1981-03-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43. The resumption of energy pricing meetings with the producing provinces is welcome. In support of the success of such meetings I move, seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announce prior to the meetings a revised comprehensive pricing regime for conventional oil production, oil sands production, heavy oil production, tertiary oil production and offshore and frontier oil production as the basis for successful negotiations with the producing provinces, thereby providing for Canadian oil self-sufficiency during this decade.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, the base rate of inflation excluding food and fuel is at a new high of 10.2 per cent over a year ago. The increase in the price of food and fuel is not the prime cause of inflation. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That in view of the fact that the government's fiscal stance, criticized by the Bank of Canada and castigated by almost every economic group in Canada, is clearly wrong and proven to be inept, the Minister of Finance forthwith introduce a new budget and new estimates to be presented to this House changing the direction of government policy, to come to grips with inflation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that in the view of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) there is an emerging consensus across Canada that no extra billing will be acceptable in this country and that such a consensus should be reflected in the upcoming renegotiation of EPF and in view of the fact that in the meantime Canadians continue to be unfairly burdened by extra billing, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare be instructed by this House that leadership be shown on this issue through the implementation of Mr. Justice Hall's recommendation that the federal Medical Care Act "be revised" by the federal government, as only it can, "to provide that extra billing by physicians inhibits reasonable access to services and is contrary to the intent and purpose of the act" in the hope that this will put moral pressure on the provinces to act now in the interests of Canadians and not wait for renegotiation of EPF, as extra billing should not be a negotiable item in the First place.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the obvious filibuster now being conducted by the Conservative opposition on the Constitution, and in view of the fact that this is preventing the government from dealing with important economic issues and important energy issues, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Bossy):
That this House extend its sitting hours until all questions can be put on the constitutional resolution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 18, 1981
S.O.	43 ENERGY


SUGGESTED MEETING BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND PREMIER OF SASKATCHEWAN-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, the 8 per cent tax levy of the federal government has had a very serious effect on oil production in Saskatchewan. It is more serious there than in any place in Canada. Oil production was shut down earlier this year in southwestern Saskatchewan. As of March 1, 50 per cent of light crude production has been shut in, in southeastern Saskatchewan, affecting over 900 oil wells. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That the Right Hon. Prime Minister meet immediately with Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan to deal with and resolve the very serious situation which exists with regard to oil production in Saskatchewan.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of some urgency, under the provisions of Standing Order 43. An F-18 fighter aircraft was badly damaged Monday when the main landing gear collapsed during test procedures held in the United States. One of the reasons the government selected this plane is that it is supposedly capable of hard landings on aircraft carriers-even though Canada has none-on the basis that most Canadian military pilots were bounce-landers, a strengthened undercarriage would last longer, and the replacement savings would more than compensate for additional weight and fuel penalties. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That the Minister of National Defence abandon his obviously misguided optimism regarding the contract for the entire F-18 program and reveal to this House the details of the serious design and performance deficiencies of the plane, and what measures his department plans to take to ensure the aircraft delivered to Canada will be capable of operating within specified and desired requirements, and how much in the way of industrial benefits we will lose because of the cutbacks in orders by the U.S. navy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BROADCASTING
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. According to recent reports, a CBC radio affiliate in Tuktoyaktuk in the Northwest Territories is so financially strapped for funds that the community-owned station has been depending on bingo profits to keep it on the air.
Recently this station, and at least one other in northern Canada, received, from Radio-Moscow, an unsolicited offer to provide five hours per month in English of such program delights as "Moscow Mailbag", "Life in the Soviet Union", and "Soviet-American Relations". Apparently there is no Canadian law to stop these broadcasts if CFCT, the station in Tuktoyaktuk, accepts the Soviet offer. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That since the station in Tuktoyaktuk is the only source of CBC broadcasting for 5,000 people in the area, this House urge CBC to grant the station enough funds to continue its community based operation, while retaining local control, so that this and other northern stations will not be tempted to accept free Soviet program packages.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Canadians suffering from a terminal illness such as cancer are naturally very concerned about the financial well-being of their families. The greatest enemy of these people is time. Canada Pension Plan disability procedures are not set up to give any consideration to the severe problems these people face. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That this House instruct the Minister of National Health and Welfare to study the possibility of setting up priority processing of disability pensions for Canadians suffering from a terminal illness.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
March 18, 1981


NATIONAL PENSIONS CONFERENCE
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that Mr. Guy Fortier, conference co-ordinator for the National Pensions Conference, has refused to allow delegate participation by the Canadian Long Service Military Annuitants at the pensions conference to be held in Ottawa two weeks from now, and whereas CLSMA represents some 12,000 Armed Forces veterans and pensioners who have served their country well, I therefore move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare be directed to recognize the very valuable work of the CLSMA in regard to the pension needs of Canadian veterans and their widows, by granting that organization full delegate status at the National Pensions Conference.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller), I move:
That this House welcomes last week's signing of a reciprocal agreement on social security between Canada and the United States, under which there will be improvements for pensioners who have lived their working lives partly in one country and partly in the other, and urges that every effort be made to bring this agreement into effect with the least possible delay; and that this House urges also that renewed efforts be made to achieve reciprocal agreements on social security with other countries, particularly the United Kingdom, for the sake of the many United Kingdom pensioners now living in Canada who are in serious need of increases in their pensions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, perhaps I can be forgiven for noting that when the House leader of the New Democratic Party rose to talk about President Reagan's visit, he was not wearing a black arm band on this occasion.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. Everyday he is seeing, as is the country, new evidence of the failure of the government's policy to deal with inflation. Yesterday the annual report of the Bank of Canada indicated that very little progress had been made by the policy the government seems intent on following. Today the consumer price index indicates that inflation has now reached a 12.2 per cent rate this year, which is the highest annual rate of inflation since December of 1974, and the second highest this country has faced since the Korean war. In light of this evidence of failure to deal with inflation, will the Minister of Finance tell the House of Commons whether he intends any changes in the economic stance and policy of his government to deal more effectively with inflation in Canada?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member referred to the annual report of the Governor of the Bank of Canada in which the Governor described the performance of the monetary policy he administered. He said that it had not accomplished as much as he expected, but that he was intending to continue and persevere, and that he had established new monetary targets. It seems to me that what the Governor of the bank is recommending in the Field of monetary policy is appropriate at the present time and is fully supported by the government.
I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition is recommending that the Governor of the bank apply an even stricter monetary policy which would involve higher interest rates and further decreases in the money supply. That is not my view at the present time.


Mr. Crosbie:: That was not the question. Answer the question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe the monetary policy of the Governor is appropriate.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is your policy.


Mr. Andre:: Answer the question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Hon. members have said that I am not answering the question. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition asked whether I was contemplating or recommending any changes in current policy. He began his questioning by referring to the report of the Bank of Canada released earlier this

March 18, 1981
Oral Questions
week. So, I am attempting to reply directly to that aspect of the question.


QUERY RESPECTING INTENTIONS OF GOVERNMENT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister referred very selectively to the report of the Bank of Canada. He made no reference at all to its recommendations regarding fiscal policy, and he made no reference at all to the question which indicated that day after day-yesterday from the Bank of Canada; today from the CPI-there is new evidence that the government's policy, if it has one, to fight inflation, simply is not working.
Yesterday the minister admitted that his own inflation forecasts of less than half a year ago were wrong, perhaps even significantly wrong. He cannot give us a new inflation forecast. Presumably the policy in that so-called budget brought in five months ago was based upon forecasts. The forecasts are wrong. Does the government intend to change the policy to take into account the fact that his forecasts were wrong?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it would probably be a good idea at some point in our discussion on the orders of the day to recognize that forecasts are exactly that. They are based on assumptions and information available at the time of the projection, and oftentimes they are wrong. I am the first to admit that some of the projections included in the October budget were, with the passage of time, proven to be incorrect.
I must say, Madam Speaker, I do not intend to go around striking my breast about that, unless the hon. member for St. John's West is ready to join me and we both strike our breasts, since in his budget of December, 1979, in his projections for inflation, he overestimated the projected inflation for 1980 and he underestimated the likely inflation for 1981. That is the nature of projections. Let us not make too much fuss about them; they do not solve very many problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ASSISTANCE FOR LOW-INCOME GROUPS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister celebrates how frequently he is wrong. That could be a constant celebration in this House. But it is not a celebration in which the people of Canada join with much gratitude or with much heart, since they are suffering and paying the price for the failure of the economic policy of this government.
The government indicates that even though the basis on which it decides policy is wrong, in the minister's own words, it does not intend to change that policy. Will the minister then consider bringing some comfort to the victims of his policy, to the victims of inflation? Will he tell the House whether he intends to take any measures to help low-income Canadians, particularly, who are faced most seriously with dealing with
the problem of inflation? What measures does he intend to take? Does he simply intend to say to the people of Canada, "Sit back and suffer. I am wrong, but I intend to do nothing about it"? What does the minister intend to do to help low-income Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition believes that the way to fight inflation is to protect every sector in the economy against inflation. If the right hon. gentleman read the report of the Governor of the bank, he would have noticed that the Governor found that a very bad policy for the country and that all it led to was additional inflation, further inflationary expectations, and continuous price instability.
In order to protect the neediest segments of the population, what we decided to do was to increase the guaranteed income supplement at a very early date in our mandate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!	(


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The guaranteed income supplement is fully indexed and it, along with the old age security and war veterans allowance, provides full protection against inflation for the neediest people in the community. In view of our budgetary situation it is not possible to provide an over-all protection against inflation for every group in the economy, even if it were desirable economically, which it is not.


REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RESOLUTION
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, not everyone in Canada who needs assistance is over 60, what with real wages going down for the fourth year in a row. What Governor Bouey has said is that he is getting no assistance from the Minister of Finance in his fight against inflation.
My suggestion to the Prime Minister is that if Canada had a new and perfect constitution it would not do a thing to affect the 12.2 per cent inflation rate; it would not do anything to help the Canadian dollar; it would not do anything to bring down interest rates; it would not put any one of the 928,000 unemployed back to work, or any one of the 348,000 hidden unemployed back to work. Will the Prime Minister now put aside this fetish of his about the Constitution and bring in new economic policies to this Parliament, dealing with anti-inflation moves, unemployment, inflation, and the weak Canadian dollar? Will he direct his minister to do that, or ask him to clear out of the way and let someone else do it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I completely agree with the hon. member. I remind him of the position of his own party, as stated by the hon. member for Provencher to the effect-


Mr. Lalonde:: When he was here.
March 18, 1981


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -when he was here, that the people of-


Charles Joseph Clark: You should talk!


An hon. Member:: That's why you'll never make a deal with Alberta, Lalonde.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles Joseph Clark: I guess his illness has gone to his head.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the position, as stated by the hon. member for Provencher, is to the effect that it is the popular will of Canadians that we have a Constitution, that it have an amending formula, and that we have a bill of rights. This being the case, and it being agreed that we should be getting on to dealing with economic subjects, 1 just put a question to the hon. member. Why does he not influence his leader in his caucus to have a vote? We have heard 140 speakers in this House-


Charles Joseph Clark: Where are your economic measures?


An hon. Member:: You don't look like an Arab.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and many others in the Senate. We have heard all of these speakers; some for and some against. It seems that the democratic process itself-


An hon. Member:: No, you haven't.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Then I appeal to the member for St. John's. The hon. members behind him are saying that they have not had time to speak yet. Do they want to speak? Do they think it is an important subject, or not? If they think it is an important subject, then the hon. member should not argue that we get on to other things. If it is not an important subject, why must we have more than 140 speakers on the same topic?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Provencher is not in Lech, Austria, when he should be travelling to Algeria. He is having a well-deserved rest. He is not flying at the expense of the Government of Canada, either, on his holiday.
Canada already has a Constitution. It has had it for 114 years. We are not going to agree in a wrong process, no matter what you do. You decide the timetable of this House, and the decision is up to you.
Having dealt with your silly reply, can I ask you a supplementary question?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: While the Canadian people suffer the factuous asses here-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member need not deal with the replies. His role is to ask questions, and he should be asking questions.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: My supplementary question is this-and the Prime Minister is not prepared to set aside the constitutional proposals for a month or two. We had three years of wage and price controls imposed in 1975 when the inflation rate had gone to 10.8 per cent, the CPI. Nothing was done to solve the fundamental problems of inflation of the Canadian economy during those three years.
Will the Prime Minister give the House his assurance that he will not resort to that expedient again when the Canadian people go berserk over his lack of action in dealing with the economy, that he will not reimpose wage and price controls which proved ineffective before? Will he assure us that he will direct the Minister of Finance to take some other action to avoid those controls which did not do us any good in the three years we had them? Would he at least do that, if he will not set aside the constitutional proposals now for a month or two?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's, presumably while addressing the Chair, though he should know the rules, talked about "your silly replies". Madam Speaker, I do not think this is the proper way of addressing the Chair.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


An hon. Member:: Don't be testy.


John Carnell Crosbie: Stand up like a man. Don't hide behind the Speaker's skirt.


REQUEST FOR ADVICE FROM PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I have a very serious question which I would like to place before the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: Good luck!


Nelson Andrew Riis: I think we all recognize that we have a cost of living crisis in Canada. I suspect that this is just the beginning, with the price of petroleum to impact on Canadians starting March 1. Literally, Canadian families and Canadian businessmen have their backs to the wall. Some time ago the Prime Minister suggested that people must adjust to these high inflationary rates by changing their priorities. What advice would he have for Canadians who are today caught in what is perhaps the most crucial inflation squeeze in recent times?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, my advice would be to have Canadians urge their members to permit the measures before the House to come to a vote-


Charles Joseph Clark: What economic measures? You have no economic plan.

