I said previously, I would suggest to hon. members opposite that they again look to immigrants for the answer. I would like to point out to them a couple of facts. First of all, an element which characterizes my riding, in addition to its dualistic nature, is the fact that every month I receive in my office, a list of at least 100 new citizens. I would like to read out the names of some of them on the most recent list: Mrs. Ourania Voudouris; Miss Sok Than Ang; Mr. Mbang Bousso Hadji Ngarmorio; Mr. Kailesh Hasmukhabhai Gopalbhai and
Mrs. Leontina Maria Varao Macedo. I suppose I should apologize to the people whose names I have read out, because of my pronunciation. I do not know any of these people and it is likely that I did not do great justice to the pronunciation of their names. The point I wanted to stress is that every month in my constituency there are 100 people like the five people whose names I have just read out. Every month across Canada there are probably 10,000 Canadiens who become new citizens and who are looking for Canadian symbols to identify with, and who are unfortunately, not aware and have no way of being aware of the fractured history which has preceded their arrival. For these people, the word "Canada" was and is the magic word.

Canada for them is a magic word. As Naim Kattan so rightly said in "L'Arrivee":
Canada! That was the magic word that stirred in us feelings of expectation and hope as well as of worry and anguish.

I think that this House should recognize these facts and that it should recognize that the greatest thing we have in common amongst us as Canadians is Canada. It is an international word. It is a word which is recognized all over the world, in all countries and in all languages. I would suggest that it is a word which is entirely appropriate to our national day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Berger: This July 1 let us really celebrate Canada Day!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I too want to rise in my place today and speak both in favour of Canada and against Canada Day. We have had some interesting presentations here this afternoon. We have heard from the minister himself. I was disappointed to think that a minister of the Crown, the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) who is in charge of communications, could not give us a better research document than he did on the history of the words "Dominion Day" and on why we should attempt to change it. I thought that we could have had a better explanation from him. His colleague, the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) chose to give us a long litany of the bills which have been brought before the House and have been turned down for one reason or another. He then went on to give us a list of the newspaper headlines, going back many years, in which Canada Day was being proposed. Again, he made no attempt to look into the history of the words "Dominion Day" and why some of us feel the name worth preserving. I thought my colleague, the House leader of my party, took a very fair approach. He looked at this concept of changing the name from Dominion Day to Canada Day and decided that it deserved some discussion by parliamentarians, something we have not had a chance to discuss in that fashion before. The hon. member is proposing that we amend this motion before the House so that the subject matter will go before a committee, with which I certainly agree.
June 29, 1981

I thought the most telling speech that we have heard so far today was given by my colleague, the hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Epp). He gave an incisive analysis of the origins and the meanings of Dominion Day going back to 1867 when our forefathers and those who had reason to do so chose a name for this country. The hon. member for Provencher explained in a very logical way why they chose the words they did. The proof of his logic was shown by the effect he had on government members who intervened as much as they could because they were embarrassed, I would suggest, by some of the arguments which the hon. member for Provencher used.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Berger). I think he made an attempt to go into some of the early meanings of the naming of July 1. He gave his view for the reasons for change.
A piece of paper was passed to me from one of my colleagues opposite a few moments ago. The hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) handed me a definition from a French language dictionary. In this dictionary the word "dominion" is described as being an English word. This just goes to show why we have some of the problems we do in our schools. It is obvious that we have a French dictionary which tells us that the word "dominion" is an English word, and yet I can show my hon. colleague that the word is actually a French word, preserved by the English language back in the time of the King James version of the Bible. Prior to that, "dominion" was a French word. However, I will get the appropriate quotation for my colleague. It is interesting to hear the different views one can get on issues like this.
As we all know, Dominion Day is the correct, legal and official designation of July 1, as three acts of Parliament have already determined in the past. Today, with Bill C-37 and the amendment before us, we are asked to formally change the name from Dominion Day to Canada Day. Yet it is worth noting that the government has for some years now been using the appellation Canada Day and not Dominion Day in its press releases and commercials in advertising our national holiday. In short, the government has deliberately been breaking the law of the land by unilaterally, and without debate, changing the name of Canada's birthday from Dominion Day to Canada Day. There is no moral or ethical excuse for the government breaking the law of the land.
The name of former senator Eugene Forsey has been mentioned several times today. I think it is appropriate that he has been mentioned because he is the one person who has given some serious thought to the meaning of the words "Dominion Day". As most of us know here, he was a former research director for the Canadian Labour Congress. He was also a former Liberal senator. He is one of the foremost authorities on Canadian constitutional law, in spite of what my colleague from Laurier has said. Former senator Forsey, said:
-parliamentary responsible government rests on the rule of law. The government must not break the law, anymore than the ordinary person,-or rules of Parliament, anymore than your ordinary member. Majorities are not enough: they must be majorities acting within the law, within the rules.
Holidays Act
There is no denying that "Canada Day" has crept into popular usage in this country, and it is often used interchangeably with "Dominion Day", but what we are being asked to do with Bill C-37 is to make the formal change and discard a uniquely Canadian term Dominion Day forever and ever. I say this is a mistake and I have yet to see or hear a compelling or convincing argument for this change.
Bill C-37 is to erase Dominion Day from the books. In short, it attempts to turn our backs on our history, cast away our beginnings, our heritage, our tradition. Some would say that we are starting anew but, in my mind, you cannot have progress without continuity, nor continuity without progress.
A well known Canadian historian, Michael Bliss, has said:
Canadians are a people who remember their present and think it's their history.
Certainly, this is true of this government. On December 21, 1976, the then secretary of state introduced a bill into the House of Commons. It proposed, among other things, to change the name of Dominion Day to Canada Day, and Victoria Day to Queen's birthday. Victoria Day was not a holiday to celebrate any Queen's birthday; it was a holiday decreed to celebrate the birthday of a particular queen, one queen, Queen Victoria, and it is only meaningful to Canadians as Victoria Day. I bring this to the House's attention because there is and has been an assault by Liberal governments on tradition in Canada. But the moment that traditions are discarded and our heritage is ignored, the government does the society irreparable damage. I am one who believes that society is a partnership not only among those who are living but among those who are dead, and those who are to be born. Within society, there is a tremendous store of wisdom, a treasury to which it is the duty of each generation to make its characteristic contribution. By discarding traditions, one loses one's roots. Any change of the name of Dominion Day is not insignificant, since by changing a name which is rich in meaning one also changes the meaning of our national holiday. I would favour, perhaps, a "Canada Day" but not as a substitute for "Dominion Day". July 1 is celebrated because it is our birthday and only the term Dominion Day addresses this fact.
I believe in what Professor Kenneth McNaught said in the following words:
No person can be healthy if he does not know where he comes from and why he did what he did. Thus we should recall that Dominion Day was decreed to celebrate a very Canadian event and some fundamental Canadian decisions.
The minute we sever our links with the past, we lose the sense of ourselves, our country. We fall prey to building transitory and fragile sand castles which are washed away by the tides of fashion and arbitrary change, due of course to arbitrary reason. We would thus drift like tumbleweed blown to and fro, having lost our worth, or reason to be, our very life.
Why then would anyone wish a change? Well, I can think of two reasons. Either those advocates of a change are ashamed of our past and the use of the word "dominion" as it applies to our country since, of course, at its birth, our country was known as Dominion of Canada; or one may argue that the
11054

June 29, 1981
Holidays Act
term Dominion Day no longer applies to our national holiday, July 1.
I would ask if anyone is ashamed of the appellation "dominion". I would hope not. If so, I would venture to say that it would be because those people betray a lack of knowledge about Canada's historic beginnings. For some reason, and I have read the arguments, some believe that the term Dominion of Canada and hence Dominion Day is outdated, that it is tainted with the brush of colonialism. However, I would submit that a true reading of our beginnings and an understanding of Canada at its inception might lead members to conclude otherwise.
What then did the title Dominion of Canada mean to Canadians on July 1, 1867, at confederation? I turn to the front page of The Globe and Mail of that date. It reads:
We celebrate then today an event of much greater importance than the confederation merely of three or four provinces-the union of the maritime provinces with Canada. We celebrate the inauguration of a new nationality; to which are committed the interests of Christianity and civilization over a territory larger than that of the ancient Roman empire, larger, too, than the territory which is controlled by the great neighbouring republic, and with a population greater than that with which the United States began their career ninety years ago. In the duties, therefore, of the present, and in the hope and aspirations which gild our future, there is room and scope ample enough for the purest patriotism and the loftiest ambition. Let us hope that Canadians-using the word in its new and large acceptation-will worthily fulfil the duties which Providence has confided to them.
For the Fathers of Confederation and the people at the time of confederation, the term dominion did not suggest subservience, as it has been suggested a number of times by government members, nor was it British. It was distinctively Canadian, chosen by a father of confederation, Sir Leonard Tilley, from the seventy-second psalm, which reads:
He shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.
What more aptly describes Canada, which extends from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, than does dominion? Or, as the motto on our coat of arms says, a mari usque ad mare-from sea to sea.
This word dominion declared the destiny of Canada to rule from sea to sea and from the St. Lawrence River to the north pole. It is a term as rich and as meaningful today as it was then. I would submit that it was an inspired choice.
Confederation was a positive decision to create a union, monarchical in principle, parliamentary in form and traditional in spirit, a union based on peace, order and good government, which was decidedly and deliberately different from the United States. It was a supreme act of faith, defying economics, American manifest destiny and, some would say, geography. We stamped our nationhood on the northern half of the continent, calling our country the dominion of Canada.
One need only read the writings of the period to be struck by the enthusiasm for this new country which fired the imagination. The term dominion connoted an expanse of territory matched only by the scope of opportunity in this new land. It was a time for gladness, celebration, in anticipation of a
bright, noteworthy future. Laurier gave voice to this optimism later when he said, "The twentieth century belongs to Canada", speaking to the Canadian Club of Ottawa in 1904. I stress again that dominion was a made-in-Canada term and in no way did it suggest subservience or a lesser status for Canada. There is no need to be ashamed of the word dominion. Far from it.
There are others I have come across who assert that for French-speaking Canadians the word "dominion" is a verbal oddity which serves to inflame old colonial wounds, that somehow the word dominion offends Quebec. It was argued before the referendum that it was time to change Dominion Day to Canada Day and now we are told that perhaps with the coming of a new Constitution it is time now to make the change. Acknowledging that in 1867 there were basically two founding cultures, to which many others have since been added, we find that the word "dominion" is not an Anglo-Saxon word. It is actually an old French word, it had dropped out of use but was preserved in the English Bible and the English Book of Common Prayer.
The French translation of dominion is "puissance" meaning power, or "souverainete", meaning sovereignty, which the new nation Canada would have. One just has to ask the question, how can a prime minister of French and English descent, who pretends to be worried about national unity, really be serious or be believed when he is prepared to forget or ignore the historic significance of the word "dominion" as applied to our national holiday on July 1?
The word dominion, coming from the Bible, emphasizes the religious basis of the new nation. As well, it asserts lordship, the primacy of the new nation over its parts wherein Canada was to be one dominion divided into four provinces. Moreover, dominion was intended to assert Canada's adherence to the monarchy. Indeed, the first choice of the fathers was to call the new country the kingdom of Canada.
Finally, I have heard murmurings that Dominion Day is offensive to new Canadians and thus perhaps, to make them feel more at home the name should be changed to Canada Day. The hon. member for Laurier stressed this point. It puzzles me when I try to understand why a person would want to emigrate to this country knowing that our national holiday is Dominion Day and then feel betrayed on arriving here to find that the name is not Canada Day. To use that kind of argument on behalf of new Canadians astonishes me, but we hear it fairly often.
The hon. member who spoke second for the government today is not a native-born Canadian. He is a native of the United Kingdom. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), who is my Ottawa member and who is interjecting the most, is not a Canadian by birth either. I would be the last to take away the right for them to speak that way, but to think that those two members feel that strongly about the name of the country surprises me.
Immigrants come to Canada, I am sure, because they like our country, what it stands for, and our way of life. In Canada, we encourage multiculturalism and unity within diversity. We
June 29, 1981