March 18, 198!
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -so that we could deal urgently with other economic matters such as the energy policy and other economic policies.


Mr. Malone:: Table your economic program.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Previously the Prime Minister was more interested in having Canadians rearrange their priorities.


BANK OF CANADA
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, my next question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In recognition of the fact that Governor Bouey has failed the government and failed Canadians in not coming to grips with inflation, I should like to ask the minister if he would consider asking for Governor Bouey's resignation, and also if he would consider bringing in a budget that would deal effectively with the concerns that face consumers across this country. Will the minister explain why he is prepared to accept the high interest rates we have today? Why is he not prepared to roll those interest rates back when they are the second highest of all industrialized nations, with one exception?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks why we will not roll back interest rates. That sounds like a wonderful solution, but it is a dangerous one because the only way, to my knowledge or my understanding, that the Governor of the Bank of Canada could reduce interest rates would be to increase the money supply. We must ask what that would do to inflationary expectations. We might have a short-term breathing space with a very long-term increased inflation pressure. That is the answer to that question.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? In view of the fact that today's terribly high cost of living hits particularly hard at senior citizens; in view of the fact that the $35 increase of a few months ago, even when indexed, still leaves most senior citizens living below the poverty line; and in view of the fact that as cautious a firm as William M. Mercer Ltd. has recommended that there be an immediate increase of $100 per month in the basic old age security pension, will the minister do her best, in this period when we are going to get at important issues, to bring a measure before the House to provide for a substantial increase in old age pensions across the
board, to help those who are hit so hard by today's high cost of living?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I reject completely the William M. Mercer proposal to increase the OAS by $100, as was suggested about a week ago. It would, of course, cost the country billions of dollars, because this is a universal program. Even with the maximum tax paid on that by rich seniors, it would still leave them with pretty good additional money that I just do not see that they need.
Our objective is to take the seniors in need, and in particular those who are single, unattached persons, separated, divorced, etc.-and the fact is they are slightly more numerous than couples-over the poverty line. For that we still need money. That is the first priority of my department and of the government, as soon as the economy permits it. The individuals who receive the supplement will be taken over the proverty line. I have often repeated, to make sure that all of us remember our commitment, that we will need money as soon as the economy permits, for the seniors who are alone and need the GIS, to take them above the proverty line. Right now the indexation every three months helps tremendously to catch up with the difficult time of inflation.


THE ECONOMY
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance and it also deals with the runaway inflation rate which is causing so many Canadians such despair. Since the Conference Board of Canada is forecasting average weekly wage increases of only 10.5 per cent for 1981, how can the minister justify a 12.2 per cent inflation rate? This will outstrip average wage increases for the fourth consecutive year, as was pointed out by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West, and is the worst track record since the government started keeping wage statistics 42 years ago. Since we started collecting statistics, there has never been a four-year period where workers' wages were being stripped of purchasing power by inflation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks me to justify the rate of inflation. No one finds the rate of inflation more disturbing than I, and no one in the country ought to be satisfied with the current rate of inflation. No one in the country ought to believe for a moment that the actions of the government alone will reduce inflationary expectations and pressures in the country.
Inasmuch as hon. members opposite have quoted so extensively from the annual report of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, they should look at the paragraph where the governor suggested that all groups, organized labour, organized business and individuals, take into account the effect of their behaviour
March 18, 1981

on total inflation in the country. Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, that this is the number one question which is facing the country and it has to be solved by the government-


Charles Joseph Clark: The do-nothing minister.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -which is following its policy, and by all other groups in the community as well.


PENSION INDEX FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the Minister of Finance. I should like to point out to him that there have only been two other years when the rate of inflation outstripped wage increases, and those were the post-war years of 1946 and 1948. This proves that the present administration is the most incompetent in the last 33 years.
The Minister of Finance has repeatedly claimed, as he did again today, that senior citizens who receive old age pensions are protected from inflation because their pensions are fully indexed. Since seniors spend most of their pensions on the necessities of life, food, shelter, transportation, and since the price of food for home consumption is up 15.5 per cent over a year ago, the price of utilities is up 21 per cent, and transportation is up 16.6 per cent, how can the minister justify limiting old age pension increases to the over-all cost of living index which is much less than the price increases they are facing? Why does the minister not develop a senior citizens' pension index which would give seniors real protection from the ravages of his economic policies?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, perhaps the question ought to be more properly addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I would remind the hon. member that the cost of living index includes all the elements that go into a basket that provides for the daily necessities of individuals in this country. That is fully indexed on a quarterly basis. In fact recipients of old age pensions in this country are protected against the impact of inflation. The only study that I know of which was produced by the Economic Council of Canada shows quite conclusively that the indexing provisions, not only of the social security programs but also of the income tax system, do an effective job of protecting, in particular, the low-income groups.
I mentioned earlier, and it is important to repeat it, that for 1980 alone, through these systems of indexation that are found in the tax system and the social security system, a total amount of $3 billion in protection is offered to the low-income groups of this country. I doubt if any country in the world does as good a job as Canada in that respect.
Oral Questions HOUSING


EFFECT OF INTEREST RATES ON HOME OWNERS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works who is responsible for housing. Inflation is running at 12.2 per cent, the highest level since December, 1974. Specifically, the cost of home heating oil has gone up 36.7 per cent since your government took office. All of this is aggravated by the sustained high interest rates which every Canadian faces. The Minister of Finance has indicated that he does not make much fuss about this kind of thing. I ask the minister responsible for housing what plans do you have-what plans does the minister have, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: I know that it is difficult to speak in the third person and it is rather unnatural, but the rule is there for some purpose, probably to temper the enthusiasm in the House. I would ask the hon. member to try to remember that.


Charles Joseph Clark: He corrected himself.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, what plans does the government have to address this problem on behalf of Canadian home owners?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Through you, Madam Speaker, to the hon. gentleman opposite, I thank him for his question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Watch how it is done.


Paul James Cosgrove: I would like to remind the hon. gentleman that the Minister of Finance has already addressed the question in part through the inclusion of the MURB provision in the budget of October last.
It is interesting to note that the development industry in metropolitan Toronto, calculated by the province of Ontario, shows that initiative taken in combination with the province of Ontario's follow-up initiative will result in some 10,000 additional starts directed toward low and medium-income people this year.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. minister opposite that CMHC officials have indicated that high interest rates will wipe out those 10,000 starts.
As the steady reduction in housing starts will further contract the number of houses available for Canadians and inflate the cost of housing, that is, the cost of owning a new home, what plans does the government have to assist new Canadian home owners?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, with respect, I cannot accept the assumption and opening remarks in prelude to the question asked by the hon. gentleman. In fact statistics show that, notwithstanding the forecasts by CMHC for this year,

March 18, 1981
Oral Questions
starts during the month of February over the month of January increased. Although the projections were made by CMHC at the beginning of the year, the 10,000-unit projection to which I referred was made this week based on statistics of an actual record of starts which are onstream and have come onstream in metropolitan Toronto in the last few weeks.
1 have indicated the steps already taken by the government in an open market in its social unit allocation last year, and with an additional 5,000 now coming onstream I think the picture has improved considerably.


COMBINES
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The investigation by the Combines branch into the state of competition in the Canadian petroleum industry recommended that no major oil company be permitted to acquire a controlling interest in any pipeline that is subject to federal jurisdiction. Imperial Oil has a controlling interest in the Norman Wells pipeline presently being considered by the National Energy Board. Will the minister guarantee to the House that he will follow recommendations in the combines report and not permit Imperial Oil to proceed with the Norman Wells pipeline?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the recommendations of the combines investigation branch are the subject of examination by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the government. In due time recommendations will be brought before cabinet and an announcement will be made.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, those recommendations were made after an exhaustive study, and I think there is a good basis for them.
I point out to the minister that any pipeline will have a very negative impact on the Dene people and on their land claims. Will the minister guarantee to the House that cabinet will make no decision on any pipeline in the Northwest Territories until there has been a full debate in the House of Commons?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, there are numerous opposition days available to opposition parties. Subjects of concern can be brought before the House on those days.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is great leadership.


Marc Lalonde: If my hon. friend feels strongly about this subject, I invite him to use one of the allotted opposition days to put that subject on the agenda for debate.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce of Canada. Much like the people in Sorel and Tracy, the North Shore residents, particularly in Port-Cartier and Sept-Iles, greeted with enthusiasm the $350 million special program announced last Monday. First, keeping in mind the complexity of the program, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce what exactly are the measures which will affect the workers and those which relate to the industries in the designated areas, and second, I should like to know when the minister intends to confirm the decision concerning the special committees which will be established to carry out this special program of his department.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, we intend to confirm the status of the community development committees as soon as our officials have completed the necessary consultations. The program we announced a few days ago has two main features. The components of the manpower restructuration program include higher incentives for individual training, transferable salary grants, a component of community job creation, the updating of mobility incentive measures, and financial benefits for early retirement. The industries in designated communities are eligible for a 5 per cent refundable subsidy for industrial capital projects. This is a very significant program for the designated communities and for our entire economy, Madam Speaker.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In announcing the decision to move "E" Division RCMP headquarters from Victoria to Vancouver, at a news conference held at the University of Victoria, the Solicitor General said:
I am confident it won't harm the local economy.
Would the Solicitor General explain the reason for his confidence when he has admitted there have been no economic and social impact studies completed on the move and when it is acknowledged that the city of Victoria will be losing a $5 million annual payroll?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, what I had in mind was that the move would be phased in over a three-year period-


Arnold John Malone: So they won't notice it.
March 18, 1981


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -that there would be normal attrition and transfers during that period, and that all of the officials working in the program who wanted to do so would have a priority for transferring to other federal jobs available in the Vancouver area.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, the fact is when the $5 million payroll is gone, it is gone.
The Solicitor General also claims there has been full consultation with the B.C. government concerning the RCMP headquarters move. On Monday he told reporters:
They were fully consulted about it during the last two years of planning.
However, the Hon. Allan Williams, attorney general of B.C., stated today:
To suggest that we have been consulted is inaccurate and misleading. This is a callous and insensitive move and I oppose it until it is supported by an economic and social impact study.
Concerning this difference could the Solicitor General explain what transpired between himself and the government of British Columbia? Will he now guarantee there will be no move without an economic and social impact study?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, 1 had a telephone call from Allan Williams just before coming into the House. I discussed with him his concerns about the move. 1 am aware that during the considerable length of time this move was being planned there was full consultation between senior members of the RCMP and officials in the Attorney General's office about it. From everything we knew, the British Columbia government was supportive, or at least not objecting to the move. No doubt it is a matter of the force's internal management. It is not one to be decided by a province but one which, by tradition, is the responsibility of the federal government.


FOOD AND DRUGS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the minister knows, last August 20,000 cases of Narcissus brand mushrooms imported from mainland China were found to be contaminated and were recalled. Similarly, about five weeks ago, there was a general recall issued for Ma Ling mushrooms, also imported from China. Fear of contamination of other canned mushrooms led to an investigation of Four Star, Success and Steakhouse brands, and resulted in a freeze on the distribution of these products to retail shelves. That freeze lasted only two weeks and now these goods are back in distribution across Canada.
My question to the minister is whether she will verify that officials of her department met with officials of the Chinese government trade mission on an almost daily basis for the past three weeks, that one of the officials of the Chinese delegation
Oral Questions
was the gentleman who successfully negotiated the wheat deal a few years ago, and that as a result of representations the Department of National Health and Welfare relaxed-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has been going on for quite a while and we have not seen the light of a question.


Benno Friesen: I was in the middle of the question, Madam Speaker. As a result of pressure from ITC officials, the Department of National Health and Welfare standards were reduced from 6.5 defects per thousand to 100 per thousand. Will the minister verify the fact that these negotiations have been going on and explain why her department has been willing to jeopardize the health of Canadians in this way in order to maintain a better balance of trade with mainland China?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I would like to state quite clearly that neither myself nor my department have ever reduced our standards concerning the health of Canadians as the hon. member dares to suggest in this House. 1 have received a weekly, daily if necessary, report on that particular dossier in which I received the co-operation of the industry, first on a voluntary basis, and now on a common understanding, so that we will not have in Canada the problems related to poor canning techniques.
A team of experts from China came to Canada to exchange information, discuss with us and, I suppose, learn the techniques of canning according to our standards. I can assure Canadians that there is no case of poisoning caused by canned mushrooms from China in this country. If the member has particular cases he wants to bring up, it would be appropriate to supply me in writing immediately with names, addresses and other relevant data that he has of specific situations.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORTS
Benno Friesen: Would the minister be kind enough to table in the House all the relevant material in the reports that I take it have been compiled on this issue, and I would ask the minister, since the information I have received indicated the standards were reduced, whether she says they were, or not? I understand that 30 per cent of the stock of those mushrooms had to be returned to China after the investigation, so will she ensure through legislation, rather than through departmental regulations, which can be changed at the whim or caprice of departmental officials, the enforcement of standards imposed on imports of that kind of product into Canada?