see an excellent example of this fact in the annual Caravan Festival in Toronto. Most new Canadians retain their cultural links and roots and traditions and realize the value of these links. Surely this group of Canadians would be the last to encourage Canada to sever its links with the past, to turn its back on its heritage. I do not believe it. Moreover, as new Canadians, they knew of Canada's heritage and tradition and way of life before they chose to come here.
If there is no reason to be ashamed of the title "Dominion", why then make the change to Canada Day? Is it because dominion no longer applies? How can that be?
Why is July 1 the date of our national holiday? Quite simply, and I think we are all in agreement, it is because July 1 is Canada's birthday. We celebrate confederation on July 1 and surely it strains one's imagination to imply that Dominion Day is no longer apt. It remains historically and geographically meaningful.
Returning to the front page of the Globe on July 1, 1867, we read the following:
Stamped with a familiar name, which in the past has borne a record sufficiently honourable to entitle it to be perpetuated with a more comprehensive import, the DOMINION OF CANADA, on this First day of July, in the year of grace, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, enters on a new career of national existence.
Confederation was a union of Canadas, that is, Ontario and Quebec, formerly Upper Canada and Canada West and Lower Canada and Canada East respectively, with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The provinces joined to form, not Canada, but a new country, a larger Dominion of Canada. The Fathers of Confederation chose the term "dominion". They would not have agreed to calling July 1 Canada Day.
It is natural and only makes sense if we call July 1 Dominion Day if, of course, we refer to Canada's birthday. It is not possible to speak with accuracy of a 114th birthday without posing any question about ancestors who called themselves Canadians before confederation, whereas Dominion Day means only one thing: Canada's birthday, July 1.
Surely the point of having a national holiday at all is to celebrate our country, its history past and present. Canada Day would change the meaning of our national holiday. The term Canada Day is alien to confederation, a time when Canadians spoke of the grandiose Dominion of Canada. One of the great failings of Canadians is that many do not have a strong sense of our history and surely the purpose of a national holiday is to sit back and reflect and appreciate our history and where we have come from. Yet now we are asked to cast our history aside and to banish the name Dominion Day forever.
The proposal to change the formal appellation of Dominion Day to Canada Day unfortunately is not an isolated incident or issue but is becoming increasingly characteristic of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who places abstract reasoning above prescription and tradition, though we all know he has a well-developed concern for the judgment of history in relation to himself. We are witnessing arrogance. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the government stand on the Constitution,
Holidays Act
nor in the famous, or should I say infamous, interview on New Year's Eve with the Prime Minister when he said essentially that if the country were to break up because of what his government was trying to do-


Francis Fox: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are debating Bill C-37 which proposes to change the name Dominion Day to Canada Day. We are not talking about a whole series of unrelated events that the hon. member wishes to raise during the course of this debate because he has nothing to say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order please. The remarks of the Secretary of State are well taken. The Chair is always lenient and listens to the argument from both sides. After listening attentively to the hon. member for Provencher, I invited him to address his remarks to the bill, which is to change the name of one day. I invite the hon. member for Oxford to do the same.


Gordon Edward Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely in a debate you can use illustrations to prove the point you are making. The Secretary of State referred to the flag debate which had nothing to do with this debate. I suggest every time we touch on a vital point, members opposite raise a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being six o'clock p.m. I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six 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 six o'clock, the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) had the floor.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, prior to our recessing at the supper hour I was making some comments about the fact that there are certain traditions in this country which I feel at times are being lost. I was discussing the use of the words "Dominion Day" to designate our national holiday as being one of those traditions. I was comparing it to some changes to the Constitution we have been faced with and suggested this was a parallel situation. The Secretary of State took exception to that on a point of order.
Be that as it may, I would like to proceed with the thought in mind that Canada Day itself as a term is not rooted in any kind of tradition. It is abstract and means very little to most Canadians. However, we could institute a new holiday, a new national holiday choosing to call it Canada Day rather than heritage day as has been proposed in the past. Dominion Day, on the other hand, is rich in meaning to many Canadians. It is correct and it is entirely appropriate as well.
The hon. member for Vaudreuil when speaking this afternoon made reference to the fact that it was passing strange to

June 29, 1981
Holidays Act
him that we were not in a position to call our national holiday Canada Day. I noticed in researching this presentation that back on May 6, 1980, as reported at page 764 of Hansard, he said almost exactly the same as he said today, namely:
We want to celebrate our national holiday using the name of our country, as every other country would surely want to do.
The strange thing is that there are only three other countries in the world that do that now. It was mentioned earlier today that Australia and New Zealand do that, and the third country is Pakistan. It is not factual that most countries call their national holidays by the name of the country. Only three countries out of many have chosen to do that.
Let us look at what has been done in other countries in addition to the fact that only three call their national holidays by their country name. The United States does not call their national holiday, Independence Day, by its name. We have not heard an explanation as to why they would not want to do that. Nor does France call its national holiday, Bastille Day, France day. I do not know why they do not want to change Bastille Bay to France Day, but there is probably a good reason. Why does Quebec, for instance, not change St. Jean Baptiste Day to Quebec day if that sort of move has a lot of meaning to people?
In conclusion I should like to quote the following from the Ottawa Journal of June 30, 1979:
Dominion Day has at least a ring of sorts to it. Whereas Canada Day does sound as though it were put together in a hurry when there wasn't time to think of anything better.
That is the way it has been done this time too, I would suggest. Parenthetically, one would think we had no economic problems that are more important for consideration today than this business of Canada Day. The article went on to read:
Perhaps the greatest danger with Canada Day is that somehow it might get twisted into "Day Canada" along with those other horrors; Supply Canada, Manpower Canada, Environment Canada, etc.
I would conclude by saying: Canada week, yes, but Canada Day, never.


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Mr. Speaker, there has been so much criticism of the government in the past, sometimes accurate and sometimes perceived, but mostly perceived by the opposition, that I was surprised today to witness a debate on whether we should call July 1 Canada Day. I expected to come into the House and see members of the opposition rise to their feet and cheer. Much to my surprise I came here and found the same type of leadership of members opposite that made them oppose the flag and the Constitution, and now makes them oppose Canada Day.
During the last several speeches there has been quite some reference to history. Let me quote Harry S. Truman, a former President of the United States, who said:
Men make history and not the other way 'round. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skilful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.
For some strange reason, the Tories are the captives of history: if it happened in the past it is good. The lesson that men make history but history does not make men is one that the Tories have not learned and will never learn. Perhaps this is a period of no leadership, as Harry S. Truman suggested, and things will look up in the future.
I witness opposition for the sake of opposition here. I think there has to be some proposing as well as opposing. I am surprised the opposition did not grasp this opportunity to present this matter as a private member's bill, to which the government would have responded in the affirmative.
The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) alluded to the fact that three previous speakers from the government side were not born in Canada. To ease his mind let me tell him that I was born in Canada, my mother was born in Canada and my father was born in Canada. However, my maternal grandfather was born in Ireland, a Protestant Irishman. My paternal grandparents were born in Italy. They did not come to Canada because July 1 was called Dominion Day; they came to Canada for jobs. My grandmother came here when she was 16 and lived to be 94. At least once a year she would say how lucky we were to be living in Canada. On July 1, if you had told her we were celebrating Dominion Day, she would not have known what you were talking about. However, if you had told her that on Canada Day we were celebrating the importance of living in Canada, she would have rejoiced.
Why is it so important in our country to have these symbols? I have travelled across this land and I know that our very strength is our greatest weakness. In Newfoundland they are still talking about 1949, and there is a strong Irish element. In Nova Scotia the strength of Cape Breton is in its Scottish ancestry. In Quebec they go back 300 years in French and Quebec culture. The Acadians do not even consider themselves Quebecois; they consider themselves maritimers. Ontario is multicultured. In the west there are Germans, Ukrainians and there is western separatism. Superimposed on all this are 20 or 30 additional cultures in our country.
We in the Liberal party have traditionally tried to tie this country to a core. In the heat of the declaration of war, Prime Minister W. L. Mackenzie King said the following in New York on June 17, 1941:
Our declaration was signed by the King upon the recommendation of His Majesty's Canadian ministers. The King's Proclamation was in the name of Canada.
Traditionally the Liberals have built up our nation and our sense of nation. At the same time, as evidenced by our willingness to support the Commonwealth and other countries of the Commonwealth, we understand its historic significance.
I fully appreciate the richness of our English past and the meaning of "dominion". It is in our courts and in our parliaments. It is a product of that history. However, we need not only recall our history. Let us also remember the symbols of our nation, and the name Canada on Canada Day is that symbol.
June 29, 1981

The hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) talked about the history of several bills proposing the name Canada Day. I was not only shocked but dismayed to find as a new member that we have been trying for so long to change the name to Canada Day. The hon. member talked about media support. He spoke about group support. He spoke about public support. If we were to place before any municipal council in this country the choice between Dominion Day and Canada Day for July 1, in at least 90 per cent of the cases these grassroots town councils would say, "We want Canada Day". The Tories oppose this.
The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) asks whether this is the right time. There is a story about the right time. When Abraham Lincoln was about to sign the emancipation proclamation, his hand was shaking. His clerk said to him, "Why is your hand shaking, Mr. President?" Mr. Lincoln said, "I want to rest. I have shaken at least a thousand hands this day, and I do not want my signature to be weak. I do not want history to say I hesitated". That is the history of the party opposite. Hon. members opposite are waiting for the right time. Was there a right time for the flag? Was there a right time for the Constitution? Is there a right time to call July 1 Canada Day?
Between six o'clock and eight o'clock today I asked a person standing in front of the chamber, "What do you call July 1?" He said, "Canada Day". The public knows this, the NDP knows this, the government knows this, the gallery knows this-but the Tories are waiting for the right time. The Tories are waiting for history to catch up with them.
The hon. member for Provencher says Canadians are divided, that this is not the right time and that the government has divided Canadians. How did we divide Canadians? We proposed a charter which gave Canadians a certain dignity which governments cannot take away. We suggested they are no longer colonials and that we should have our own Constitution. We suggested a formula to which everyone agreed in 1971. That is what is supposedly dividing Canada. I suggest to the opposition that what is dividing Canada is the fact that the opposition lost the last election, proved that it could not make inroads in the east and is living off western division. I have said this before and I will say it again: if there is division in this country, it is because the Tories have fostered that division.


Douglas Charles Neil: It is because of Trudeau, nobody else.


Ron Irwin: Not once in the Quebec referendum campaign did a Liberal say Quebec should separate from Canada, and not once have I seen an hon. member opposite go to western Canada saying, "Be part of this country". If there is division-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I have some difficulty in recognizing the connection between what the hon. member is saying and the proposal to change the name of July 1 from Dominion Day to Canada Day.


Ron Irwin: Mr. Speaker, I could not go on without reminding hon. members in the opposition of what they said during
Holidays Act
the debate. They criticized the minister for saying we are no longer a colony of Britain. They should have congratulated that same minister. The hon. member for Provencher talked about a two-headed monster which looks both ways, into the past and into the future. The hon. member for Provencher says, "Go to committee," but the House leader says, "I am not sure; maybe we should send the subject matter". The twoheaded monster of the past is now the two-posteriored Tory party of the present sitting on both sides of the fence.
My forefathers came to this country to build a Canada. On July 1 they are proud to be Canadians. To them it is a frame of mind, and to call that day, July 1, Canada Day in their minds means we are no longer an appendix or an annex of Great Britain.
I see that the logic of my argument drives an hon. member from the House.


Douglas Charles Neil: There is no logic at all.


Ron Irwin: I am not a British subject. I do not vote in Great Britain. I do not live there. I am a Canadian. I support the concept that July 1 be called Canada Day, and I am surprised that hon. members opposite do not stand up and do the same thing.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I want to join the last speaker in saying that I too am in favour of the concept he espouses. For some years I have been espousing the concept of Canada Week in the Waterloo region. I have been giving leadership to activities in my area in that week and on July 1. I want to say to the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) that there is a number of us on this side of the House who do not have any fundamental objection to the concept, but in the political process hon. members opposite know the game they are playing, and we know the game they are playing. They also know that behind hon. members on this side there is a variety of political realities which they must take home and deal with.
I want to say that I am prepared, after we have had an opportunity for consultation, to vote for Canada Day if that comes out of a committee hearing. However, Mr. Speaker, once again the process is one which says, "we will move from the top down and we, big government, know what is good for the people of Canada".
I would like for a moment to share with the minister and hon. members another side of this nation which I happen to represent. I know the minister, and the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) with whom he speaks, know a little bit about my experience in this country on these issues and on representing Canada abroad. I am as proud a Canadian as anyone on that side, and to have people cast aspersions, such as the comment that there are people in this party, the party of Macdonald, as well as in your party of Laurier, who are not Canadians, for me is as offensive as you may find it to be on your side. Let me suggest to you that I have been prepared to serve Canada abroad, and to campaign for

June 29, 1981
Holidays Act
Canadian activities in the community I have served as an alderman. I want for a moment to try to interpret for you a little of the sensitivities of my riding, because in that riding there is the same uneasiness as similar to that in Quebec, as described by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) earlier.
Let me suggest to the minister that I was appreciative of his comment about the fact there were 22 private members' bills introduced previously. I was appreciative and tried to hear him as he spoke about the problem of French language and the interpretation of Canada Day, and I am sensitive to what he is saying. I am also sensitive to the issue that since Confederation there have been changes. I believe the laws of Canada must reflect these changes. The leader of this party and others took part in the referendum debate to show that we care about the future of Quebec within Canada. I think the innuendoes that somehow there was no sensitivity on this side are not well taken.
The minister says this is Canada's most important holiday and that somehow we on this side are trying to put a name on something that does not yet exist in his province or mine, and we have the cart before the horse. I would like the minister to give some thought to how we judge the importance of this holiday, how we make it just what he says it is now, which I believe it can be and which I would like to work with him to make it be. I know, from the times I have been in the province of Quebec, of the importance of the St. Jean Baptiste holiday, but I wonder whether in fact in Quebec, and in large portions of the rest of Canada, Canada Day is, as he would have it, scarcely noticed except by those who want to get to their cottages. Can we not begin to plan so that the reality in Ottawa now can be the reality across Canada?
Yesterday I made a phone call, Mr. Speaker, to invite someone from Ottawa to come to Waterloo for a holiday. This young woman said: I cannot leave Ottawa until after the July 1 celebration. There is a sense of celebration here in the capital, and I wish it were so across the country. I want to suggest to the government that before we change the name, we should involve the people who are going to help us celebrate. In my experience those people have been the new Canadians, people who are now part of the multicultural composition of Canada in which we take a great deal of pride.
The minister spoke of July 1 as being representative of the pride we have in Canada and of the hope we have in the future. I concur in those aspirations but I contend they are not yet a reality. The changing of the name without using the process of involving the people in the change is not helpful at this time. Therefore, I am prepared to support our House leader's amendment that we take the next year and invite representatives of the multicultural groups and others across Canada to share with us their recommendations for the name and whether it should be Confederation Day, Dominion of Canada Day, Canada Day, or whatever we agree on. I am prepared to vote for that because I think the importance of meaningful symbols, as we have spoken of them, cannot be underestimated.
Some years ago, Mr. Speaker, in this House the first Canadian governor general, the Right Hon. Vincent Massey, had these words about Canada:
I believe in Canada, with pride in her past, belief in her present, and faith in her future.
I believe in the quality of Canadian life, and in the character of Canadian institutions.
I believe in the Commonwealth of Nations, within whose bounds we have found freedom, and outside which our national life would lose its independent being.
I believe that Canada is one, and that if our minds dwell on those things which its parts have in common, we can find the unity of the whole.
1 believe that with sound work, the spirit of a team, and an awareness of ourselves, we can look forward to achievements beyond our imagining.
I believe what Vincent Massey was saying many decades ago about Canada is what the government and all members of this House wish for Canada: A team spirit, not a country divided. On this day, when there have been so many fitting comments made about the significance of Terry Fox for Canada, I think it is important to recognize that it was not the name Terry Fox that gave reality, it was the substance of what he did and what he stood for. He had a commitment to the betterment of this nation and to drawing Canadians together.
The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), in response to the minister, said that government advertising of Canada Day in a sense gets in the way of public acceptance. He went on to speak about what happens when government becomes the propagandist. He spoke about the symbols of national unity, how they should come from the people, and that we should be using here the evolutionary principle. He mentioned the experience of a number of countries in this area. I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in offering my observations to the government about timing and direction, I speak with some experience, having been involved in directing the Canadian centennial and mobilizing the spirit there. I speak with some experience as the executive director of the Manitoba centennial, drawing Canadians of that province, indeed all Canadians to celebrate with them. I speak with the experience of a consultant to the government of Prince Edward Island on their centennial. The success of our Canadian centennial and the provincial centennials was not in the fact we proclaimed a day of celebration or a day of special meaning. It was in the fact that there was some content which involved the people themselves. The Waterloo region from which I come has often been referred to as Canada in microcosm. While this phrase has often been used to describe the diversity of the economy of the area, from farming and livestock production to electronics and rubber manufacturing, it is even more fitting to think of the various ethnic backgrounds from which we in the Waterloo area have come as representative of the rich multicultural heritage of Canada.
On July 1, this national day, our area is as proud as are all Canadians to state that we stand on guard for Canada. When we hear so often lately that Canada is facing a struggle between its regions, we should remember that when our forefathers left their various homes it was to come to Canada. They
June 29, 1981

did not come to one town. They did not come to one province. They left for Canada. In recent overseas consultation and during the five years I lived in West Africa, I have repeatedly sensed how desirable Canada is to people from around the world.
When they speak of Canada, they speak of freedom, of opportunity and of justice. Despite the rhetoric of hon. members opposite, I have yet to hear references to colonial status. This may be helpful in relation to the political problems in the province of Quebec, but let us be honest in relation to Canada's image in the world. This is a domestic political issue, not one which relates to Canada's image in the world.
Those who came to Canada came to a young country which offered opportunities to pursue goals, aspirations and freedom. This vision continues to attract people to Canada from many different lands. Canada is people. It is the multicultural character of our country that distinguishes us from our neighbours south of the border, to which the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) alluded this afternoon, and other Anglophone countries around the world. Interestingly enough, in the Kitchener-Waterloo area over 100 multicultural groups are listed. They have organized themselves to remind us of their unique contribution.
On Sunday the heritage of our region was extended by the welcoming of an additional 43 new Canadians from 19 countries at a special sitting of the court of Canadian citizenship. Sunday was also proclaimed in the region which I represent as multicultural day by the mayors of Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge. Also it marked the tenth anniversary of distrust of the Canadian government. The citizenship court was closed with a performance by a multicultural choir. That same choir had performed at the Waterloo city council meeting which I addressed last Monday. That meeting opened the Canada week celebrations.
The weekend before last saw the occasion of the tenth festival of the Kitchener-Waterloo Portuguese community. This was celebrated by an open-air mass, followed by dinner and dance. There are now some 3,000 members of the KW Portuguese Association. In light of the changing nature of Canada, there are some 12,000 Portuguese in Cambridge and
6,000	in Kitchener-Waterloo, or close to 18,000 Portuguese in the Waterloo region alone.
The contributions of people of different ethnic backgrounds go far beyond the entertainment novelty of song and dance. Our regional economy shows very clearly the benefits of new ways of manufacturing products, of growing things and of creating things with our hands; new ways of communicating, dressing and worshipping. We have benefited from new trade relations with other countries. These have resulted in more markets for our products and the communication of new technologies to better serve those expanded markets. This edge to our technological innovation has become part of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I wonder if I might ask the hon. member to try to direct his remarks to the bill to change the name of July 1 from Dominion Day to Canada Day.
Holidays Act


Walter Franklin McLean: The remarks of the minister very clearly suggested the importance of this change to the province of Quebec and its political developments.
I am suggesting that in the Waterloo region 1 represent there is a unique multicultural background which needs to be understood very clearly by the government. The process of consultation for which we on this side are calling is related directly to why the amendment ought to be supported.


Francis Fox: Be serious.


Walter Franklin McLean: I am very serious. If we are looking at human dynamics and acceptance, not another propaganda tool, we on this side of the House want to be able to vote on the amendment which was brought in to such an important issue as this.


Francis Fox: At least the mayor of Waterloo had the guts to call it multicultural day. You do not even have the guts to call it Canada Day.


Walter Franklin McLean: The hon. minister says that I do not have the guts-


Francis Fox: That is right.


Walter Franklin McLean: The hon. minister may indicate by what he does. I am prepared to let my own actions in relation to Canada and my service to the nation stand with his at any point.
As our young people enter the job market with more internationalized education as the result of this multicultural reality, the country as a whole is able to look forward to a stronger economy and a more understanding society. This is not the only reality or the only factor to be represented in my riding in relation to a change such as this. Approximately 32 per cent of the Waterloo riding is German-speaking. I am not one who comes out of a riding deeply concerned about the question of the imagery of the word dominion. I come out of a riding with a multicultural background. The people of my riding ought to be consulted about what are meaningful words to them. It was not this wording which brought them to Canada; it was the hope for a sense of freedom and a sense of justice. Just as other countries have used these words, it may well be that one of these words will be one which they feel will echo the day of celebration in Canada we all want to experience.
The government is bringing forward this piece of legislation and asking for it to be rushed through. It has now been a year since it was introduced, and on the eve of July 1 we are told that it must go through. I remind the government that there are people in the Mennonite culture in my riding who have a deep suspicion of government. Many of them will not even vote. Their tradition is far different, and they are very suspicious about government at the best of times. I want to indicate a little of that cultural background. As the government moves in this direction, let it be sensitive to the fact that these groups need to be heard. We are suggesting that within the next year, or until July 1 comes again, let us have these people and their input fully on board.