Monique Bégin: To my knowledge, Madam Speaker, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I can assure Canadians that I have all the tools necessary to control the quality of food offered to Canadians, and in the case of these canned mushrooms I do not know of any difficulties created by the regula-

March 18, 1981
Oral Questions
tions, nor do 1 know of the supposed discretionary power that officials have according to the hon. member. This is not the situation, and decisions on that matter are made directly by me after listening to all the representations of the experts.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I will direct this question to the parliamentary secretary. Sales of Candu reactors have been reduced drastically by Canada's strict adherence to the nuclear safeguard code without similar commitments by other nuclear exporting countries. What steps is Canada taking through the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna to upgrade international standards to those of Canada in ensuring that sales be used for peaceful purposes only, thereby giving Canada a more competitive position of Candu sales?


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, since the early seventies Canada has tried to convince all nuclear technology supplier countries to set identical requirements for nuclear technology importing countries. Indeed our efforts proved successful in January, 1978, when the 15 leading countries agreed on a safeguard code to be enforced when that technology is exported to non-nuclear nations. It must be admitted, however, that those standards are not quite as stringent as those required by countries such as Canada, Sweden, Australia, the United States and the Netherlands, so there are differences from one supplier country to another.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, concerning Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the fact they are indebted to the tune of $1.2 billion and they currently appear before the public accounts committee to ask for forgiveness of some $893 million. These figures differ from newspaper reports in the amount that actually was forgiven.
In light of the fact that the minister is increasing their capital budget for 1981-82 by about 93 per cent and there are no safeguards in place to prevent them from getting into that position of indebtedness again, I would like to ask the minister what safeguards have been imposed to assure the Canadian public that AECL will not get into this same position again,
and further to that, what warrants such a huge increase in their 1981-82 budget?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I will be appearing tomorrow before the Committee on National Resources and Public Works. Representatives of AECL will also be present and we will be very happy to provide the hon. member and Parliament with all the information in answer to the various points raised by him, which I am afraid I could not cover in the time allocated in question period.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I prefer to have the minister answer those questions today in the House where the press have a much better opportunity of covering a scandalous situation that exists within AECL right now. And I would like to have him comment on the question just asked, and further to that, I would like to ask what plans you have in light of the fact there are no foreseeable markets for heavy water?


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I would like to know what your plans as a government are for the heavy water plant mothballed at La Prade which is partially completed and never to be utilized, and also the utilization of the Port Hawkesbury plant at Glace Bay where they have no markets but are still in production?


Marc Lalonde: I do not think anyone else in this House could have made the point better than the hon. member to the effect this is not the type of question I can answer within the confines of question period. I am appearing for three hours tomorrow before the committee with officials of AECL and they will be very happy to provide the hon. member with very elaborate and extensive answers to the questions he raised today and any others he may have in mind, but surely this is not the type of question to which I can give an answer in 30 seconds, or even one minute.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Stan Darling: My question is to the Minister of National Defence. He is no doubt aware of the incident in the United States on Monday when an F-18 fighter aircraft was damaged as a result of failure of the main landing gear during flight test procedures.
Given the fact this government chose a plane with a carrier-strengthened undercarriage, disregarding extra weight and resultant fuel penalties, and given the continual performance problems with the plane and the recent news that the only two other customers for the place, the United States navy and marine corps, are reducing the numbers each will purchase, will the minister explain to the members of this House and to the Canadian taxpayers, who are footing the $4-billion cost of the Canadian purchase, why he and his government have
March 18, 1981

remained the only steadfast, loyal and uncritical supporters of the plane? And will he take immediate steps to halt this purchase until the performance and contract problems have been resolved, and will he set in motion plans for alternative options?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, that is quite a question. I remind the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka that the F-18 is exactly the same plane his government was about to choose when it was defeated.
I am well aware of the collapse of the landing gear of the F-18 on one of the test planes when the landing gear itself was being tested. The exact purpose of the 11 F-18 planes is to test whatever weaknesses there might be before normal flights start. When rate of climb, speed and landing gear are being tested, it is no surprise when there are failures. I repeat that that is the purpose of testing. An accident like that does not mean that this is not a good plane.
I am not aware that the United States navy will reduce the number of planes it has ordered. If I read the same article the hon. member read in one of the newspapers, the words used were "may reduce". No decision has been taken and, according to the latest information I have from the United States, no change in this program is in view.


CANADIAN SPIN-OFF BENEFITS
Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. McDonnell Douglas, the prime contractor for the CF-18, recently released a report stating that the firm had placed $470 million worth of business in Canada from March of 1977 through December, 1980, reputedly doubling its industrial offset goal for that period. The report was apparently released prior to official approval and confirmation by the department, a fact which apparently angered certain individuals.
Would the minister tell the House just how many of the McDonnell Douglas offset claims will be evaluated for veracity and accuracy, how long such an evaluation will take and whether the department has sufficient staff to ensure a complete evaluation of all claims, and not just those selected on a random basis?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that all claims will be checked for veracity, although I will certainly look into that further.
As far as I am concerned, we must have procedures in place, including necessary staff, to make sure that we can confirm to the Canadian public that McDonnell Douglas is living up to its responsibilities and commitments under the contract to the fullest degree.
Business of the House PORTS


APPOINTMENT OF SAFETY OFFICER FOR SAINT JOHN. N.B.
Mr. Mike Landers (Saint John):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the Department of Labour commenced an in-depth study into the possibility of appointing a full-time safety officer for the port of Saint John, when the Hon. Martin O'Connell was the minister of labour, is the present minister in a position to make a progress report?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing to the attention of the House a matter of some local concern. Unfortunately, the amount of resources available would not make it possible to establish a full-time safety officer at each port. That perhaps is the essence of the concern of the hon. member, but the regional director has now been asked to get together with the union, to look into the matter and to try to find a solution which will be satisfactory and which will reassure members of the union that sufficient safety inspections are taking place.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I wish to advise you of an agreement reached by party representatives. It deals with motions Nos. 38 and 39 on the order paper for the setting up of a sub-committee to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. It is agreed that both those motions be passed without debate. May I add, however, that motion No. 39 should be completed by the addition of the second paragraph of motion No. 38.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Madam Speaker, our party has agreed to this proposal, with the stipulation, as pointed out by the President of the Privy Council, that the committee be empowered to retain advisers. With that addition we are quite in agreement and prepared to consent to the proposal made by the government House leader.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, yes, we agree to these two motions, with the second one having the same second paragraph as the first one. It was the hope of our members that the subcommittees might be given authority to travel if necessary, but we are prepared to let that be considered by the committees. If they wish to do so, they can request it.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to adopt both motions, motion No. 39 having been amended as suggested by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), since the two other speakers seem to agree?
8374

March 18, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Blackburn


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege under Standing Order 17(2) on a matter which has just come to my attention and which I strongly feel infringes on my privileges as a member of this House and specifically as the Member of Parliament for Brant.
1 have just learned that several weeks ago a person in my constituency representing a volunteer social agency received a phone call from the office of a local lawyer asking her to come to his office to pick up a cheque for the funding of a program under the auspices of the Department of the Secretary of State.
Upon further investigation I learned that the cheque in question issued by the Department of the Secretary of State was first sent to the constituency office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) in Windsor, Ontario and then forwarded to the lawyer's office in Brantford, Ontario. The lawyer was then to present the cheque to the applicant. It turned out that the lawyer in question is none other than the president of the local Liberal association.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Orlikow:: Surprise, surprise!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: It is also a known fact, thanks to the intervention of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) several days ago on a related question of privilege concerning cheap, pork-barrel Liberal politics involving another minister, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is none other than my "guardian financial agent" in Brant.
My question of privilege is this. In view of the fact that I am the Member of Parliament for Brant, in view of the fact that at no time was I apprised of this transaction and in view of the fact that neither I nor the applicant for this grant wished in any way to politicize this particular government funding, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has deliberately and without any political or moral judgment attempted to make the granting of this money a partisan political transaction.
This blatant disrespect of my rights as a parliamentarian by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and his patronage approach to the handing out of federal government grants to a non-political, non-partisan, volunteer social service group in Brantford have embarrassed the recipients of the grant, and, further, demoralized the civil servants at the regional office of the Department of the Secretary of State in Hamilton, who scrupulously award grants of government funds based on the
merits of individual applicants without any political partisan influence or consideration.
In my opinion, my question of privilege is an even more dramatic example of this Liberal government's political partisanship in the granting of public funds than was the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood a couple of weeks ago. No cabinet minister has the right or privilege to provide political ammunition to local Liberal associations when government funds, financed by all the taxpayers of Canada, are being awarded to any group.
I respectfully submit, therefore, that my rights and privileges as a Member of Parliament have been infringed upon and that my position as a public servant to the people of Brant has been placed in jeopardy.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I submit that this is not a question of privilege, based on the fact that a similar question of privilege, alluded to by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) and brought forward by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), was dismissed by the Chair a few weeks ago. The arguments were long and so was the discussion, and you found, Madam Speaker, that there was no question of privilege involved.
Second, in the name of courtesy the hon. member should have at least waited until the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) was in the House. He is away on government business.
Third, this is a matter of debate about government policy and in no way infringes upon the rights of any member of the House.


Some hon. Members:: It does.


Madam Speaker:: It is obvious to everyone in the House that the case which the hon. member has brought to the attention of the House is quite similar to the one which was brought forward by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae). I ruled on that matter on March 10 last. I said on that occasion that the matter does not really come under the purview of the rules of the House, nor is it my responsibility to rule on such matters. It is a political matter rather than a procedural one.
In the words of the hon. member, the awarding of certain grants has been politicized. This has to refer to rules and conduct matters, which are entirely in the hands of the government and for which it stands accountable. Therefore, I have to rule that the matter does not fall under the purview of what one would call privilege in this House and I do not find a prima facie case.
March 18, 1981



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report.
[Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CONCURRENCE IN FOURTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Ron Irwin: that the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry be concurred in.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, there have been consultations between the parliamentary secretary and myself as acting House leader for our party, and 1 should like to indicate that we concur with this motion without further debate on it. It is the product of members from all parties during the deliberations of the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We also agree, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,948, 1,972, 1,973, 1,975, 2,027, 2,033, 2,110 and 2,150.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Will the Postmaster General investigate the length of time taken for mail to pass between Ottawa and Brockville, Ontario?
Order Paper Questions
2.	Is the minister aware of the recent case where first-class mail from the House of Commons Post Office took over five weeks to reach its Brockville destination and, if so, is the problem in the Ottawa Alta Vista main postal station or in the House of Commons Post Office?
3.	Is the minister aware that all mail passing through the Brockville post office is received and dispatched rapidly?
Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General: 1. Mail between Ottawa and Brockville, Ontario, usually receives next day delivery or two days at the most.
2.	No, Canada Post is not aware of the case referred to and since dates of mailing on envelopes are not provided, it is difficult to determine if there was a problem and where it would be.
3.	See 1 above.


Mr. Knowles: 1.	How many retired public servants are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the following brackets (a) less than $20.00 per month (b) $20.00 to $29.99 per month (c) $30.00 to $39.99 per month (d) $40.00 to $49.99 per month (e) $50.00 to $59.99 per month (f) $60.00 to $69.99 per month (g) $70.00 to $79.99 per month (h) $80.00 to $89.99 per month (/') $90.00 to $99.99 per month (j) $100.00 to $149.99 per month (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month (I) $200.00 to $249.99 per month (m) $250.00 to $299.99 per month (n) $300.00 to $399.99 per month (o) $400.00 to $499.99 per month (p) $500.00 to $599.99 per month (q) $600.00 to $699.99 per month (r) $700.00 to $799.99 per month (s) $800.00 to $899.99 per month (t) $900.00 to $999.99 per month (u) $1,000.00 to $1,499.99 per month (v) $1,500.00 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of public servants or of retired public servants are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the number of retired public servants and also the number of widows of public servants or of retired public servants presently residing in each province?
4.	In respect of how many orphans of public servants are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Monthly	Pension	1. Annuitants	2. Widows(a) Less than-$	20.00	111	87(b) $	20.00-$	29.99	138	129(c) S	30.00-$	39.99	150	477(d) $	40.00-$	49.99	255	768(e) $	50.00-$	59.99	443	1,055(0 $	60.00-$	69.99	732	1,046(g) $	70.00-$	79.99	869	1,040(h) $	80.00-$	89.99	995	1,1 18(i) $	90.00-$	99.99	1,038	1,026(j) s	100.00-$	149.99	5,882	4,959(k) $	150.00-$	199.99	5,829	4,148(1) $	200.00-$	249.99	5,582	3,577(m)$	250.00-$	299.99	5,255	2,904(n) $	300.00-$	399.99	9,093	4,092(o) $	400.00-$	499.99	7,716	1,874(P) s	500.00-$	599.99	6,800	997(q) $	600.00-$	699.99	6,168	496(r) $	700.00-$	799.99	5.731	327(s) $	800.00-$	899.99	4,288	192U) $	900.00-$	999.99	3,178	133(u) $1,000.00-$'	1,499.99	8,376	230(v) $ 1,500.00 and over	5,088	19Total	83.717	30,694
March 18, 1981
Order Paper Questions
Province	Annuitants	WidowsNfld.	1,128	462P.E.I.	627	214N.S.	5,456	2,027N.B.	2,886	1,028Que.	13,307	5,951Ont.	35,181	12,717Man.	3,869	1,374Sask.	2,657	852Alta.	5,046	1.685B.C.	12,376	3,905N.W.T.	124	43Yukon	153	36Outside Canada	907	400Total	83,717	30,694
4. Two hundred and thirty four orphans arc receiving pensions at an annual average of $563.80 or a monthly average of $46.98.