June 29, 1981
Holidays Act
One Mennonite group which is part of the many divisions in the Waterloo riding is the Old Order Mennonites. They have been an object of growing interest in recent years because of their nineteenth century style of dress, their buggies and their stubborn refusal to accept the universal comforts of the twentieth century technology. We could talk a little about what they bring to Canada in terms of their sense of work and their concerns for values and family. As both religious and social non-conformists, an article recently by Gerald Levitch-


Francis Fox: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all know and appreciate and are all delighted by the great input which many people from various lands have made to this country. As the minister responsible for citizenship, I am well aware of this. But the hon. member for Waterloo knows that the subject under discussion this evening is whether or not Parliament should change the name Dominion Day to Canada Day. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we should stay with the subject in order that we can make some progress, the type of progress the hon. member indicates he so much desires.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have already indicated to the hon. member for Waterloo that the Chair is having some difficulty with the manner in which he is proceeding. However, the hon. member for Waterloo has proposed that consultation might be an important part of the name changing process. The Chair would be relieved and grateful if the hon. member for Waterloo could try to bring his remarks closer to the subject matter of the bill.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for my comments. What I am suggesting is that the intent of bringing Canada closer together is that the parts of Canada identify with the action which is being taken. With all due respect to the minister, the concerns with regard to the urgency for the province of Quebec that this change be made in the next 24 or 48 hours, in light of the massive Jean Baptiste Day celebrations, and in light of other matters which the government may have on its agenda, are not the burning concerns of the citizens of the riding of Waterloo, which I have the honour to represent.
What I am trying to suggest is that in my riding it is not any one group which I can singly represent but there is a multicultural reality. In my riding there are people of German background and there is a Mennonite group. All of the different groups in my riding have a varying degree of suspicion about government motivation.
As I have tried to suggest to the minister before, I am sympathetic. I have been working as a civil servant for the government on behalf of Canada in national celebrations. I understand something about community motivation. For the minister to suggest that somehow these topics are not related to the direction in which government is headed is, it seems to me, a disservice to the motivation which we want, that Canadians identify with it, not as a government initiative but as a Canadian initiative.
I believe that the amendment to the bill which has been put forward by the Official Opposition which suggests that those involved, the people of Canada, be consulted, is far from irresponsible. Again, what we have is an illustration that what is fit for the government is good for the nation. I believe that Parliament must provide an opportunity for other opinions to be heard and that the government must be sensitized about the type of initiatives which are taking place.
I also want to suggest that it is not by accident that The Globe and Mail is able today to publish a full-page supplement with a picture of Prince Charles on it. There is another sector in Canada which feels, rightly or wrongly, that in the government's initiative there is an effort to downplay the role of the monarchy. In my riding are towns such as New Dundee, and Ayr, and others which remind one of where those settlers came from.
Therefore, I am suggesting that in a riding with a diverse ethnic background, the amendment proposed by the Official Opposition is not irresponsible. It does not go against Canada. What we are saying is: What can we do in the next 24 or 36 hours by changing the name? By finding a name which is acceptable after consultation, we would make it a name which would not cause division but one which is agreed upon and which will be accepted by this House unanimously.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At this point in time I doubt very much if there will be enough time for many of us to participate in this debate. Thus, having been involved in student activities with the hon. member opposite, would he allow me a very short question at this time concerning something which is of great concern to me, particularly when he talks about having a committee study the subject matter of this bill?


Walter Franklin McLean: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Prud'homme: I thank the hon. member for his courtesy. Does the hon. member sincerely believe-and I know he is very sincere when he speaks in this House-that today we would have a Canadian flag if that issue had gone to committee requesting all of the multicultural groups in Canada to appear before it and explain their views about a Canadian flag? Does the hon. member believe that today, 17 years later, we would have a flag if some leadership had not been shown at that time? My view is that we would never have had a Canadian flag if that situation had existed. I listened to all the speeches in 1964-65 on the flag debate.
I want my question to be clear. Does the hon. member believe that we would have a flag today if Mr. Pearson had not shown some leadership in asking the House to decide that matter?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint-Denis for his question. I believe it is a question which
June 29, 1981

deserves addressing, since the argument has been put forward a number of times that what we are trying to do through our amendment is avoid the bitterness which came about as a result of the flag debate. I would like to tell the hon. member that there was a committee which dealt with the flag issue. That committee proposed recommendations regarding the subject. I will be the first to propose that we deal with this matter by next year. I am not saying that we should talk it out in perpetuity. I concur with the hon. member.
My intention is that we do not become divided over this issue and that we take human nature seriously. That is to say that if the government, which is now involved in a heavy advertising campaign, moves heavy-handedly with this legislation, without a committee which can hear the concerns of Canadians, then this will continue to divide Canadians. I happen to believe that many people in Canada may well concur with the government on this issue. As the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) was saying earlier today, some may say, "Let us give some honour to this matter in history". Some people may want to call the day Dominion of Canada Day, which may be shortened to Canada Day. Others may want to call it Confederation Day. I believe that we all want to be together on this issue, as we were on the issue of "O Canada". We want to be together in such a way that we may influence the future.
When I was an alderman in the city of Waterloo I served as chairman of community services. It was my responsibility to organize a special observance for Canada week. We drew together some 5,000 young people from kindergarten to grade eight in the Seagram's stadium. We were able to rehearse in song and in word the history of Canada. I would like to know that the educational leaders of our country are prepared to welcome this change, and not on 24 hours notice. I would like to know that the churches of the country are together on this issue. I would like to know that the multicultural groups have been consulted. The hon. member opposite is right when he says that there is no guarantee that we will reach a 100 per cent agreement. But, after all, Parliament is about process. This country operates on consensus. The matters which have come out of the constitutional discussion and the times when we are most deeply divided are the times when we stop listening to each other. I suggest that there are instruments across this country which can clothe the government's proposals with meaning. The proposal put forward by this party is not an obstructive one, nor is it un-Canadian. In fact, looking back a decade later in history, it may be seen that we can avoid the bitterness which was a part of the flag debate.
I want to thank Your Honour for your courtesy, and I want to thank hon. members of the House for their attention. I want to suggest that in supporting the concept of officially identifying July 1 as Canada Day or the Dominion of Canada Day or Confederation Day, or whatever we decide, that we hold to the evolutionary concept and principle and that we consult in a way which can draw us together as a nation.
Holidays Act


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: I thank your Honour for recognizing me and giving me a chance to speak in this debate. In answer to some of the points that the member of Parliament for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) raised I would point out that this is not exactly what one would call a precipitous debate to change the name of Dominion Day to Canada Day. I can recall that on November 30, 1978, a similar motion was raised by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) who also proposed that this matter be sent to committee. I would point out to the hon. member for Waterloo that his suggestion of sending this bill to a committee for study is exactly what we are trying to do. After all, we are on the second reading of this bill. If we bring this to a vote, if the opposition will permit it to come to a vote, I would suggest that we could very well send it to committee, and these studies he is talking about could very well take place.
As to the point that changing the name from Dominion Day to Canada Day is some kind of propaganda, how can we possibly think that the word "Canada" is propagandist? My God, it is the name of our country. Since when, if we give the name of our country to any day or any act, does that become propaganda? Are we not all, all of us, Canadians in this House? Are we not all Canadians first?
Some time ago I had occasion to represent in Japan the minister of fitness and amateur sport. I would simply point out that, notwithstanding the fact that our nation is made up of many cultures, when those athletes were outside the country they were Canadians, very simply, Canadians; no more, but surely no less.
The hon. member from Quebec made reference a little earlier to the flag, and he raised the question as to whether we would have the flag today, whether we would indeed be blessed with the flag we have now or would we have the flag that we had some time ago. I would suggest to all hon. members that however acrimonious and bitter the debate was at the time, surely the flag is one of the symbols which unites us today. Surely there is not a Canadian who travels anywhere within Canada or outside of Canada who does not have that feeling of pride when he sees his own flag, our very own. It took us 98 years to finally get that most elementary symbol to all sovereign countries.
I think sport does unite us. Because of this, when our athletes travel abroad, they are simply known as Canadians. It does not matter from which ethnic background they come. They perform for us, for a nation as a whole. I do not in any way downgrade or take away from any cultural group here in Canada; but by the same token, it should be said that all of these people, if they chose Canada first, if they came from another country, they chose us. They chose this blessed land. They want to be known first and foremost as Canadians. No one ever said that they would be deprived of their culture. No one ever said that they had to give up their particular language or customs. On the contrary, we believe that because of this diversity, we are stronger, and not only stronger but surely we are more colourful as a nation in the sense that we can share

June 29, 1981
Holidays Act
our differences with one another. In that sense, we are very much richer.
Perhaps the House would be interested to know that notwithstanding the great loss we have felt in the last few days, having lost, I would say, not only one of our foremost athletes, in the sense that he had the great heart of an athlete, but probably one of our foremost heroes since we have become a nation, there are other young people who are in the mold of Terry Fox. This noon hour I took part in a ceremony in honour of a young chap called Steve Maaslain, a cyclist. He left here to bicycle all across the North American continent. I know that when he went from place to place, what he took with him was the symbol of our country. Wherever he went, he was known as a Canadian. He came home to celebrate with us what most of us now call Canada Day and what we would like to call officially Canada Day.
We are in the process of going through these growing pains, but for how long? How long must we go through these growing pains before we can become what we really are? For those of us who have no other culture, as it were, who come from no other country, for people like myself, who were born and raised here in Canada, who went to school here, live here and, God willing, will die in this country, our country is Canada. This is the beginning and the end for us. This is ours. We do not come from England or France or Hungary or Italy. We come from here. The people who come over to this country take on, I guess, the blessings of the country which is here, which is ours, the country where we were born; yet, in spite of all this, cannot call July 1 Canada Day. We cannot bring a bill in this House of Commons so that we can call this celebration what it is. It is our birthday. It is the birthday of this country. It is the birthday of Canadians. I for one am anxiously awaiting the day when once more, or at last, we will have one more symbol to call our own.
Your Honour is aware, as you have heard other hon. members say, that it was not until 1946 that we established Canadian citizenship. We had to wait until 1946 for that, only then could we call ourselves Canadians, Canadians first. It was not until 1965 that we had that flag which stands beside Your Honour. In 1980, at long last, we could have a song to sing which was ours, not borrowed from someone else, not written some place else, but written by one of our own Canadians here in this country. Now, in 1981, will we be fortunate enough to at last have Canada Day proclaimed?
I do not in any way fault the opposition. I do not fault them for raising a different point of view; but from what I have heard from the hon. members who have spoken from the other side, it would seem to me that we are not at cross purposes. What they seem to want to do is to put off, for a little bit longer, calling the day, which is rightly our own, by its right name, Canada Day.
I do not in any way downgrade the fact many Canadians served in the armed forces and served their country, but I do take exception when the hon. member for Waterloo suggests that in his own way our Minister of State (Mr. Fox) does not contribute to the well-being of Canada.
Surely all of us here in this House who serve our country as best we can, and love our country, would one day like to have this feast, this birthday, celebrated for what it truly is, a day for Canadians, proclaimed by Canadians, and celebrated with open hearts and great joy by all of us who call ourselves Canadians First. Of course, I refer to Canada Day. I encourage all hon. members on all sides to support this bill, to give it second reading, to send it to committee, if necessary, and then on its return to pass it into law so that we can have what is rightfully ours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I will not take a great deal of time. I have been listening to the debate trying to make up my mind whether to support this bill or whether to support the opposition's viewpoint. After a great deal of thought I came to the conclusion that I should support the bill. I want to tell you why.
Yesterday I spent all afternoon at a multicultural gathering in Gage Park in the city of Hamilton. I took part in the opening ceremonies. I shared the platform with the mayor and with members of the legislature. I brought greetings from my colleagues, who asked me to do so, the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki), and I brought greetings from other parts of the area. I toured the many exhibitions which were representative, I think, of every ethnic community in the city of Hamilton. I do not want to go through them all because undoubtedly I will miss some. However, I saw representatives of every conceivable group which had come to Canada to settle, to make a home here to contribute to the lifestyle and to the future of our country. I talked with them, I tasted their food, I watched their dancing and I listened to their music.
In each and every case people referred to the celebration of this coming Wednesday as a celebration of Canada Day. As I listened to the debate, I thought I had probably conducted my committee hearing, that I had probably already heard from the people I represent. The tens of thousands of those people who were in the park were there enjoying themselves and most of them, I suspect, were native born Canadians. Many of the ethnic representatives, the younger people who were the prince and the queen, or the two male and female representatives of the ethnic communities, almost without exception, I think were native born Canadian. All of them were dressed in the costume of the land of their forefathers, displaying here in Canada the culture of their land.
If all hon. members, at least those who have been in politics for a while, were to stop and think about the number of such occasions they have attended over the course of the last few years, they would reach the same conclusion I have, that calling our national holiday Canada Day does make a lot of sense.
There is nothing wrong with Dominion Day and I object to the inference that somehow or other we are casting off our ties
June 29, 1981

with Great Britain as a result of this change. 1 do not think we are. Dominion Day, as has been well put by a number of speakers, is not a reflection of colonial ties at all. It never was intended to be. It cannot be and it must not be allowed to be portrayed as that. Therefore, to change from Dominion Day as in Dominion of Canada, to Canada Day the name of our holiday on the first day of July really is not to be considered by anyone as a betrayal of the historical significance of the choice of the name of the day some one hundred years ago.
I think we do a lot of people a disservice by trying to leave an impression on either side of the House-or on any side of the House if you consider this to be a separate side-that there is in anyone's mind the intention to cut off the long and traditional ties we have enjoyed.
It is important, when making decisions about the future, to learn from the past. The past is there from which we can all learn. One thing is very clear about the past. We have had a lot of difficulty in making decisions in favour of Canada. We have always had conflict whenever there was a decision to be made in terms of the future of the country. We have gone through a very difficult and divisive debate in the House of Commons over the Constitution. I say that only because I think it has served the country ill in the way the debate was carried out. I was distressed by it.
I have travelled across the country many times. I returned from Vancouver last Saturday and I say to my colleague from Vancouver that what interested me on my way home to Hamilton to take part in yesterday's ceremonies, was that the people in Vancouver were preparing for a similar celebration next Wednesday. I know from reading the newspapers that the very same celebration is being held in almost every major and minor centre all across the country, from coast to coast and from north to south.
What are we trying to do? We are trying to focus it a little more. We are trying to make sure that everyone understands what the holiday is all about. We are trying to make sure that every small child realizes, as he or she grows up, that on this day we are celebrating Canada's birthday. We are trying to make it easily understood and not confusing, so people do not have to dig into dictionaries to find our what Dominion Day means. Rather, they will be able to see at a glance that on July 1 we celebrate that together we are Canadians, all with a common purpose. Let me say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no time in Canada when the need is greater than at this time in our history to try to demonstrate that we have a common purpose, a common bond, that links us.
There is enough going on politically that is already dividing the country. Without going into detail, I want to tell you what has been of considerable concern to me in my year and four months, or whatever it is, since being elected to this House of Commons, as I have sat here and watched the degree of animosity and ongoing aggravation that exists within the House of Commons.
This celebration would be a good thing on which to join together. It would be a good thing for the three political parties in the House of Commons on which to reach an accord
Holidays Act
and for us to say to Canadians that although we may disagree on the price of oil or on certain aspects of the Constitution, we all agree on one thing, that on the day we have a holiday once a year to celebrate Canada's birthday, we will call it Canada Day and that the purpose of that day will be understood by each and everyone of us. It is to honour Canada. It is to honour what it has been, it is to honour what it is and it is to honour what it will become. It is to speak of the unity that exists and can exist within the country, although it is a country of great diversity. It is the one day when even those who come from parts of the world where there is even yet an armed conflict between the races, as well as each and every one of us, can go into the same park. We can all share together the happiness of being able to display our own particular and peculiar background and heritage. I must be careful how I say this lest I offend anyone, but I went to the dinner of this multicultural group I am speaking of about three weeks ago. On that evening they were choosing from among the male and female representatives six who would be the representatives of the multicultural organization.
As hon. members know, there has been considerable conflict in the Middle East. There, coming down the aisle was a young lady with her escort. An appropriate piece of music was being played as they came to the front to be introduced. Standing at the front was another young lady with her escort who came from another part of the same geographic area of the world. I can tell you now that the people in that part of the world are not getting along well at the moment. However, there they were standing and applauding the other young couple coming down the aisle. I turned to the people at the table with me and said to them, "there is hope for us yet; if we do not force them to fight, they will get along."
That is what that celebration was doing, pulling people together, people who had come to Canada from a variety of places. If they were living back in their home countries, they had in their souls the makings of conflict and discord, but they were living here. They consider themselves to be Canadians even though they represent their heritage. They were sharing in the happiness of that particular event without any sense of aggravation, hatred or distrust.
We in this House of Commons could learn something from that. Unfortunately, we were not all there. Obviously I do not have the time nor the ability to educate the entire Canadian population as to the real meaning of Dominion Day. My chances, and in fact the chances of all of us ever being able to do that are pretty slim. Since we are talking about the Dominion of Canada and since it is now well known that the first of July is the celebration of Canada's birthday, I cannot see any good reason, and I thought carefully about it, why we ought not to call it Canada Day.
It distresses me, and I say this more as an aside than as a main point, and I wonder at what point in the course of the next two or three years we will get around to dealing with some of the other important issues. This is very important, no

June 29, 1981
Holidays Act
doubt, in historical terms. The choice we will make over the next two or three days will be significant. However, I do not want anyone to get the wrong impression. This is not the matter that is uppermost in the minds of Canadians today. There are other things.
1 received a letter from an elderly couple who were paying tribute to my good friend and colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and quite rightly so. Without him they would probably be living in even worse poverty than they are now forced to live in. They asked whether it would be possible for us to set aside an hour or two to talk about the problems of pensioners. When we think of Canada Day, we have to remember that without the effort of those people, there would not be a Canada for which to have a Canada Day.
I think we treat these people shamefully. It would serve us all well if we were to make a decision to get on with this, vote on it and do it. That is why we are sent here. We are not sent here to hold interminable committee meetings; we are sent here to make decisions. You win or lose on the strength of the decisions you have made.
If we could get on with voting on this, we might be able to devote a bit of time to some of the other very pressing, vexing and difficult problems. There will be little joy in the hearts of these individuals come Wednesday, no matter whether we call it Dominion Day or Canada Day, if they are forced to go through another year of existence on $5,851 between them. That is what aggravates me most about the House of Commons and worries me most about the debate. We can elevate anything to a matter of principle. We can create a conflict where no conflict need exist. We can artificially posture about the position we take for or against.
I happen to believe that we are all concerned about the future of Canada and that we are all equally dedicated to making it a better place. However, I worry when we get bogged down on issues that may in the long run not have any lasting benefit when we could have been dealing with matters which might just make life a little happier for a few people. As we found out over the weekend, life is not necessarily three score and ten. Life can end tomorrow morning for a lot of unsuspecting souls.
I have given a good deal of thought to the matter over the course of the debate. I listened to the arguments. I hope I have not defended the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday). Although I was not born in Canada, I think I have the right to at least make these representations. Some of what was said by certain members was very apropos. I think in particular that some of the comments by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Berger), the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) and the hon. member for Oxford were very valuable as to the way in which this country has grown up. They talked of the tugs and pulls that exist within the various geographic segments of our country in addition to the difficulties faced by many who have had a long and involved stay in Canada, perhaps native people more than others, who have not been given a fair shake
and maybe do not care whether it is Canada Day, Dominion Day, or anything else.
We have an opportunity to show some leadership. That leadership has to begin now. There can be no more procrastination, no more hiding behind idle rhetoric or posturing behind the traditional values that in fact never were values in the first place and are not traditional. I suggest to the parties, including my own, let us deal with this in a more common sense way. Let us take a real, serious look and let us make the change.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak briefly in this most symbolic debate-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Yes, gentlemen, it will be brief.
-this most symbolic debate as we approach Canada's 114th birthday, I want to congratulate speakers on all sides of this House on their very thoughtful interventions. I single out my friend for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) for his truly sincere remarks. My wife and I also treasure the "It's Your Day" celebrations in Gage Park. We will be there on July 1 to celebrate our 114th birthday. I will have something to say about that fascinating mosaic which makes Hamilton such a special place to represent.
I also want at the outset to associate myself wholeheartedly with the amendment posed by my colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). The amendment to refer the subject matter of this bill to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture for detailed examination is not a mischievous, frivolous or delaying tactic.


An hon. Member:: It is un-Canadian.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: It is not, as my friend from Waterloo said, un-Canadian. It is a direct and responsible attempt to allow the Parliament of Canada to hear the views of Canadians and to reflect them, and then take the best course of action for all Canadians now and in the future.
Dominion Day, Canada Day, The First of July, Confederation Day, who knows what Canadians feel about what to call the day after tomorrow? Does the government know? The government lives on and it swears by polls in everything else it does. What do the polls say about replacing such a cherished symbol as Dominion Day with Canada Day, or any other name? Does this government really know? I ask the minister to answer that.
I particularly wonder about the unconscionable short time the government is allowing us as representatives of the people to participate in steamrollering through something I believe is of profound importance to a great many people in this country. You do not ram through a change like this in two days, and in parliamentary terms that is five to seven hours.
June 29, 1981

I know what my Liberal friends who occasionally organize these sneaky exercises are thinking. I know because I asked a Liberal flat out: "Why are you organizing this sneaky exercise two days before our 114th birthday?" And the answer came back "Because we want to see if you guys are foolish enough to deny its passage". That was the answer I received. That may be Grit strategy, but it leaves a pretty gritty taste in the mouths of a lot of people when the government plays politics with people's emotions in a slap-dash way.