Mr. Knowles: 1.	What was the total amount at credit in the Public Service Superannuation Account as at March 31 (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980?
2.	What rate of interest has the government paid for the use of this money during the fiscal year ended on the dates noted above?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Public Service Superannuation Account during the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Public Service Superannuation Account during the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980?


Donald James Johnston: 1. The total amount at credit in the Public Service Superannuation Account as at March 31,
(a)	1978-$ 9,041,851,849
(b)	1979-$10,092,716,663
(c)	1980-$11,339,102,767
2.	The following rates of interest were earned by the Public Service Superannuation Account during the quarters ending
June 30, 1977	1.8102
September 30, 1977	1.8204
December 31,1977	1.8372
March 31, 1978	1.8508
June 30, 1978	1.8674
September 30, 1978	1.9102
December 31, 1978	1.9228
March 31, 1979	1.9304
June 30, 1979	1.9528
September 30, 1979	1.9702
December 31, 1979	1.9786
March 31, 1980	1.9998
3.	The amount of interest credited to the Public Service Superannuation Account during the fiscal year ending March 31,
(a)	1978-$336,428,438
(b)	1979-$374,687,241
(c)	1980-$416,700,635
4.	The total amount paid out of the Public Service Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending March 31,
(a)	1978-$287,329,035
(b)	1979-$344,166,511
(c)	1980-$422,758,370


Mr. Knowles: 1.	What was the total amount contributed (a) by employees (b) by the government, to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account during the year from April 1, 1979, to March 31, 1980?
2.	What was the total amount paid from the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account, during the year from April 1, 1979 to March 31, 1980, in the form of pension supplements, and to how many individuals were such pension supplements paid at any time during that period?
3.	What was the balance at credit in the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account as at March 31 (a) 1979 (b) 1980?


Donald James Johnston: 1. (a) $72,978,000; (b) $71,551,000.
2.	Pension supplements totalling $275 million were paid to 144,605 individuals during the fiscal year 1979-80. Of this amount $11 million was charged to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account and $264 million was charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
3.	(a) $501,497,161; (b) $683,422,000.


Mr. Cossitt: Is the government aware that many Christmas cards mailed by the Premier of Ontario to recipients in the Brockville and Leeds-Grenville area and postmarked December 17, 1980, were not delivered until January 23, 1981, and will the government investigate the reasons for such a delay and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, will it release all the details concerning such a poor postal service?	*


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: No, Canada Post is not aware of any delays concerning Christmas cards mailed by the Premier of Ontario to residents in the areas mentioned. An investigation at both our Brockville and Prescott post offices, as well as in Toronto, revealed that no complaints had been received from either the sender or the recipients.
(a)	It is difficult to conduct further investigations since no envelopes were supplied as evidence.
(b)	Not applicable.
March 18, 1981


Mr. Herbert: For each of the past five years, what was the estimated amount of the tax credit obtained by the forest industry for research and development and capital expenditures?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: $ million
1976	1977	1978	1979	1980Forestry	.6	2.1	3.6	5.6	7.2m sWood Industries	2.8	7.0	13.7	17.5	18.61.	Figures include credits in respect of capital expenditures and expenditures on scientific research.2.	Figures for 1976 to 1978 are actual data as tabulated by Statistics Canada.3.	Figures for 1979 and 1980 are based on prior year's experience and the level of investment in the relevant industries for those years.4.	Estimates include investment tax credit claimed by both individual forestry operators and corporations.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the secretary of the Canadian Pension Commission receive a letter from Mr. Alex Bell of Brockville, Ontario, dated September 1, 1980, requesting certain information and, if so, was the letter answered and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Did the secretary of the commission receive a letter from the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville, dated December 23, 1980, asking why Mr. Bell's letter had not been answered and, if so, was the hon. member's letter answered and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What is the usual length of time taken by the secretary of the commission to answer mail?
4.	Did the chairman of the commission receive a letter from the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville, dated January 31, 1981, asking that the matter be investigated and, if so (a) did he investigate the matter (b) did he answer the member and, if not, for what reason?
5.	(a) What is the average length of time it takes the Canadian Pension Commission to answer a letter requesting information of a general nature (b) is it usual that it should take five months minimum and, if so (i) for what reason (ii) will the commission take action to correct the situation and, if so, in what way?
6.	(a) What is the name of the secretary of the commission (b) what are the details of his/her employment history with the public service?
7.	Is the government aware as to whether or not this person is slow in answering mail?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: 1.	Yes. Mr. Bell's letter did not identify the writer in a manner which would enable the commission to readily locate his file and a delay occurred.
2.	(a) Yes;
(b) Yes, however, it was not answered immediately for the reason given in the answer to question 1.
Motion for Papers
3.	The length of time required to reply can vary from one week to two months, depending on the complexity of the inquiry and the availability of the appropriate files.
4.	Yes. (a) Yes; (b) Yes.
5.	(a) The Canadian Pension Commission gives priority to
correspondence advising veterans of decisions taken by the commission regarding their pension status. Therefore, replies to correspondence of a general nature can take from one week to two months depending on the complexity of the inquiry.
(b) No. (i) N/A; (ii) The system of correspondence was examined and found adequate.
6.	(a) The secretary of the Canadian Pension Commission
is W. H. Eckley, C.D.
(b) He joined the public service in 1978 on retirement from the Canadian Armed Forces.
7.	The volume of mail addressed to the secretary of the Canadian Pension Commission is such that it would be impossible for him to answer all of it personally. The government is aware that delays are sometimes unavoidable, as they are with most public offices receiving mail in large quantities.


Mr. Herbert: Is China a non-eligible country for funds of the Canadian International Development Agency?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Although China has been recognized as a developing country by the major international organizations it is not now eligible for assistance from C1DA. Questions of eligibility are addressed in the context of eligibility reviews which are proposed periodically by CIDA and reviewed interdepartmentally.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 31.

REPORT OF FACT-FINDING TEAM SENT TO CHILE Motion No. 31-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the report of the fact-finding team which was sent to Chile, at the request of the Minister of

March 18, 1981
Motion for Papers
Employment and Immigration, to investigate the need for Chile to be placed back on the list of countries which are visa exempt.


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, as a member of the fact-finding team sent to Chile to investigate the matter of refugees and the visas required for them, I must advise the House that, following our meeting in Santiago, with officials of the Canadian embassy and other embassies, as well as with Chilean officials and members of the opposition, we have decided to maintain the decision made by the previous government, and we do not intend to rescind the decision concerning visas for Chilean residents. I must advise the House that this report was made orally to the minister. I therefore ask the hon. member if he would withdraw his motion.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I am not very happy with what we were told, but if it was only an oral report, obviously it cannot be tabled and I agree to withdraw the motion.


Madam Speaker:: The motion is withdrawn.
Motion (Mr. Orlikow) withdrawn.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, with regard to Notice of M otion for the Production of Papers Nos. 42 and 43,1 have drawn to the attention of the parliamentary secretary that they were filed two months ago. The reason I raise today the motions for documents respecting Amax, Limited at Alice Arm is that the mine will start dumping on the west coast of British Columbia on April 1. I think it is therefore important, since these requests for the production of papers have been on the Order Paper for two months, for the parliamentary secretary to give some indication to the House whether or not he is willing to have these documents presented before April 1.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I have undertaken to have these papers produced in the House as soon as possible. I wish to note that this matter is now being debated in the House. It is certainly very topical. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) has spoken at length on this subject, and I hope that this will in some way help answer the query of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton); but I will do my best to obtain the papers as soon as possible.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed debate on the motion of Mr. Chretien, seconded by Mr. Roberts, for an Address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada.
And on the amendment of Mr. Epp, seconded by Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton)-That the motion be amended in Schedule B of the proposed resolution by deleting Clause 46, and by making all necessary changes to the Schedule consequential thereto.
Mr. AI MacBain (Niagara Falls):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address this honourable House as we embark upon the long and difficult road toward a truly Canadian Constitution, a road with an absence of signposts to give us the assurance at every turn that the direction in which we are heading is the proper one.
In the past, because of this difficulty of which 1 speak, because of lack of direction and resolve and because of lack of unanimity among all the parties involved in the constitutional scenario, we opted to do nothing. That itself was an option, the worst option of all. The luxury of continuing that option is no longer open to us. This is the time for change, the time for renewal, the time for faith in our people and the time to lay a new foundation for this country. This is a time which may not come our way again.
We ought not to delude ourselves as to why we find ourselves here today grappling with the problem of attempting to put in place in this country a truly Canadian Constitution. It may very well be that there are some people who feel our first legislative priorities at this time should be inflation, unemployment and energy. This is understandable.
We as members of this particular Parliament of Canada do not enjoy the luxury of that option. Each and every one of us sat in this very chamber less than a year ago and said, or stood by as our colleagues, said, to the people of Quebec in their hour of decision, "Separatism is not the answer; change can come about; it will come about; we can have our own Constitution; we can make it all happen." That is what we as members of Parliament said to the people of Quebec only a few months ago. The ink on the pages of Hansard which record for posterity those commitments to the people in every corner of the province of Quebec is barely dry. Those are the commitments we made. That is why we are engaged in a constitutional debate here today. That is why all of us must work together until the new Constitution is a reality.
The good work of the joint committee is over. We have before us the product of their months of labour. We are all indebted to the members of the joint committee for their contribution to Canada at this difficult time in her history. The resolution of this House which was referred to the joint
March 18, 1981

committee was returned to us with due dispatch and many improvements. It remains for us now to carry on where they left off.
The committee's report to this House was another signal to the people of Quebec that our commitments to them were made in good faith and that the Parliament of Canada is fully capable of bringing those commitments to fruition. No one anywhere in this country at this time should be labouring under any delusion on this point.
The commitments of which I have spoken were the solemn commitments of this Parliament, given with the full support of the people of Canada, and they will be honoured. It must also be remembered that these commitments were not given to the government of the province of Quebec or any other province. The commitments were to the people of Quebec in particular, and to the people of Canada in general. This is a very significant point which ought not to be overlooked.
It is a fair question to ask: What was the general nature of the initial commitments made to the people of Quebec and Canada? The Speech from the Throne explained as follows:
Because my government wants to strengthen the spirit of Canadian unity and nurture the seeds of renewal, it promises to interpret a vote of "no" to sovereignty-association as a vote for the rebuilding of the Canadian federation. My government also promises to give effect to a "no" vote by mobilizing all the forces at its command in order to ensure the renewal of the federation in a spirit of respect and justice for all.
Using these words as a reminder, we must remember that all Canadians promised constitutional renewal without delay if Quebecers voted "no" in the May 20 referendum.
It is also fair to set out in general terms some of the things to which we did not commit ourselves in the spring of 1980. We did not commit ourselves to increasing the power of the provinces in the areas into which some of them would now like to venture. We did not commit ourselves to strengthening the provinces vis-a-vis the central government. We certainly did not commit ourselves to 50 more years of colonialism if some of the provincial governments, for their own reasons, attempted to block constitutional reform.
We all fully appreciate that debates pertaining to constitutions, jurisdictional powers and national symbols become very emotional, especially as between the participants. Once outside the forum for such debates, the emotion generated is usually more temperate and subdued.
1 offer in support of this proposition the Canadian flag debate. Many of the present members of the House were actual participants therein. To the participants, those debates were highly emotional. To outsiders like myself at the time, they could be aptly and less emotionally described as "the pits", as our young people say. We ought not to take ourselves too seriously and attempt to generate a lot of steam when there is no turbine that requires it.
While the constitutional problems of this country have top priority because of the commitments we made, we must all co-operate to permit the essential day-to-day work of Parliament to proceed and to keep the constitutional debate in proper perspective.
The Constitution
While the people of my riding expect me to participate in the furtherance of the commitments of Parliament to constitutional reform, I would be misleading the House were I to leave the impression that they perceive the issue with the same emotion and importance some members may be tempted to ascribe to it in the heat of debate. Nothing could be further from the truth. They want the constitutional debate kept in its proper perspective.
As I have indicated, we must not permit the separatist Premier of Quebec, Mr. Levesque, to lead us to a dead end. We must not permit him to lead us and the premiers who follow him blindly to default on our commitments to the people of Quebec. As I said, our commitments were not to the separatist government of Quebec but to the people of Quebec. Of course, that is a real distinction. Mr. Levesque never had a mandate for separation from the people of Quebec. On his ego trip to become its president, he forgot that the people of Quebec, like the people of British Columbia, Alberta, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, for example, are first and foremost Canadians. This is their country, from the Pacific to the Atlantic, regardless of the province in which they may happen to reside. We will not bargain away at any price their right to live and to work in the province or territory of their choice.
It has been said, with some accuracy, that politicians make strange bedfellows. Such was certainly the case during the constitutional debate. The Premiers of British Columbia, Alberta, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, for example, were in bed with Rene Levesque. He is a man whose personal ambitions prevented him from seeing the vision of a great nation from sea to sea, a vision for which the great Canadians who reside in the province of Quebec opted on May 20, 1980. In the year 2000 what will historians say about that unholy alliance? It was an alliance led by a man whose vision of Canada was confined to the boundaries of Quebec, a man hell-bent for election to destroy this country and from whom Canadian history will soon reserve only a footnote. The premiers of those provinces to which I have alluded will find out what Rene Levesque did on May 20, 1980. They are leading, but no one is following.
Mr. Speaker, seldom in a federal state is the process of putting a constitution in place an easy one. For more than 50 years we in Canada have been unsuccessful in this regard. In recent years the growth in the political and economic powers of the provinces has tended to make the process even more difficult. In some provinces, principles which were universally accepted ever since confederation were suddenly put in issue. It became obvious to the federal government that the views of Canada as a nation, as expressed by certain premiers, were contrary to the views commonly held by most Canadians. There was a move on behalf of the premiers of certain provinces-not only Quebec-to delay the process of constitutional development in an effort to destroy or weaken the position of the federal government in its efforts to act aggressively in the national interest when circumstances warranted such action. Thus, it soon became obvious to those watching

March 18, 1981
The Constitution
the scene closely that the breakdown in the process was being caused by the different view of Canada taken by some provincial premiers.
It is perhaps understandable if provinces tend to act independently in their own self-interest. It may even be normal for provinces to pursue additional powers to protect what they perceive as their own regional interest. However, over and above the regional interest is the national interest; and where regional interest conflicts with national interest, the national interest must prevail. If that is a principle which a particular premier cannot accept, then it is obvious that the concept of a true Canadian nation will not be acceptable to him. If a nation cannot insist that the national interest must prevail in a time of regional conflict, then it will soon disappear.
The legitimate interests of all the people of Canada from sea to sea must be the concern of the federal government at all times. Some of the premiers want a loose association of provinces, free from the ties of a national economic fabric, free from a dedication to sharing, and without a strong, viable and caring national government. This they are not entitled to in constitutional law. This the people of Canada will not permit us to surrender to them. This they will never enjoy. To reach unanimity we will not barter the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people of Canada.
Our rights and freedoms are not the produce of the marketplace. Our perception of the willingness of the Canadian people to accept the practice of sharing is unbecoming the agenda of a federal-provincial conference. Our independence as a nation with our own Constitution is a commitment to Canadians which calls upon all of us to act now. The time for bargaining is long past.
It has been said, Mr. Speaker, that politics is the art of the possible. As a politician, I am prepared to accept that our legislative handiwork is subject to this limitation. With our legislative enactments, the dream becomes the reality of the times; the perfect clause become the consensus clause; and the ultimate statute is the one which survives the process.
With this particular resolution before the House one might ask the question: What is possible at this time in our development? Everyone will have his or her answer to this question. The witnesses who appeared before the joint committee tended to express the opinion that the resolution was not wide enough. As a result, certain wide-ranging amendments were made during the committee stage. It therefore appears possible at this time for Canada to have the following: patriation of her Constitution; her own made-in-Canada Constitution with a charter of rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined therein, an amending formula, language rights, women's rights, native peoples' rights, rights for the disabled, the right of residents to work in any province or territory, recognition of the multicultural heritage of Canadians, and a commitment by the federal government and the provinces to sharing among the provinces, to ensure that all provinces are able to provide their residents with essential services at a cost they can afford. In broad terms, Mr. Speaker, that is what is now possible. It is the
minimum. History will judge us harshly if we deliver less. To deliver much more at this point in time may be impossible.
I want to conclude by referring to the historic proceedings of the joint committee of January 30, 1981. That is a day to remember in the history of our country. That is the day we laid the foundation for a new beginning in Canada. I appreciate that every Canadian will find a specific provision in our new Constitution which to him or her will be the cornerstone. That is understandable. For many, Part III of the Constitution pertaining to equalization and regional disparities will be the key provisions. Still others will discover their own preferences; for example, women's rights, the rights of the disabled and the like. All will understand that the new Constitution is only the foundation for the new beginning of which I have spoken. Much work remains to be done. Still, it will give us a firm foundation on which to build a better Canada.
To the nation builders of the future we will leave a strong foundation; but still the task will not be easy. There will be times in the future when some members will stand in this very House and say that the members of the Thirty-second Parliament were dreamers, that we gave them goals impossible to achieve. To those future members of this House who will be troubled because of the magnitude of what is expected of them-I would like to say, through the pages of Hansard, that while we gave them a foundation for a magnificent edifice, we were also careful to ensure that they had the necessary human and natural resources.
If shared, the natural resource base in this country is adequate to complete the task-and we have not really begun to use our human resources to the fullest. We ask the future nation builders to give to women full and equal opportunity in the true sense and meaning of those words. We also invite them in future to look to our native peoples and the disabled for strength, guidance and wisdom. These reservoirs of human resources have been almost totally ignored in the past. They have been ignored not only to the detriment of women, native peoples and the disabled, but to the detriment of our country in general. If this and future generations fail to make full use of the human resources to which I have just referred, then truly the goals that we in the Thirty-second Parliament set will, in fact, be impossible to achieve.
I am sure that on January 30, 1981, the distinguished member of the New Democratic Party for the Northwest Territories also had these untapped human resources in mind when the joint committee voted to include the rights of the aboriginal peoples in the Constitution, and when he said these historic words: "Together we will build a great nation."


Mr. Lome McCuish (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great day in my life to have the opportunity now to speak in this House on the Constitution of Canada. The Constitution is not just a symbol of the country, it should also be the working document which would be used to define the relationship between the federal and provincial partners in confederation.
March 18, 1981

As I rise in my place, I stand to make an appeal to those Canadians who truly believe in our parliamentary system of government and the workings of our truly unique democracy. However, I feel that this democracy is in jeopardy.
Although I represent but a small part of the country, I should not be considered to be any less a Canadian than other representatives in this chamber. I have a great sadness in my heart because this resolution will ultimately cause me to be less a Canadian due to the amending formula therein. Should this resolution become law, British Columbians would become second-class citizens.
1 also have a sense of sadness because some time soon, when I rise to participate in any debate in this House, I could well be representing a province which has been given a status much less meaningful than Ontario or Quebec, for example. That status would hurt me and millions of western Canadians who believe in a federal state. Tradition will be changed, convention will be changed, and these qualities will no longer be prevalent in Canada.
Putting political affiliation aside, if we are able to bring our Constitution home and make changes for the good of the people by patriating the BNA Act, there should be no change in the status of Canadians simply because they may live in a certain region. Every Canadian should feel that his or her representative in Parliament has an equal voice and an equal vote in the House of Commons. If this resolution is accepted without amendment, the equality respected by all of Canada will no longer exist because this House is being overshadowed by the singular view of a singular individual who has decided that this is the way it will be done, and he will let no one else try to influence his vision. He says, "We will play my game until 1 decide the game will finish." Canadians do not wish to play games with their future or their Constitution.
When one speaks of credibility, one should look at the last federal election. During the 1980 election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made five basic commitments to the Canadian people on which he sought re-election. First, he promised better management of the finances of the nation. Second, the Prime Minister promised energy security and fair prices for oil. Third, he promised to develop an industrial strategy which would provide jobs, spur growth, and increase Canadian ownership and control. Fourth, he promised a government which would realize the aspirations of the provinces and the economic contributions and potential of each region. His fifth promise was to enhance the security of individuals by helping those who most needed assistance.
If the Liberals were returned to power, the Prime Minister promised an economic package which would bring Canada out of its present recession. There was no mention of patriating the Constitution. The Prime Minister was given no mandate from the people to proceed with unilateral action. Mr. Speaker, would you buy a used car from that man?
This status hurts me. I am glad to see that a few of the hon. members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party have decided to support the official opposition in objecting to the Prime Minister's attempt to singularly seduce Canada. We
The Constitution
witness the workings of a man who, through his manipulative manoeuvres in this Parliament, has made a mockery of this House. Respect for Parliament and its tradition has been permanently damaged and is now forever mangy. Decisions are no longer made here in Canada, and Canada has lost a place where its interests are protected.
I fear that my words and the words of my colleagues will go unnoticed by the Prime Minister. That is one of the most unfortunate realities fo this debate. This government is insensitive to the needs of Canadians. It is a government which refuses to recognize that we are headed for a destiny of complete and ultimate destruction as a nation.
The Prime Minister must dream about the Constitution when he sleeps at night. He must dream about his place in history. He must dream about Canadians flocking behind him, as he has trained his flock of sheep across the floor. However, the Prime Minister's dream will soon become a nightmare for every Canadian and for generations of future Canadians. 1 stand here with heavy heart to appeal to those who have unconsciously accepted the dream of the Prime Minister. Members opposite should take a sober look at what may happen to this country.
I would like to quote the point made recently by Manitoba MLA, Sydney Green. He states:
The question now in dispute is whether we are going to continue to enjoy parliamentary democracy as we know it, which presumes that legislators do not confer rights either by stating them or declaring them. According to the common law principles under which we operate, the citizen has every right except that which has been expressly taken away by Parliament.
We are being asked to change to a system whereby Parliament declares rights, and then these rights are not interpreted by Parliament, but are interpreted by an appointed judiciary, which is not responsible to the public, and which, for the future, in the absence of a constitutional amendment-and we know how difficult that is to obtain-has these matters under its jurisdiction.
On that fateful day in December, 1979, when the Conservative government was defeated in this House, hon. members of the New Democratic Party demonstrated their total lack of any semblance of intestinal fortitude. At that time they dismissed out of hand any wish or will to experience short-term pain for long-term gain. Small wonder, then, that just one year later, after a sordid display of political prostitution, they leaped on the Liberals' three-wheel bandwagon which called for short-term gain for long-term pain-short-term gain for them and long-term pain for the people of Canada. They did this solely to bask in the sordid limelight of the Prime Minister's constitutional proposals.
Before coming to this House I had a degree of respect for the New Democratic Party. While I did not agree with its socialistic philosophies, I gave it credit for being principled. How naive I was! The little red rump has displayed many traits in my presence in this House, but not one of them is based on principle. This has proven to me that its members, are nothing more than Liberals lap dogs. It is time we supplied Members of Parliament with uniforms, for how else can we distinguish the NDP from the Liberals? Time and time again we have seen the NDP barter here and bicker there, selling their principles for some paltry political gain. But they say that

March 18, 1981
The Constitution
that is part of the game; that that is what politics is all about. That is fine. Let them indulge in their puny political pastimes with other forms of legislation, but not with our Constitution, our rights, our freedoms or our very future.
Fortunately, there are a few hon. members to my left, and many across the floor, who recognize the fine distinction between the enshrining and entombing of our rights. Fortunately, these members have the courage and forethought to break with their leaders, recognizing that our Constitution should be the product of our people, not the passing fancies and whims of political autocrats.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, before this resolution comes to a vote in this House, other members opposite and to my left will regain their pride and draw courage from the stand taken by their colleagues. Surely they will realize that their constituents, not their leaders, sent them here, and sent them here to represent the electors.
Let me ask you, Mr. Speaker, will we as Canadians be proud of our new Constitution once it becomes totally Canadian? Will we be proud of the fact that there is so much opposition to this resolution? Will we feel comfortable once we see a new and patriated Constitution as law? Can every member in the House say with sincerity that this is a Constitution based on the input and co-operation of all Canadians and elected bodies?
Obviously, the answer to all those questions is an emphatic No! No, this Constitution will not be the result of consultation and co-operation. Canadians will not decide how it is to be done. Unilateralism and the guillotine style of debate has formed our Constitution. Parliament has been left out of the process. This debate is just a formality in the eyes of the Prime Minister. Once this debate comes to an end, the Prime Minister will have his way and will be happy. He will be able to walk away knowing full well that he again overstepped his boundaries, continuing his manifestation of supremacy. Is that democracy?
For a moment, Mr. Speaker, allow me to comment on three attitudes which speckle-like fly specks-this constitutional resolution. These attitudes are arrogance, duplicity and incredibility.
Arrogance is not something you are born with, it is something that grows on you, like a big, green wart! The author and mover of this constitutional nightmare has a real doozie of a dose of arrogance. The Prime Minister, determined above all else to go down in Canadian history as the midwife of patria-tion, will do or say anything to force his will on this wonderful country and to hit high "C" in his swan song to the Canadian political scene.
Try on some of these incredible quotes for size, Mr. Speaker. As we all know, the Prime Minister loves to create adversity. He has stated in the past: "The kind of opposition we bring against ourselves, I find invigorating." Or: "Yes, we are being divisive." Or: "I must have had a hell of a tongue in cheek." Or: "I'll put in any amendment you want, so long as you pass
the package." In another quote, Mr. Speaker, listing his priorities, he said: "The Queen falls somewhere after skiing and avocados." The Prime Minister has the gall to say that "Until God comes in and does it, we have to believe in a sovereign people." The Prime Minister insults our belief in God and says he believes in the sovereignty of the people. Why, then, does he not permit the people to participate and decide how this constitutional question should be handled? The Prime Minister puts the cap on it when he insults our belief in the supremacy of God.
A constitution should be the seed of national harmony, not the funeral rites of respect and understanding. A constitution should have heritage for its father and inspiration for its mother.
Mr. Speaker, let me speak about credibility-credibility in the eyes and ears of the public. Let me just demonstrate with some crystal clear evidence that the public is not so easily duped as the Prime Minister believes.
We talk of human rights. Is the Prime Minister violating human rights by expounding this resolution to us? He choked and will continue to choke the right of representatives to contribute and involve themselves in this debate. He ignores the premiers; he moves into provincial territory and revokes their constitutional rights.
When we speak of fundamental rights and freedoms, it is important for Canadians to know how they may be affected when this resolution becomes law. I firmly believe that Canadians will lose basic rights if this charter is accepted. The first right is the individual enjoyment of property without fear of confiscation by the government. Mr. Speaker, this right is no longer protected.
If we look back in history, the right to own property has always been protected in Canada; it is a right stemming from the Magna Carta. It has been upheld in Canada's courts and statute law. It was reconfirmed in the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights and is protected internationally through the United Nations Charter of Human Rights. The Prime Minister has sold Canadians down the river for the support of the NDP. The Prime Minister has sold the property rights of the people for the sake of NDP support.
Canadians may believe that once they own property the government will never attempt to confiscate that property. That is not true. There is a provision within the proposed charter which makes all previous laws protecting property completely void. Therefore, rights given under past laws that are not included in this Constitution are overridden.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the question of equalization arises. Again, tucked away within the resolution is the provision that the central government has given itself the right to do what it pleases under the so-called equalization scheme.
Should this resolution pass into law, the Government of Canada could redistribute provincial revenue without the consent or co-operation of any province. The federal government could walk into my province of British Columbia and redirect resource revenue for the sake of central Canada. Equalization
March 18, 1981