An hon. Member:: On this particular issue.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Yes, on this particular issue.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) this afternoon suggested that we on this side seem to feel that people need to be marching in the streets before we are willing to recognize the need for a change. He further suggested something to the effect that we Canadians need not waste our time on old fashioned words from the past such as "dominion", and that these relics from the past might just as well be forgotten.
Let me turn to an authority on Canada who is known and greatly admired by all of us. Former Senator Eugene Forsey and I can and do disagree philosophically on many things, beginning with socialism and Pierre Elliott Trudeau. But there is one area in which Dr. Forsey's expertise is absolutely unparalleled, and that is his love for and knowledge of Canada.
Eugene Forsey is an unabashed supporter of Dominion Day as the designation for July 1, and it is on his very meaningful address delivered to the Men's and Women's Canadian Clubs of Edmonton in June, 1956, a quarter of a century ago this month, that I wish to base this portion of my remarks. Dr. Forsey was then director of research for the Canadian Labour Congress and he entitled his address ''The Meaning of Dominion Day". It might interest some of Dr. Forsey's former soul mates to our left to know that he feels just as passionately this very day as he did then when he delivered his address 25 years ago. This is Dr. Forsey on Dominion Day:
Dominion Day celebrates one of the greatest feats of modern history: the making of a new nation, and a new kind of nation, by a handful of people of differing origins, differing languages, differing creeds, differing histories and differing interests, and in the face of obstacles that might well have daunted the boldest and most resolute statesmen.
Those are the kind of people the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain and I have come to respect with their differing languages, differing creeds and differing histories. Dr. Forsey's address continues:
Everything was against them. The country was huge; most of it was empty; the Americans were pressing in upon the territories of the Hudson's Bay Company, threatening to cut off the new Dominion from any expansion West or North. There was hardly any industry; manufactured goods came overwhelmingly from Britain, and to central Canada for five months of the year through American ports, so that at any moment the Americans could strangle the economic life of Ontario and Quebec.
Dr. Forsey called the Dominion of Canada "A Supreme Act of Faith". He said:
Holidays Act
Confederation was a supreme act of faith, faith that defied geography, defied economics, defied the "manifest destiny" of the Americans to rule the whole continent from the Rio Grande to the North Pole.
Faith in what? In something beyond economics, beyond the material; faith that the British North American colonies had a heritage worth preserving, worth developing, worth paying an economic price for; faith that on this rock our people could build a great nation, part of a great Commonwealth.
He referred to the "Title of Our Country". He said:
Both choices are enshrined in the word "Dominion" itself, the title which the Fathers gave our country, the title they wrote into the British North America Act, three times over. Where did that title come from, and what does it mean?
The Fathers originally wanted to call the new nation "the Kingdom of Canada." But the Americans raised such a storm that the British government took fright, and insisted on something else. The Fathers for their part, insisted on something that would mark the new and higher status of the federation. Sir Leonard Tilley produced the solution, from the seventy-second psalm: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth." His colleagues agreed; the Queen consented; and "Dominion" the new nation became.
That title was "a particularly happy choice" according to Dr. Forsey. He wrote:
The title was a particularly happy one, for more reasons than one. First, and most obviously, it embodied the determination of the Fathers to bring into the Union all the British North American colonies from Newfoundland to British Columbia; "a mari usque ad mare," as our coat-of-arms says. It declared the "manifest destiny" of Canada to rule from the St. Lawrence to the North Pole.
Second, and more important, it emphasized the religious basis of the new nation. Who was to have "dominion"? The King of Israel, the Lord's Anointed: the King, under God.
Third, it proclaimed the basic fact of our two cultures. For "Dominion" is not Anglo-Saxon. It is an old French word which dropped out of use in French but was preserved in our English Bible and our English Book of Common Prayer.
Fourth, it proclaimed, no less unmistakably, our new status. The French translation of "Dominion" is "Puissance," (Power): "Souverainete," (Sovereignty); a far cry indeed from "province" or "colony," a foreshadowing of the independence to come. And it was so recognized at the time. It was meant, Lord Carnarvon told the Queen, just before the Act was passed, "to give greater dignity to the commencement of this great scheme." "Canada", said Edward Blake in 1876, "is not a colony or a province; she is a Dominion, under an Imperial charter which expressly recites that her Constitution is to be similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom."
I know that will upset some of my friends opposite, but that is the fact.
In terms of adherence to the monarchy, Dr. Forsey wrote:
-"Dominion" as avowedly intended to assert Canada's adherence to something the Fathers considered no less important than national unity: the monarchy. "The North American delegates are anxious," Carnarvon told the Queen, "that the United Provinces should be designated as 'the Dominion of Canada.' It is a new title but intended on their part as a tribute to the Monarchical principle, which they earnestly desire to uphold."
Dr. Forsey also said:
Finally, the title "Dominion" ... does not stand alone: Canada is to be not just a "Dominion", nor even a Dominion under the British Crown, but a Dominion with "a Constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom." In other words, the title "Dominion" is the seal upon our priceless heritage of British parliamentary responsible government.
In terms of membership in the Commonwealth, which is a very important thing to this Parliament and certainly to the government which this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) leads, Dr. Forsey concludes as follows:
What is the-

June 29, 1981
Holidays Act
Other.
-thing that makes Canada unique among American nations? Our membership in the Commonwealth, that world-wide free association of free nations which we have done so much to create, which Sir John A. Macdonald foresaw and sketched as long ago as 1865, whose corner-stone he laid on the first Dominion Day, and towards whose completion he worked with unexampled skill, patience and courage. This also is part of the meaning of Dominion Day. This also we ought to celebrate, with full and thankful hearts.
The Fathers of Confederation laboured, and we have entered into their labours; not just the fruits of their labours: their labours.
Dr. Forsey concluded by quoting a former Canadian prime minister.
What they built, we must work to keep and enlarge. We can do it, but only if, in the words of that great master of our English speech, Arthur Meighen, we remain "conscious of our mighty heritage, proud of the Imperial fountain of our freedom and of the flag that floats above us, worthy of those ideals of British liberty and justice which have sent their light forth and their truth among all races of men."
The former senator, Dr. Eugene Forsey, is a man for whom I have great respect and to whom many Canadians look for advice and wisdom in terms of how this country should evolve. I should point out that former Senator Forsey was appointed, by the present Prime Minister, a senator on the government side.
Speaking personally, I have no real problem with changing the name from Dominion Day to Canada Day. While I do have a sense of history about my country, I also realize the need to update and to bring into the twentieth century phrases, customs and even designations of official holidays. Whatever significance the word Dominion held for Sir Leonard Tilley, I must confess I could never sell it to my nine-year old son. Indeed, just before rising to speak in this debate I called the youngest member of the Scott household and asked, "What do you and your friends call July 1?" Liam answered, "Well, most people call it 'Dominion Day'. I don't know why they call it 'Dominion Day', but I don't want to be an oddball, so I call it that too". Then he added, "I think 'Canada Day' would sound better. 'Dominion Day' sounds like a store". Sometimes you have to climb inside the mind of a nine-year old to gain a proper perspective on these great matters of state.
To many Canadians perhaps it is a typical attitude: who cares about changing the name? Maybe it makes sense. After all, everything official now is being done in the name of Canada. Why the fuss about forgetting about the word "dominion", which has gone out of usage anyway? Why is everyone getting upset about embarking on the Canada Day route which is becoming generally accepted?
A great many Canadians have long argued, and will continue to argue, a very eloquent case on behalf of the status quo. So what if the multitudes do not care one way or the other about changing the name of July 1? Why should this government automatically interpret a quiescent public opinion or a seeming non-caring public attitude as being in favour of change? Who has asked the people of Canada if they want to see an official name change for this day? Has this government done anything more than fill the airwaves with Canada Day propaganda, for which all Canadian taxpayers will have to pay
regardless of their views about getting rid of the Dominion Day designation for July 1?
This brings me to my own deep suspicion about this government's motives in bringing this measure before Parliament a scant two days before Canada celebrates its 114th birthday on the famous first of July. I know it sounds slightly crazy to ask "What's the rush" after more than half a century of trying to break our colonial ties with the mother country, and that is a legitimate point of view which is held by some or, indeed, probably many members of this House, but why should this government feel that it should always fly in the face of public opinion or carry on regardless, and change things? Again I ask, what's the rush? Why the attempt to steamroller this change through in two days? It is my firm conviction that we should not change unless we have a rough idea of what we are doing and why we are doing it.
That brings me to what my great and good friend, Senator Forsey, calls "one of these fancy Grit tricks". He and I agree on one point: the reason the government wants to change Dominion Day to Canada Day is that it apparently has the idea it will go over big in Quebec. Dr. Forsey could not be more succinct or correct when he says, "It won't make two hoots of a difference in Quebec".
The fact of life all Canadians must face is that the word "dominion" formed part of a solemn commitment on the part of those men who formed Canada. In Atlantic Canada, for example, there were three colonies back in 1864. The idea of a dominion was part of a bargain to bring the original partners into this confederation. It was a fine concept. It was wonderful craftsmanship. But it was a firm bargain that made it possible for the colonies to give up their separate and distinct identities and become the nucleus of what we know today as Canada.
Has the federal government consulted the governments and the people of the original partners of confederation? Has this administration received any feedback from those Canadians whose forefathers were most intimately involved in the unique Dominion of Canada partnership we will celebrate the day after tomorrow? Has the government checked with those original partners, or is this government simply barging ahead in its customary fashion and not consulting the people or the people's representatives in the manner suggested by my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton? What could be wrong with hearing from concerned Canadians about the advisability of this change before an appropriate parliamentary committee? Is that not what Parliament is for? Is that not why we are here, to reflect the views of the people?
I promised the minister I would be brief. In closing, I ask the government in a spirit of reason: if you are going to make such a major change, in the view of so many Canadians who hold the history and tradition of this nation so dear to their hearts, why in the name of heaven must you spring this particular change on us in just a few short hours? Should Canadians not be given the chance to be heard on this issue, not through a snap vote here in the House of Commons but through us as their elected representatives in considered discussion in an appropriate committee?
June 29, 1981

I am asking that the government give us a few extra weeks or months and then, come our 115th birthday, a year and two days from now, we Canadians may very well have something to celebrate: The Dominion of Canada Day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? In view of his concern that time be taken on this issue, can he tell us how long his party took to change its name from Conservative party to Progressive Conservative party?