can be beneficial only if it is carried out in a manner which benefits everyone. The present plan will give the central government the right to take without justification.
Not only property rights are omitted from the Constitution. By omission we will also lose the ancient, democratic right of trial before a court that is independent from government interference. Even the infamous War Measures Act is incorporated in the new Constitution. Under that provision, the government can send anyone to prison for mere political agitation. One need not break the law; if one even apprehends insurrection, the government can act.
Even if a person is accused of an unproven crime, the right to a quick and lawful trial is no longer guaranteed. Habeas corpus, the ancient guarantee of trial, is gone and is replaced by Section 11(b). The government may now decide what is a "reasonable" time to bring about a trial.
Nor can one count on being humanely treated in prison. The term "cruel and unusual treatment" contained in Section 12 is very ambiguous. A daily beating is not considered "cruel and unusual" in many countries.
The loss of those vitally important rights that have been enjoyed in this democracy will be disastrous for all Canadians. However, western Canadians will suffer much worse results. Western Canada will become the colony of central Canada. The amending formula gives Ontario and Quebec a permanent veto over the wishes of the rest of Canada. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that permanent agitation between the west and the east will prove to be the most destructive element of the Prime Minister's resolution.
There is not a totalitarian country in the world which allows property rights; there is not a free country in the world which does not allow property rights.
These are but a few of my concerns, but they point to the grave dangers of entrenchment. A government which would damn the torpedoes and ram this horrendous piece of legislation down the throats of Canadians would use a Model T Ford plan for a moon shot.
Let me illustrate the fallacies contained in this constitutional package. We have witnessed a major confrontation over the control of resources which were retained by the province of British Columbia 110 years ago when it became a full partner in confederation. In 1867, the provinces retained control of their natural resources under Section 109 of the British North America Act. In addition, the Constitution further provided that those resources belonging to the provinces were not liable to taxation. Provincial control made good sense then and it makes good sense now. The federal government now appears to be saying that our resource revenues should be pre-empted in the national interest. The problem is the difficulty in understanding their definition of the national interest.
Canada is a diverse partnership of peoples with linguistic, cultural and regional interests. The survival of that partnership is now being subjected to considerable strain because of the
The Constitution
absence of economic, political and legal recognition of those interests.
When we talk about introducing a charter of rights, we should remember that one of the most basic rights in a federation is for the component parts to participate in any change. The provinces are part of the Canadian democracy. To reject their views in the ultimate decision is a fundamental breach of a democratic right.
A serious problem is bound to occur where provincial legislation will be invalidated under the proposed charter of rights. If such a provision is tested, will the courts find that the federal government succeeded in unilaterally altering the basic law affecting property and civil rights, or of any rights of any province without the consent of the provincial government which is required by convention? That is unlikely. Do we accept the view of the current Minister of Justice of Canada (Mr. Chretien), who does not wish to refer the issue to our Supreme Court "because the Supreme Court is very unreliable-?"
Being supportive of provincial rights is part of being a Canadian. Our nation is composed of both federal and provincial governments. Indeed, the provincial contributions have been an integral part of making our country what it is today. I take exception to being the target of those who wrap their policy and political acts in the flag of our country and, by implication, demean members who were elected to speak on behalf of a federal state within the confederation of Canada. My objective and duty is also to defend those rights retained by our province as a term and condition of entering confederation.
The political reality in Canada is that our federal government is elected or defeated east of the Manitoba border. The western provinces, in the national context, are in a political wilderness.
Since the Prime Minister failed to secure even a majority consensus in Canada, he now asks the British members of parliament to interfere in the internal affairs of Canada by amending our federal Constitution without agreement of the partners in our confederation.
How can one who is prepared to sacrifice provincial rights be a Canadian federalist? Where is the massive public acceptance of the Prime Minister's initiative?
We must remind ourselves that for a Constitution to endure it must be built on the broadest possible consensus. Confederation was framed accordingly. Further, it has been built on trust, equity and fairness. The Prime Minister cannot prosper in the absence of an atmosphere of strife and bickering. Does he have in mind the same polarization in the west that was authored in Quebec? The question really is: Are the western provinces to be full partners in a federal state or are they to be reduced to quasi-municipal status effectively controlled by the government in Ottawa?
The combination of no federal representation on the government side from the three most western provinces and no participation by those same provinces in formulating either a

March 18, 1981
The Constitution
national energy policy or constitutional changes results in these provinces effectively being left out of Canada. It seems so strange that our federal government, a regional government electorally, would precipitate such a move. In the three most western provinces there is not one member of Parliament elected on the government side. Why is that? The answer may be that the federal government espouses a centralist policy which consistently imposes tariffs to protect industry in central Canada, subsidizes production and finances exports of products manufactured in central Canada, imposes import quotas on western Canada, and continually frustrates expansion of a transportation network.
The resolution places importance on fundamental freedoms and human rights. I am the first to accept their importance but I must raise a major issue with their concept because they may well be infringing on the rights of citizens in the west by the introduction of a discriminatory tax on western resources.
I have some difficulty in drawing a distinction between natural gas and oil in British Columbia and Alberta, potash and uranium in Saskatchewan, and iron ore and nickel in central Canada. Petroleum products are not different from mineral products other than in their physical characteristics. How do you reconcile differences of such magnitude?
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister, whether he has given sufficient consideration to what he may well precipitate? Consider the scholarly opinion that-
-it would be unwise to proceed with patriation of the Canadian Constitution in the absence of agreement on an amending procedure.
Consider the judicial opinion that the Constitution-
-embodies a compromise under which the original provinces agree to federate. As the years go on legislation and court decisions ought not to be allowed to dim or whittle down the provisions of the original contract upon which the federation was founded.
I was truly impressed with the thoughtfulness of the 1972 Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada, which held the view that patriation without provincial consent would be most unwise. The authors of that report were further compelled to express-
-the fear, on the other hand, that, if it was not so grounded, there might be a legal gap which might conceivably lead to a court's invalidating the whole new Constitution.
One of the joint chairmen of this report was the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan), a legal scholar, the man who led the Canadian delegation to London to seek unilateral patriation with a federally imposed amending formula.
The Prime Minister seeks to persuade us that the economic pie is larger and that the western provinces are greedy not to share. The fact is that the economic pie is exactly the same size, but the federal government wants a larger piece. This is a power struggle and a struggle for economic control. We are foolish if we let it appear to be an exercise in national unity with the west being fractious rebels. The west need not apologize. British Columbia and Alberta are the major contributors
to equalization. We share our prosperity with our partners in confederation.
British Columbians alone now pay $1 billion annually in protective tariffs toward eastern manufactured producs, textiles and footwear, not to mention additional consumer costs attributable to import quotas. Alberta is subsidizing the industrial base of central Canada with oil at less than one half the world price.
I raise these constitutional policy concerns to emphasize the need to return to the bargaining table. It is like a work stoppage in an essential public service. The best solution to prevent public harm is an agreement between the parties who, when they come together and reason together, always find a solution. The package which the Prime Minister seeks to impose unilaterally will lock in all governments forever more. It can only be undone by his self-imposed amending formula.
It troubles me deeply to say what I have said, but then we all know how forceful are honest words. The federal policies are a bitter pill for me to swallow because I, for one, will not support any movement to divide my country.
I am no constitutional expert, I am a Canadian. I can only speak from my heart. My heart tells me that this country will not be the same as it was prior to the Prime Minister's vision. One must look to the heart for guidance. Somehow I believe the Liberals have not searched their hearts and their consciences to find the true definition of Canada.
The Prime Minister addressed students at Osgoode Hall in Toronto a while ago. I was shocked when he said:
If the people of Canada are not prepared to assume their burden and duty in speaking their will over the heads of their elected premiers, I say they are not a nation.
That makes my blood boil, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister suggesting by that statement that Canadians should ignore their elected public leaders and heed only his own personal view? What will happen? Will the Prime Minister abolish the municipal, regional and provincial governments? Are we really on our way to a singular form of government? It was stated in an editorial in the Edmonton Journal that, as he has before, the Prime Minister had admitted his willingness to barter away principles to achieve his own end. He has said, "I am a political realist, it is as simple as that." If that is political realism, the Prime Minister would sell his soul to be remembered as a great Canadian. I assure him that we will remember him but we will not forgive or forget.
The Prime Minister has launched an attack on the Prime Minister of Great Britain and suggested that the British are interfering in our affairs. Mr. Speaker, the government is asking another government to rubber stamp legislation that has no public support in Canada. If Britain passes this resolution unchallenged and forces us to accept its action in the knowledge that the majority of Canadians are not in favour of such legislation, then I would say that Britain is interfering in our affairs.
March 18, 1981

Britain will have a say in the matter whether the Prime Minister likes it or not. However, I feel it is wrong for the government to thrust a resolution on to the British parliament and ask it to rubber stamp his request simply because he has decided that he wishes it to be done that way. Britain should not decide what should happen to our Constitution. We want to patriate it, so let us do it. The only request that should be made of Britain is: Send our Constitution to Canada and let Canadians include whatever changes they want. Let Canadians decide how they will form their future. It is our Constitution and we should treat it as such.
I pray to God that this government will realize the mistake it intends to make. However, Mr. Speaker, this government will not accept God.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-55, an act to amend the Canada Student Loans Act, without amendment.

[ Translation]



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['Order, please. I believe we have a message from the other place.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
March 18, 1981
Madam,
1 have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Bora Laskin, P.C.. Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 18th day of March, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Madam,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General
The Constitution



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed debate on the motion of Mr. Chretien, seconded by Mr. Roberts, for an Address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada.
And on the amendment of Mr. Epp, seconded by Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton)-That the motion be amended in Schedule B of the proposed resolution by deleting Clause 46, and by making all necessary changes to the schedule consequential thereto.
Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and privilege to rise and take part in this historic debate concerning the proposed resolution for a joint address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada. I would like to say how much I enjoyed the experience and challenge as a member of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada and I, too, Mr. Speaker, would like to add my congratulations to the joint chairmen on a job well done.
I know all Canadians feel strongly that we must have our own Constitution here in Canada and that we must patriate the British North America Act. I also know that there has been unanimous agreement in this House on the need for patriation with an amending formula. That is why I doubt that any Canadian would say no when asked whether or not the BNA Act should be patriated. I feel equally certain that no Canadian would say we should patriate without an amending formula.
What is this proposed resolution that we have been discussing and debating in committee and in the House for the last five months? What are we asking the British parliament to do? First, we are asking them to patriate the BNA Act. Second, we have the amending formula and, third, the charter of rights and freedoms as well as equalization. We will be asking them to pass a package called the Canada Act. They do not have to discuss the substance; all we want is for them to return our Constitution with the right to amend it here.
For many years now the federal government and provinces have been studying the various amending formulae. The proposed resolution contains the government's position on the Victoria formula. Dr. La Forest, who appeared before our committee, headed a study group which, after four years of searching and studying, came up with this formula. It was accepted and agreed to by the ten provinces and the federal government at the 1971 federal-provincial conference as being the best formula. What does the Victoria formula provide? It provides, Mr. Speaker, that six provinces-two in the Atlantic region, Quebec, Ontario, and two western provinces representing 50 per cent of the population of the west-must agree in order to pass a constitutional amendment. That is the Victoria formula.

March 18, 1981
The Constitution
The opposition has wanted from the very beginning patria-tion and an amending formula. The government does not differ with them on what we want from the British parliament. However, they say we should use the Vancouver formula. Well, what is the Vancouver formula? There must be the agreement of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population.
The opposition is beginning to find out that this formula is not too popular. Why? Because the provinces only last summer reached consensus on further study of the Vancouver formula. Why? Because in that formula, Mr. Speaker, there is a provision that a province which does not agree with an amendment may opt out. In other words, not all provinces of Canada will be the same. What about the Supreme Court? How would they interpret the rights of one province compared to another? Where is equality of rights across Canada if the provinces can opt out?
Let us compare the two formulae as they relate to the Atlantic provinces. Under the Victoria formula three provinces from the Atlantic area may veto an amendment. Under the Vancouver formula four provinces, all the Atlantic provinces, would be required to agree in order to veto an amendment. I say that that is a poor position in which to put the Atlantic provinces.
I would also like to point out that under the proposed resolution of the government there is a two-year period for the provinces to come up with an alternative formula. If there is disagreement between the parties at that time, a referendum will be held to break the deadlock on an amending formula. Ultimately the people will have to decide if the provinces and the federal government cannot agree on an amending formula. There is nothing wrong in this. Why should the people not break the deadlock of their governments? In my view we must proceed with the Victoria formula.
Recently when the minority report was submitted the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said that he would accept a one-year period to work out the difficulties in the Vancouver formula. I have already demonstrated that those difficulties exist, and I am sure there are many others of which we are not aware because of lack of study. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition now realizes that there are many unresolved problems with respect to the Vancouver formula.
But who will decide the deadlock after one year has elapsed? Under the Vancouver formula the people will not. Thus the question is whether a province can opt out of an amending formula if it does not like it.
If the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative Party had not made this constitutional proposal into a political issue but, rather like the New Democratic Party, tried to attain the best proposed resolution, I am sure we would have seen Parliament at its best, with the true concerns of all Canadians at heart, bringing our Constitution to Canada with an amending formula and thus standing firm for a strong central government and strong provinces. This is not a matter on
which there should be so much disagreement among national parties.
Let me turn now to the other area which is in this proposed resolution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and equalization. It was in this area that I feel the committee was most effective in its work. The committee was faced with a document which the government had prepared in an attempt to meet the concerns of the provinces. The committee listened to the many witnesses who appeared before it. Revisions were made and the document before us represents some 60 major amendments-not technical amendments, but major amendments-which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) accepted.
The vast majority of the witnesses who came before us from all parts of Canada favoured an entrenched charter of rights and freedoms. They proposed amendments and at times asked the committee to go further than the proposed Charter of Rights and Freedoms went. They asked that it be entrenched because they felt that after patriation and an amending formula there would never be an opportunity again to put into place a charter of rights and freedoms which would express the basic rights of all Canadians.
The official opposition would now like to see a charter of rights, but only after patriation and an amending formula have been returned from the British Parliament. But how can we entrench a charter with the Vancouver formula, which allows for opting out?
The committee heard witnesses from across Canada. They were representatives of the Canadian public. They were Canadians who demonstrated their interest by coming to the committee or writing to the committee. These representations enabled the parliamentarians of Canada to respond and to improve the charter. The demand of the official opposition today is to do away with all that and to start all over again. That would be a regressive step. It would take away from the public the process which was so effective before our committee. It would leave rights and freedoms in the hands of the provinces to barter and trade them off behind closed doors.
What we have accomplished is a charter made in Canada incorporating the basic rights that belong to the people in every part of Canada. They are not to be denied by any legislature unless a court deems that such legislature has shown a justified reason promoting the greater good. In fact, one of the greatest accomplishments of the committee was the changing of clause 1, which gave power to the courts-and not to Parliament or the legislatures-to define or make rulings with respect to the rights of Canadians. I will read Clause 1 into the record again today:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
1 return again to the idea of this Charter of Rights and Freedoms having been made in Canada. We have the Official Languages Act now. We have equalization. We have a bill of rights. Unfortunately, the clause I have just read is not in that
March 18, 1981

bill of rights, which renders it ineffective in overcoming Parliament's intentions with respect to other acts.
We have human rights legislation. There should be mobility rights for all Canadians. Only recently have Canadians been stopped from working in a province because they did not reside in that province. Again I say that this charter has been made in Canada. All we are asking is that when an amending formula is being passed in the proposed Canada Act, we entrench these basic rights as well as the amending formula.
Let me once again review these basic rights and freedoms which the charter guarantees to all Canadians. There are the fundamental freedoms, which include freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, freedom of the press and other media of information and freedom of peaceful assembly and association. We have democratic rights which ensure the continuation of elections and that every person has the right to vote in an election. We have mobility rights which enshrine the right of every Canadian to move freely from one province to another, to establish a residence, to seek a job anywhere in Canada as well as to enter, remain in or leave the country. We have minority language educational rights which provide that citizens of the English-speaking or French-speaking minority of a province have the right to educate their children in that minority language wherever numbers warrant.
Official language rights will be entrenched, which will provide for the right to use English or French in Parliament, in federal courts and in communications with any head or central office of the Government of Canada. We have legal rights, among them the right to life, liberty and security and the right to equality before the law. We have non-discrimination rights, Clause 15, which has been called the "equal rights" clause. It protects citizens from discrimination on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex or physical or mental disability.
I would like at this time to take a few moments to talk about the question of sex and Clause 15. I think I put my views forward as many times as possible to all the groups which came before us. My preference would have been the specific recommendation put forward by the Human Rights Commission, which was to add a subclause to Clause 1 of the proposal which would have provided that this charter guarantees the equal right of men and women to enjoy the rights and freedoms set out in the charter. I felt we would have come a long way if we had accepted that type of statement without having to put it into the equal rights clause, Clause 15. I felt that would be a broader way of registering rights for all men and women. However, many of the groups which came before us- the Advisory Council on the Status of Women and some of the others-felt that Clause 15 was a more plausible approach.
I would also like to say that had that recommendation been accepted, we would not have to wait three years before stopping any infringement of the rights of women. That provision would have become effective immediately. 1 say that because I have an interest in that area.
The Constitution
The next area has to do with the handicapped, and again the provision dealing with the handicapped was shown to be truly effective. The groups which came before us all thought the handicapped in Canada should have their rights included in the charter of rights, and that physical and mental disabilities should be included in the provision on equality rights in Section 15.
The committee also decided to add to the charter a provision having to do with the multiculturalism heritage of Canada. The provision states that the charter shall be interpreted in such a manner as to give consideration to the preservation and enhancement of the multiculturalism of the people of Canada.
Finally, although this item is last on the list it is probably one of the most effective provisions of the committee. I wish to refer to the fine work done by the native people of Canada in their presentation to the committee and to parliamentarians who were not members of the committee. They asked that recognition of aboriginal and treaty rights of the Indian, Inuit and Metis people of Canada be included in the charter.
The next matter to which I should like to refer deals with equalization payments. It goes without saying that the Parliament and the Government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to the poorer provinces. We call them the "have-not" provinces. I come from one of those provinces and I can say we have benefited greatly from the whole process of equalization. The provision states that both orders of government will be committed to prompting equal opportunities for Canadians, furthering economic development to reduce disparities, and providing essential public services at a reasonable level to all Canadians. This was the best draft agreed to by the provinces in September, 1980.
The resolution before us, Mr. Speaker, gives rights to the people of Canada. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms takes rights from the legislatures and Parliament, and gives them to the people. In my opinion, these rights and the amending formula cannot be bartered for. They are areas which concern all Canadians and they must be incorporated in the Constitution so that neither the weak nor the strong areas in Canada need compete for those things which should be basic rights and privileges for all Canadians.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I leave you with one thought. There is a consensus across Canada that constitutional change should be made. This is the first step and there will be many more in the future of Canada, but there is consensus on patriation with an amending formula and a charter of rights and freedoms. Once we have achieved a workable amending formula, we will be able to tackle some of the problems involved in the redistribution of the powers between the federal and provincial governments, without taking away basic rights that belong to the Canadian people. This could include redistribution in areas such as communications, where there is almost an agreement between the federal government and the provinces, and in the area of family law. If we had an amending formula, we would not have to go back to the British parliament to amend our family law, or provisions regarding

March 18, 1981
The Constitution
communications in the British North America Act. All we are doing is taking the first step. We are making it possible for future amendments to our Constitution to be made in Canada.
Inevitably there are differences as to the substance of these changes, but there is also a great deal of harmony of thought. We as Canadians have to start this process of change. As Disraeli said, "Change is inevitable in a progressive country, change is constant."
I am pleased to have been part of this process of change, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in this immortal debate on the Constitution on behalf of my constituents in Fundy-Royal. Before starting my comments, I should like to congratulate, the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish) for his fine presentation this afternoon on this vital issue, and for his representations on behalf of his constituents. I should also like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. McBain), and the hon. member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell), both of whom did a creditable job of putting forth their points of view. Unfortunately, I believe they are misdirected and misguided. However, they spoke with sincerity and with the wish to serve the interests of this nation.
I was interested this afternoon to hear the motion put forward under Standing Order 43 by the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang) that this House extend its hours of sitting so we could conclude the debate on the Constitution. Unfortunately, it is only too obvious to Canadians and to those of us who serve on this side of the House that the government would like nothing better than to conclude the debate on the Constitution. I can tell the hon. member for Kitchener that one of the ways in which the government could settle this issue once and for all is by holding a referendum in Canada now; a referendum which would make clear what should be written into the Constitution. But, of course, the government will not do that. I will go further, Mr. Speaker, and challenge the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government to call an election on this vital and important issue. But of course that will not happen either.


An hon. Member:: Chickens.


Robert Alfred Corbett: They are aware that the position they have taken is extremely unpopular in the constituency of Canada, and that they would not stand a chance of winning an election were they to go to the people on this vital issue. There is no question in my mind, nor is there one in the minds of the majority of Canadians, that if an election were called on this issue the Progressive Conservative Party would win it and would form a government under the leadership of the hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark). The reason the government will not call an election is simply that the name of the game is power. The goal of the Prime Minister is, first, to obtain power for himself, and second, to obtain power for the government.
In starting my remarks on this constitutional issue I should like to read an unsolicited song that was sent to me by a very important constituent of mine in Fundy-Royal, a girl in grade 11 whom I have never met. She wrote:
Canada, my homeland fair,
I'd give my life for thee.
If by my humble death I'd save Our country's liberty,
Canada, with hand on heart,
We list to hear thy call,
We'll serve thee, faithful to the end,
We shall not let thee fall.
Canada, my Canada,
United as one we stand,
As thou wast found so thou shalt remain-
Give us thy command.
Canada my native land,
With freedom, rights for all.
We'll serve thee, faithful to the end,
We shall not let thee fall.
Shelly Tucker wrote:
I may only be 16, but I'm very much concerned with the welfare of my country. I feel people must be more patriotic toward their homeland, and appreciate it more. This song simply expresses my love for my country.
Shelly Tucker 1980


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Alfred Corbett: It is to people of this country like Shelly Tucker that we owe our debt, our allegiance, and our determination to make Canada a better place in which to live. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that will be the case, should this constitutional package be passed.
Let me review briefly how this confederation all came about. The country of Canada is a federal state. It is a federation which is controlled and has been controlled since 1867 by the British North America Act. This act was designed for Canadians by Canadians. It outlined the responsibilities of the central government, as opposed to the responsibilities of the provincial governments. It fulfilled a necessity within our federated system. It dictated that divisions beyond reach or easy access to consensus of opinion would not alter the way the country was designed to be run.
There were some very good reasons why the British North America Act was designed in that fashion: So there would be control, and so that not one of the 11 involved governments would be able to act unilaterally to change the direction and the intent of the BN A Act. It ensured that one government would not be predominant in all things. The decision was a Canadian decision, and it was respected by the British parliament.
Discussions began to take place as to how we might better control our destiny. This has been discussed for a good many
March 18, 1981

years. Discussions which took place in which Canada played a major role, this being the senior dominion, and the Statute of Westminster became a reality. It was written in that statute that the British parliament would henceforth have no further direct control over the "Dominions" included in that statute. Canada was a motivating force in the writing of the Statute of Westminster and, interestingly enough, Canada was to be the only exception.
It is pertinent to ask ourselves as Canadians: Why was Canada, at Canada's request, the only exception to this rule? The answer is, quite simply, we were concerned in that day and age, just as we should be today, that no single government would have the opportunity to override the jurisdiction of another. Much to the chagrin and the sorrow of Great Britain, we insisted that Canada be made an exception to the Statute of Westminster and that we continue with the jurisdiction given under the British North America Act. Because of a lack of agreement among5 Canadians themselves and the various levels of government in Canada at that time we were unable to see our way clear to cutting the colonial cord. Without the protection of, or the resource to the United Kingdom, some Canadians were concerned that their federal government or various provincial governments would have difficulties coming to agreement and, indeed, that something disastrous might happen to the country as a result.
However, progress was made and, as time went by, we recognized it would be a good thing for Canada if we were able to bring our Constitution home, but there was a mechanical difficulty as to how that would come about. 1 think there is certain validity to the arguments that the current system serves Canada well, that there is no reason why we should bring the Constitution home, and that the British North America Act has served the country well for the 114 years it has been in effect. But, that is not my position, nor is it the position of the Progressive Conservative Party. It is important for Canadians to recognize that certainly all members who sit in this House of Commons now agree the time has come to bring the Constitution home to Canada, but we decidedly disagree that it should be on the terms of the Prime Minister alone. Trudeau-the Prime Minister wishes-
[Translation}


Mr. Cousineau:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If at all possible, 1 would prefer that the Chair ask the hon. member to respect the customs and traditions of the House, and to refer to the title of the Right Hon. Prime Minister and not to his family name.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) raised the point that the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should be addressed by his title, but I thought I heard the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) correct himself.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He corrected himself.
The Constitution


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The point has been made. I recognize the hon. member for Fundy-Royal.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I respect the position of the Prime Minister, even if I have questions about the validity of the present person. If the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) was paying closer attention to the substance of my remarks rather than being picky, he would have recognized that I withdrew my reference to the Prime Minister's surname.
The Prime Minister proposes, among other things, to allow changes by referenda, yet he will not take advantage of the present opportunity to go to the people with a referendum and ask them if, indeed, this is the way they want to see their Constitution brought home. This referendum proposal would only allow changes proposed by Ottawa to be put to a referendum call. Obviously this is designed to allow the power to remain with the federal government. Only the federal government would have the right to call for a referendum. Under this proposal, rights could be written in or written out. Rights have always been present to protect the minority, but if we put a question designed to meet the desires and architectural requirements of the federal government, what chance would the minorities of the country have to voice their opinions in such a referendum? The proposition in the referendum would be written and financed by Ottawa; it would be financed by the taxpayers of this nation. The provincial governments would not be required to ratify any amendments which might be made.
I should like to refer briefly to a speech made by a prominent Canadian back in November, 1980. In part it read:
Referendums don't work too well in a parliamentary democracy, particularly in a federal state-
-The referendum procedure undermines representative democracy under which we elect men and women to study these questions and decide them for us ... If an issue is important enough, the will of the people can be tested at any time in a general election-
This is why I put the challenge to the Prime Minister to call an election on this issue. Those words were spoken by John Turner in his address to the annual dinner of the Administration Society, University of Regina. I am certain the words of John Turner were well taken by hon. members opposite.
The question of the Victoria formula, as opposed to the Vancouver formula, is also extremely important. I would like to comment briefly on this subject. Under the formula suggested by the government, Ontario and Quebec must be supportive of any changes to be made to the Constitution. In effect, this gives them a virtual veto. With all due respect to those two provinces, I fail to realize why they should be given the powers of a veto in perpetuity, since indeed this is what it would be. This would be the case regardless of any future movement of the population, either west or east, and despite the fact that those provinces at some future date may lose their position of power, as far as population is concerned. Those two provinces would be forever given the power of a veto. I believe that

March 18, 198!
The Constitution
smacks of discrimination to the rest of Canada. 1 believe Canadians generally disgree with that proposal.
Our party, and most of the provinces, support the Vancouver consensus in which Parliament and seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population have the opportunity to change the Constitution, if that is the will of the people involved. In the Vancouver formula there is an opting-out provision. I think that is only fair since the provinces have historical rights under the British North America Act, which this government should not have the right to unilaterally take from them. Those provisions set out the powers and rights of the legislatures, ownership of natural resources and the property of the provinces.
The debate this government is so anxious to terminate involves the most important issue which has been debated in this House since confederation. Any unilateral action which this government will perpetrate on the rest of Canada will only create dissension and hostilities among all Canadians. It is these people who must accept the responsibility.