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, you have been admonishing members of this House all evening about irrelevancies in terms of this bill. That is the most irrelevant question I can imagine. How long? As long as the Canadian people feel they need to register their impressions and viewpoints to the parliamentary committee we are asking this bill be sent to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Your party took two days in 1942. [Translation]


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, today is June 29 and the House is studying a bill. I was unable to be here for the debates this afternoon because I played host to 100 young Canadians of Greek origin in my Montreal riding, young girls and young boys who belong to the Canadian Guide and Scout associations. I was so convinced that there would be no debate that 1 was quite surprised at supper time, when I was coming back to the House, to learn from the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) that there is opposition to the bill. I could not believe it so I decided to go to the House even though I am not supposed to be here this evening. I want to try to explain a few points on this question which is very important to me, but does not seem to be to others. In fact, when the subject is Canada it is the motivation of all of my political life. That is why I came to the House of Commons in 1964, not to defend the past but to build a future for this country and try to play an active role.
[English |
As I was saying, this is my greatest motivation. That is why 1 came here in 1964, not to defend continuously what took place in the past, even though it was right at that time. I came here in the hope that together, the opposition and the government, the west and the east, those who speak French and those who speak English, we could, not defend national unity but build national unity. That is what I was doing this afternoon with these young students from my district, Boy Scouts and Girl Guides. I was telling them what Canada is all about, because they are new Canadians, the first generation born Canadians. Their parents were born somewhere else.
They said: What is Canada, what is Canada's part? So I explained that Canada is one of the most beautiful lands in the world. It has had evolution, not revolution. We started as a French colony, then we became a British colony, then we became a semi-colonial country. Then slowly, gradually, we
Holidays Act
became a country, proud of being independent. In 1933, I believe, we abolished appeals to the committee of the Privy Council on criminal matters. In 1949, at the same time Newfoundland joined Canada, we also abolished appeals on civil matters to the House of Lords. And then gradually we arrived at the issue of a Canadian flag. I have the honour, Mr. Speaker, of being a freshman member in 1964, and of course I dutifully, as I still do today, listened to every speech made about my Canadian flag.
I do not say we have a monopoly on Canadianization. You know where I stand; my friends know I have tried not to divide people on these emotional issues. However, the facts are there. The facts are that in 1964 everyone said it is too soon, let things evolve, let us wait. You are going to divide the people forever. I went to speak over and over again in western Canada and, contrary to those who said we would divide the country in two, 1 discovered those who adjusted the fastest to the Canadian flag were the westerners.
I see members and colleagues, friends of mine who are still in the House, who I think in their conscience thought they should oppose this. 1 do not disagree with that, it is something for debate. They opposed the Canadian flag because they thought it would divide the country. And yet a few years later 1 saw the same members-whom I could name, but we do not embarrass our colleagues-distributing with happiness these little flags the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) has not provided in sufficient numbers to members of Parliament. They were distributing these little Canadian pins to the young new Canadians. I would like my friend, the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott), my distinguished travelling companion, to listen to his son more than his own feelings because I know he wants Canada Day. At least that is what I gather from his speech. He should listen to his son who said: I would prefer Canada Day.
My good and distinguished colleague, and I always refer to him that way, the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), told us there are only two or three countries that call their national day by their name. He is right. However, I may say to my friend that there are not many countries that have gained their independence the way we did in Canada in 1867. Most of them call it by the day that marked their revolution. If we in Canada had listened to everybody, we would never have had 1867. Why did Cartier and Macdonald go ahead in 1867? There were people at that time who said-read the record-it is too soon; Let us take time; We do not want it. However, they showed leadership, and we have Confederation. That served very well Canadians of that time and is still serving Canadians of this time.
1 am a defender of confederation, but 1 know it is because of the multitude, thank God, of other Canadians who came to this land to help it grow and become more universal, that we have this Canada of today. Look at the evolution of Canada from 1867. Look at the significant events that took place since that date. You come to 1933, 1945, and 1949. Then we have the famous flag debate. After that you arrive at something

June 29, 1981
Holidays Act
that I participated in called the Special Joint Committee of the House and Senate on the National Anthem.

In 1965, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Mr. Pearson decided that we would have a national anthem. A committee was set up and we sat on that committee. I am one of the last survivors of that committee still in the House. I sat on that committee with my colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). We agreed that "O Canada" should become our national anthem. Some people were saying: But not now! It is too early! It is premature! Do people know how much time it took us? It was proclaimed in 1980! Frankly, dear colleagues, I think we have been very patient.
Today we are presenting something new, according to certain members. But it is not new. Since 1968, 22 bills on that subject have been introduced by members who are anxious to acknowledge that this holiday, our anniversary, is the anniversary of all Canadians and to call it by its name-Canada Day. Since 1968!
I would probably side, as I do sometimes, with hon. members of the opposition if I thought we are rushing too fast or that it should not take place. I may vote in one way, but sometimes I reflect and say that perhaps we should think a little more. That is not the case in this regard. I would have gone to the Secretary of State and asked, "Why do you not accept the proposed delay?", if he had arrived tonight with a special surprise for the House of Commons to celebrate the 114 years of what we know Canada to be. He is not taking us by surprise. It has been going on and on since 1968. I repeat that we would have had time. We did not see any march or demonstrations in the street, thank God. People know that this matter is being discussed in the House; they could have talked about it. We have not had delegations of people who want to be heard. If we had done what was suggested, if we had had another committee looking at it, there would have never been a Canadian flag.
Is it not time to realize that when we talk about such subject matters, it is fine to be emotional. Canada is an emotional thing for me. It is fine, when we talk about Canada, to quote such people as my dear good friend, Senator Forsey, as was done by my hon. friend from Hamilton. But whom did he keep quoting? I want to be clear. That is why I am speaking more in English than in French tonight. I want to be clearly understood in what I have to say. It has nothing to do with being anti-English or anti-French or a fight between the two. It would be a denial of my entire life if hon. members thought otherwise. Whom did he quote? He quoted lord so-and-so and sir so-and-so. He quoted the Bible. I am a religious person and a believer, but I do not see the relevancy. Is it not anti-Bible to rise and quote the Bible when talking about Canada? Sure, it is in the Bible, but it does not say that because it is a quote from the Bible we cannot follow our inclinations for Canada,
that is, to make it better known and accepted as such. They talked about the United Kingdom and what took place in 1867. They talked about the monarchy. They talked about the dominion. Again they talked about sir so-and-so.
Let us build Canada now for the people of tomorrow irrespective of the people of yesterday. We must respect them, but if we always go back and say, "Yesterday they said that, accordingly we should not move today", I do not know the kind of Canada we would have. If Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George Etienne Cartier would have had the same kind of attitude, I can tell my good colleagues from British Columbia and everywhere else that we would not be celebrating our one hundred and fourteenth anniversary. But they were people who said it was best for a group of people who lived on a piece of land, which is now called Canada, that we have confederation. Then Mr. Pearson knew that it was best for Canada, knowing that it was divisive and passionate, to have a national anthem. It was best for the future of young Canadians to have a Canadian flag, and soon they will have a Constitution. I agree that we in the country may disagree on the way it is being done. This is debatable, but one matter which is not debatable is the fact that we want a Constitution in Canada, done by Canadians and amended by Canadians. This is a step in the right direction. It is true Canadianization. There is nothing anti-British or anti-monarchy in that. It is just a cold Canadian fact of life.
I should like to call upon my dear colleague, the House leader of the Official Opposition. Perhaps he would like to withdraw his amendment-he knows I am sincere-and accept the fact that we should send the bill to committee. I hope the Secretary of State is listening in case I am making a mistake; I am almost making a proposal for him. I have a few minutes left; I do not want to speak last. Perhaps the hon. member should withdraw his amendment and not send the subject matter to committee after second reading, but send the bill itself. It will not be passed by July 1. Then the point of the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) would be answered, as well as the point of the hon. member from Hamilton who said, "Let's have a committee; let's have this and that." At least we would have second reading tonight and it would be sent to committee.
I am sure the hon. Secretary of State would accept it, knowing that we will not get the bill by July 1. I am asking the Secretary of State to accept my proposal to the opposition. I hope we will stop being afraid for the future of the country. Of course we should respect the past, but we should build together and defend national unity. I ask hon. members to build national unity. I do not mean to suggest that they are antiCanadian or non-Canadian; I never want to be quoted as saying such.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, in the two or three minutes remaining in the debate I want to make it clear that while I appreciate, fully understand and accept the sincerity of the words of the hon. member for
June 29, 1981

Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) who just sat down, I question this debate being brought on now on June 29, 1981, when the bill was introduced on June 19, 1980. We have had a whole year in which to consider this bill, but no, they must spring it on us.
The first time I heard about the bill was within the last couple of weeks. I heard that if the government could get a guarantee that it would pass through all stages with one speaker per side, then it would go through. Fine, it would be brought forward. If not, it would go on the back burner.


David Michael Collenette: That is not true.


Donald W. Munro: That is the way I heard the arrangements. This was the first part of the arrangements. Therefore, I am triply suspicious of the government's intentions. This is the third time in a fortnight when matters of this sort have been sprung upon us in a most extraordinary way.
The first occasion was approximately two weeks ago when out of the blue the government, for the second time in a decade, decided to have a debate on foreign affairs. We know what the government was doing. It was marking time because it was awaiting a ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada. The second time was when we dealt with CALURA. It was just a filler because the government was pulled up short on some of its estimates and realized it was in deep trouble. This time it is partly that and partly the fact the government is still floundering around, trying to make up its mind on how to deal with the $1.2 billion it was attempting to get illegally out of the House without anyone noticing it. Thank goodness someone noticed it. The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) managed to bring it forward.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Why is the hon. member talking about $1.2 billion when he is supposed to be talking about Dominion Day becoming Canada Day? That is the type of discussion Canadians expect us to have at this time, not to talk about the budget.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether I could direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council. Could he confirm the business for tomorrow?


David Michael Collenette: There will be at least three bills brought forward tomorrow. They are the ones which were introduced today. 1 believe their numbers are C-77, C-76 and C-75, in that order. At any rate, they are the three bills standing in the name of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in the reverse order of the way they were presented this afternoon upon introduction.
If we make progress on those three bills, I am sure we could proceed with the other bills which were introduced today.
Adjournment Debate
They cover those items in the estimates which were deleted by Madam Speaker about ten days ago.


Walter David Baker: We are anxious to co-operate with the government with respect to this legislation. Will the parliamentary secretary be in a position tomorrow to give me the exact order of the legislation with which the government intends to proceed? I am sure we can expedite the passage of that legislation.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the exact order. I do not have the exact numbers assigned; but perhaps the Table officials can help us out with this matter. It will definitely be the three bills standing in the name of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, not in the order introduced today but in reverse order. I believe they have been assigned the numbers C-77, C-76 and C-75. We will deal with those three bills in that order. Then perhaps we will proceed to the bill standing in the name of the Minister of Agriculture. That has not been determined at this time. We will advise the parties tomorrow morning through the normal channels.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions with regard to this matter. I believe the order is C-77, C-75 and C-76.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Government of Canada can afford to spend tens of millions of dollars on the advertising of those aspects of government policy which it wishes to sell to the public, it seems incredible to me that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) would suggest to me on April 3 that I, or any other member of Parliament, should be responsible for advertising the student employment program of this government. Perhaps the Minister of Employment and Immigration is not on good terms with the minister for propaganda. In that case, I recommend that he seek reconciliation prior to any program for winter employment so that Canada as a whole might be properly informed.
In a rural constituency it is virtually impossible to have any knowledge of all the people who might wish to apply for projects under make-work programs. If moneys are to be spent for advertising the various departments, it is imperative that

June 29, 1981
Adjournment Debate
some of it be spent for the general information of the public in a program which can mean so much to the small towns, villages and rural communities of Canada. At this particular time it would be interesting to know what the program for the winter is to be. What will be its name? What class of project will be eligible, and will there be any circulation of the terms and conditions of the program that rural Canadians may have an opportunity to apply for?
There is another aspect of the make-work programs which should be given some consideration. The accumulation of the statistics for the allocation of moneys is not done office by office in the employment and immigration structure. There is an accumulation of information which may be influenced by any part of the region concerned and may reflect very improperly upon other areas. For instance, in the economy of Carleton-Charlotte, as 1 pointed out last week, fishing, farming and forestry have been adversely affected by catastrophic interest rates and by the increase in the value of the Canadian dollar in respect of some foreign countries. This has brought about a reduction in the return of both raw and finished products which are exported from this constituency. And this constituency depends upon exports. The consequence of such a decline upon income may amount to as much as 24 per cent and as little as 10 per cent in some markets. The consequence of such a decline in income from exports for such an area is obvious even to an amateur economist.
Unfortunately, the nature of employment in Carleton-Char-lotte is seasonal. But the allocation of funds for make-work programs does not take this into consideration. Unless there is a very major turn-around in anticipated income, fishermen and fish processors will find themselves with a very low level of income this year and the unemployment figures along the coast of Carleton-Charlotte may reach an all-time high.
Can the minister advise me what particular consideration will be given when allocating winter works moneys for the unusual unemployment that will exist along the Bay of Fundy coast of Carleton-Charlotte? As an example, one processing plant in Campobello burned, and the economic climate is such that it will not be reconstructed in the near future. Will they get any special consideration for this?
In the rest of the fish processing industry, the indication is there will be less employment there as well. So will the Fundy coast get special consideration? Will the data accumulated from that area influence the moneys to be spent in that area? In the village of McAdam, the Georgia Pacific veneer plant has been closed, partly because of weakening of export markets and partly because there is virtually no housing program in Canada at all at this time. Furthermore, the CPR has withdrawn certain of its employment opportunities from McAdam and therefore there is a village of about 1500 people most of whom are unemployed.
Will this now be considered immediately in the accumulation of statistics for the allocation of make-works programs for this winter? I tried to get unemployment statistics which
would be applicable to the constituency and I am told they are just not available. However, those statistics which are accumulated in the individual offices of St. Stephens, Woodstock, Florenceville, etc., are put into the pool, and there is not, in fact, a reflection of those who are unemployed, those whose unemployment has expired, and those who have given up in the pursuit of work because there is no work available. But these figures which are publicized would indicate that we are more in line with the city of Fredericton than the city of Saint John in the employment rate, and this is not the case.
While I am quite prepared to acknowledge that there is a higher rate of employment in Carleton-Charlotte than there is in Gloucester or Westmorland-Kent, there is not that much difference that $3 million should have been allocated last winter for Gloucester, $3 million should have been allocated for Westmorland-Kent, and only $178,000 for Carleton-Charlotte, $100,000 for Fundy-Royal and $129,000 for York-Sun-bury. Yes, there is a difference, but not that much.
Would the minister consider meeting with members who have problems such as the one I have outlined, to determine a fashion in which allocation might be more rational, as they relate to the unemployment of the individual constituencies, rather than of a region, or of a half of New Brunswick, or whatever way this is put together? It would appear that Carleton-Charlotte will be little better off than Westmorland-Kent, for instance, in the coming winter, as far as employment is concerned.
I appeal to the minister through you, Your Honour, on behalf of the constituents of Carleton-Charlotte and other rural type constituencies which have been short-changed by virtue of a system which does not lend itself to the realities of employment opportunity any more than it would in rural P.E.I., rural Saskatchewan, or any other part of the country. There is no systematic accumulation of statistics which actually apply to any rural constituency in Canada. They are influenced by the cities we place around it.


Mr. George Henderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) announced the Summer Canada: Student Employment Program on January 22, 1981. A program advertising campaign was held from February 24 to March 6, 1981, and consisted of advertisements in all major newspapers and weeklies throughout the country. In addition, brochures outlining the program were made available to the public in mid-February. This formal advertising campaign was further supplemented by information on the program sent to national organizations and to past sponsors. As well, media coverage in local papers and on radio was arranged through our employment development branch offices.


Fred Alward McCain: A point of order, please. In my statement, there was no adversiting of anything for Carleton-Charlotte.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. In the adjournment debate, no points of order or questions of privilege are considered.
June 29, 1981


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, as a result of this advertising campaign, I am pleased to say that we received a high number of applications from the Maritime provinces to the extent, in fact, that the total of the funds requested in these applications exceeds the allocations by a margin of 4.4 to one. In New Brunswick, the funds requested amounted to $8,423,709 while the allocation is $2,085,000, which is a ratio of 4 to one.
The figures show clearly that there has been no apparent problem of lack of awareness of the program and that our publicity has been very successful.
For this reason, and in view of the fact that we already have many more applications than we can fund, there does not appear to be any good reason for extending the deadline and thus delaying both consideration of the projects so far submitted and setting back the date for the start of the selected projects.


MANPOWER-ONTARIO WOMEN'S OUTREACH GROUPS- REQUEST FOR MEETING WITH MINISTER
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, on June 16. I questioned the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) concerning the very serious matters respecting the women's Outreach programs for projects in Ontario. The minister has refused eight times to meet with them. I understand that he still has not met with them personally.
I also raised the question of the very stringent regulations which have been implemented for member Outreach projects and the assimilation policy which is trying to centralize the very projects which were created to meet needs that could not be met in central offices; the frequent reviews that are imposed on these projects and the very-short term, three-month extensions which really in effect are killing Outreach projects across Canada.
I asked the minister about programs which are meeting permanent needs. In particular I mentioned the one with ethnic workers in Vancouver's Chinatown. These kind of permanent Outreach services should be funded in a permanent way as regular services and not simply as short-term projects.
The minister's answer was unsatisfactory. He gave no reply in response to the question about women's Outreach projects. I have checked Hansard and found that at least on four other occasions he has avoided this question in the House. He mentioned eight counselling units for women which have been established in manpower offices. While they may be valid services, they will not meet the kinds of special needs which Outreach projects are designed to meet. He talked about computerized job-finding services. This is a good idea and would be complementary to the Outreach service, but it would not replace Outreach in any way. He rationalized what appeared to be cutbacks that he would not admit by saying:
We are reallocating resources and targeting real needs.
Adjournment Debate
The real needs are for Outreach services funded in a permanent way. The values of Manpower Outreach programs for women and for other target groups have been demonstrated repeatedly. Successes are undisputed. In all evaluations, there is considerable documentation about how effective and how economical these services are.
There are 19 Outreach projects for women across Canada. These programs are all facing cutbacks and possible discontinuation. These projects have placed women in jobs. They have increased the number of opportunities for women who have traditionally been out of the labour force. They have provided employment counselling in store front kind of operations in neigbourhood communities. They have helped women who have been out of the labour force and who have little work experience to develop confidence and, new skills in seeking employment, and to keep jobs once they find them. They create support services and help women to have mutual support group sessions. They help them to find the needed child care. They help them to create training programs which are appropriate as well as to get into vocational services in the community.
There are many services provided in an Outreach way which cannot meet the needs of these women in the central offices of the manpower service. Perhaps those services are useful to meet the needs of the more motivated, confident and better educated women who are used to going into big bureaucracies and who know their way around the system. I cannot see them as being appropriate in the same way for older women who have been out of the work force and who lack confidence, or for immigrant women who do not know how to speak English well and do not know what the job market is in Canada, or for teenagers without experience or low-income women who have few skills and little education. These women need Outreach services.
I mentioned the Strathcona Manpower Outreach program which is another example of an essential service which should be funded permanently. It is located in downtown Chinatown in Vancouver. There are three workers who speak Cantonese. It attracts immigrants who do not speak English, immigrant workers who do not know their way around. They need a specific kind of help in their own language. These people know little about Canadian customs and the provisions under the labour code of Canada. They need counselling in their own language about the job situation, information and advice about Canadian customs and how to apply for jobs.
These people have the help of interpreters in filling out forms and getting around the city. As well, they have a very practical training program. For example, at Britannia Centre, a community school, they have set up a very practical program in the garment industry. The immigrants learn how to use Canadian machinery. They may not speak English, but they learn the technical English that is essential for their trade. They also have group sessions. Counsellors go into the English

June 29, 1981
Adjournment Debate
language classes and talk to them about resources. They also have a referral program operating.
This service has found jobs at a considerably higher rate per worker than the employment and immigration centres. They have found jobs in the garment industry, the hotel and restaurant industry, small businesses such as electronic firms and in fish canneries in Vancouver East. It has been a very worthwhile service, one that is very economical. Very little money has been spent on the bureaucracy. Most of it goes into direct service for clients.
Another Outreach service is the native Outreach program called NEED, Native Employment and Education Development. This is another downtown service in Gastown for native Indians, many of whom come from reserves to the city. They are quite lost when they do not have native people they know in a setting in which they feel comfortable. They go to the drop-in centre where they make friends and have native counsellors to tell them what is being offered.
All the services of the employment centre are decentralized and offered in their own setting. In this way they get access to programs. They get confidence building from Outreach and support services through that centre. It makes them feel confident when looking for jobs and in developing their potential. This service is needed.
I cannot see why the minister, with Treasury Board backing him, would not give high priority to continuing Outreach services. They are economically sound, effective in finding jobs, and help the employers in a much more practical way than central bureaucratic offices. They develop the potential of workers who have special needs and who cannot use the traditional Manpower offices. They create many supportive resources in the community.
Outreach services cost less and produce better results. The needs cannot be met through an assimilation project at the head office. Therefore I appeal to the minister and to Treasury Board: If funds must be cut, cut them from the central bureaucracies and keep the essential Outreach services that I have mentioned.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, there are two separate issues which would appear to have been unfortunately combined in the present public discussions on the Outreach program. One is the policy review presently under way, and the other is the limited size of the program's budget and efforts that are being made to have it supplemented.
Perhaps I should deal with the budget first. The increase in the 1981-82 Outreach budget; as compared with the previous year, does not reflect the present rate of inflation. At the same time, the minister has been anxious to approve as many new projects as possible, particularly projects serving women. This has resulted in rather severe funding pressures on the program and more particularly on the budget of the Ontario region. As soon as this became apparent, efforts were initiated to indenti-fy any funds which might be available for transfer from other programs to Outreach. A decision from Treasury Board on this issue is expected shortly.
In the face of the severe funding limitations, however, the Ontario region was faced with only two alternatives: entering into 12-month contracts with projects for amounts of money which would reflect a decrease in activity compared with 1980-81; or entering into shorter term contracts for levels of activity which generally were consistent with previous activity levels, and relying on the success of the aforementioned efforts to find new money to enable the extension of the contracts at appropriate funding levels. This policy has not been limited to women's projects.
With respect to the second issue, that of future policy directions for Outreach, as with any government program, Outreach has been the subject of a review to determine how it might be improved and what, if any, new policy directions might be contemplated. The desirability for such a review results from a number of factors.
Once the minister has received the recommendations of his deputy minister as to the future role of Outreach, he will determine the nature of any consultations in which he may wish to be personally involved. He has instructed, however, that the analysis of all options reflect the results of the consultations now taking place.
As a final comment I would say that, contrary to some suggestions made in this House, the minister has not moved and is not moving to terminate either the Outreach program itself or Women's Outreach projects specifically. In fact, although final year-end expenditures for 1980-81 are not yet available, approximately $1,346,974, or 13.4 per cent of total Outreach program funds, went to projects serving women exclusively.
This represents an increase of 94.5 per cent over that expended in 1979-80, which was actually $692,567. I should
June 29, 1981

also point out that over 40 per cent of the clients of all Outreach projects serving all target groups are women. Further, the minister is actively seeking methods of supplementing the Outreach budget and, should additional funds become available, women's projects will continue to receive the highest priority.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock.
At 10.22 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, June 30, 1981