Mr. Laniel:: What about the flag debate?


Robert Alfred Corbett: When the unilateral action was taken at the time of the flag debate there was no thought in this House that a matter of that magnitude would dare be presented to the people of this nation in such a blatant and arrogant fashion. No doubt at that time there was no other issue which could evoke as much feeling as did the flag debate. But that flag debate is behind us and we are dealing now with a matter which affects all Canadians. They will have to live with it, as will their children's children and the children of those children for years to come.
The action taken by the federal government will ensure for some time to come that this Constitution will not serve in the best interests of national unity. Indeed, there will be more divisiveness than positive effects. But, Mr. Speaker, we will have it, since the government will invoke closure. The debate will be terminated, and I can only hope the majority of people who sit in this House have the opportunity before that happens to express the viewpoints of their constituents, as I am doing today.
In my constituency the matter of closure is something which is not taken lightly. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in a recent poll I conducted in my constituency 78 per cent said "No" to the question:
Do you feel the government should have the right to invoke closure on any matter it wishes to terminate parliamentary discussion on?
I suggest that 78 per cent is a representative figure from across this nation. At any rate, it is a fact in Fundy-Royal. The purpose of the Constitution is to establish the game rules, the framework from which we can enjoy freedoms which will become an integral part of our democracy. If it is to work, the Constitution must be the result of honest communication and an honest attempt to reach an agreement amongst all the partners of Confederation, not just between one man and the party he leads. This resolution should not proceed until we have the word from Canadians as to whether or not this is,
indeed, the way they want to see the future of this country formed.
Again, speaking for the people of Fundy Royal, I can tell you that 72 per cent of the people replied "No" to the question:
Do you agree that the federal government should move unilaterally to patriate the Constitution?
An overwhelming 72 per cent replied "No", Mr. Speaker. That is indicative of the beliefs of the people who live in this nation of Canada.
The British have a responsibility, whether or not the members of the government want to realize it. Their responsibility is under the Statute of Westminster. I suspect the British parliament wishes it did not have that responsibility, but it does. The problems now are the same as they were back then when we decided it would be in the best interests of the people to leave the British North America Act intact. The problems are the same now as they were then. The government's determination to move unilaterally and to ram it down the throats of all Canadians just exemplifies that very fact.
Let us look to see what this action will mean to us as Canadians. What is it that the Prime Minister wants the British parliament to do which he knows he cannot get this Parliament to do? He knows he could not get this done here in Canada. There is no overwhelming argument which validly says we need the amendments the Prime Minister is suggesting. We have always been able to solve our problems here at home through compromise, consultation and agreement. What is the Prime Minister's purpose and reason? I say they must be suspect. This is the Prime Minister who has created crisis after crisis to serve his own purpose and to determine his own course. I can cite the War Measures Act as an example of what I am talking about. It should be pointed out that this measure will be included in the Constitution, should it pass. The Prime Minister utilized the War Measures Act and said he would justify that action at a later date. That justification has never come. This is the individual who, over the serious objections of many conscientious people, implemented the gun control provisions. For what reason, I would ask? Flies do not create garbage. Those guns he wants so dearly to control are still in the constituency. The difference now is that people who were under his direction have access to them without having to take the proper procedures through the courts of this land. It was wrong to implement that particular piece of legislation in the manner in which he did, and it should be withdrawn.
This is the same Prime Minister who campaigned on an anti-wage and price control issue back in 1974, but, as soon as he was elected went on his merry way and implemented wage and price controls. This is the man who, as head of the government party, insinuated there would be no increase in gasoline prices if that party was elected in 1980. The facts speak for themselves.
There are many suspect matters respecting the motives of the present government and its leader. It is known that his
March 18, 1981

preference is to have a republic rather than a monarchy. We know his attitude regarding the role of the Queen, and the sort of disrespect which he has shown on past occasions.


An hon. Member:: When was that?


Robert Alfred Corbett: This charter will do nothing for the rights of Canadians. It will do nothing toward enshrining rights for people. It will enshrine rights for the government only.
There is an unequal application of various proposals across the country. Why is it that the Prime Minister and his government refuse to incorporate the very basic right to the ownership of property, the right of an individual to woik for a piece of land so he can have a home in which he can house and shelter his family? What is wrong in our society with having something as substantial and as basic as the right to property written into the Constitution? We have not had a satisfactory answer; we have had no answer at all, and we are not apt to ever have one.
What is wrong with the basic premise that God should be respected and written into our Constitution, as He has always been an inspiration in our society? Why is it that God, the cornerstone of our heritage, has been so blatantly left out? The founders of this country fell down on their knees and praised God for helping them find the land, and they thanked God for all the bountiful gifts He bestowed on them. What is now wrong with referring to the role which God plays in the lives of Canadians?


An hon. Member:: Communists do not accept the concept.


Robert Alfred Corbett: What about the rights of the elderly in this country? Why have we not made some allusion to them, particularly the rights of the elderly poor? Why can we not pay some attention to these people who so desperately need help as a result of the mismanagement of funds, the fiscal fiascos this government has perpetuated upon them, inflation and their inability to cope with it? What is wrong with writing in the dignity we have or should have in this country for our elders, the people who laid the foundations of this great nation? They have been left out, just as it is obvious that the rights of those who are yet unborn in this country have been left out. I speak about those people who will not be born in this country because of a very serious lack of appreciation of the basic component of life itself, something these people seem to be so determined to overlook and forget.
What about the rights of the unborn children who will never see this country and will never have the opportunity to participate as we do? There is no one but God-whom they refuse to recognize-who should have the right to take an innocent life, whether it is in the womb or outside of the womb. The fact that this charter of rights does not recognize the right to life and the right of the unborn child is a very serious shortcoming.
We can look back upon and be proud of many things in this country, including the heritage of the two founding people whose forefathers came from France and Britain. But for some reason or another, we cannot agree that one should be as equal
The Constitution
to the other. I find it strange that all the efforts which have been made in one direction do not seem to be applicable when we ask for the same rights in the other direction.
For instance, why is it necessary to change the name of Dominion Day to Canada Day? What does that particular piece of wisdom emulate? I suspect it is to try to satiate the insatiable appetites of the minority of people in this country. That bothers me because, if that is not the case, certainly that group is being tabbed with the responsibility, and this cannot have gone unnoticed. Why can we not have an explanation?
The present government seems to feed and thrive on the alienation of this country, the alienation of the French against the English, the alienation of the English against the French, the alienation of the west against the east; it goes on and on.
How is our Constitution to be determined? How is it to be designed? The powers of this House of Commons are to be diluted. The powers of the provincial legislatures are to be diluted. It will be determined by the courts of this land which will be staffed by federal judges appointed by the government. One person will have the opportunity to lend the most weight as to who will make the decisions that will affect the iives of Canadians. The government will decide the role of judges and who the judges will be. It will control the referendum process, and even Parliament will be set aside.
Dealing briefly with that, I want to allude to the responsibility of those who create, or who will have created such a system in Canada. I refer to all those government members, including those who would like to do differently-and there are several over there-but cannot because they are being directed and orchestrated by their leader. The responsibility must also fall upon the shoulders of members of the New Democratic Party who chided, but lined up so willingly behind the government. There are obviously some dissenters in the New Democratic Party. Those people are to be credited, because in a party of 28-


An hon. Member:: Thirty-two.


Robert Alfred Corbett: -thirty-two, there were four who had the courage of conviction to stand behind what they know to be right. However, on the government side of the House there is only one man with enough courage and conviction to vote in a way which will provide the future of this country as it should be. I am not surprised these people have taken the direction they have taken. Some of them have shown their arrogance, and it certainly has been significant enough to be noticeable.
When the President of the United States was in this chamber not too long ago the performance of a number of the members of the New Democratic Party was shameful. The way they displayed their arrogance and intolerance for a man who leads the most powerful nation on the face of this earth, not even standing up and giving polite applause, was a disgrace. Their mentor, the ambassador from the U.S.S.R., had the common decency to stand in his place in the gallery when the President of the United States walked into this chamber.

March 18, 1981
The Constitution
That was a despicable display of arrogance and ignorance by an undisciplined gaggle of nincompoops.
This nation and its future should be determined by harmony, not discord; it should be determined by co-operation, not confrontation; it should be determined by understanding, not bull-headed determination. The future of this nation should be based on patience, not pressure; it should be based on good will, not suspicion and it should be based on thoughtfulness, not deceit. Most of all, it should be based on compassion and thoughtfulness for all Canadians.
I started my speech with a song presented to me by a student, a girl in grade 11 from Hampton, New Brunswick. In closing I would like to read into the record a short essay presented to me by a grade 8 student from Norton in my constituency. It is entitled "I Love Canada" and reads as follows:
Have you ever stopped to realize how beautiful a country Canada is? The picturesque fishing villages, golden plains of wheat, small villages nestled between the high Rockies and the frostbitten regions north of the Canadian Shield exemplify the true beauty. This is one reason why I love my country. I think that Canada deserves our love and patriotism for many reasons.
Canada is a free country. We are not under communist or tyrannical rule. Canadians can choose their own religions, are not restricted by the government in any illogical way and have a right to say what they feel.
Canada has become a new home for many immigrants who have found a better life here. These immigrants have brought their customs and languages making Canada a colourful country.
We in Canada also have the privilege of a public education and a chance at a good job which we should really be thankful for. Canada is a rich country. We have wheat and other produce, oil, wood, and Vj of the world's pure water.
1 think that what 1 love best about Canada is that it is a paradox. So many of Canada's features contradict each other. The mountain regions of the west differ from the flat prairies. Languages are different also. Contrasts in population are also evident. Large cities such as Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal differ from the sparsely populated cities in the Northwest and Yukon territories.
Canada is a wonderful, beautiful country. The last two lines of our national anthem is my prayer for our great nation;
"God keep our land glorious and free
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee"
Mr. Speaker, we all should dedicate ourselves to Veronica Barton.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity today to speak in this constitutional debate. Last May 22, I took advantage of a similar debate, which my party initiated two days after the Quebec referendum, to say some things about Canada's past and its future. The motion before the House that day was as follows:
That this House welcomes the result of the referendum in Quebec and pledges itself to interpret that vote as a clear call for constitutional change.
That motion was endorsed by the speeches of members from all parties in this House. Many of those speeches called for the government and others to make sure we grasped the opportunity to change our Constitution and to make use of the good will there was throughout Canada at that time. I should like to quote something the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) said, as reported at page 1315 of Hansard as follows:
So at this time of good will we also face a serious peril-a real threat that disappointment and anger can replace this good will if we fritter away our opportunities. All of us recognize how quickly good will can be replaced by anger and accusations. We must avoid giving any comfort to the separatists, wherever they may be, to conduct our activities in such a way that the talks would not lead to new satisfactory arrangements. There are obviously people in this country who are hoping that these talks will end in failure. This cannot happen. The talks must be real and they must bear results.
Note the phrase used by the hon. member for Provencher, Mr. Speaker, "fritter away". There is a real danger that this is exactly what we will allow to happen, but, Mr. Speaker, we must not. I am not trying to lay the blame on one doorstep. In reality, that blame must be shared by many across the land, by some in this House and in the Senate.
Last spring, I followed the Liberal government's attempts to negotiate a new Constitution. I listened to the premiers at their conference in the summer and I watched the federal-provincial conference in the early fall. I could hear, feel and see that the good will generated by the vote in the Quebec referendum was dissipated. As these events and the backroom manoeuvring that accompanied them occurred, Canadians lost faith in their politicians. These actions by so many of the major actors on the federal and provincial scene gave many Canadians a feeling of disgust. As a history teacher, when I sit back and think about Canadian history, I realize this has always been the case. It is something we do not brag about and it is something we do not clarify when we talk about our past. We cannot clarify it now.
I would ask all Canadians throughout the country to move forward despite the regretful actions of those who have acted in such a petty manner and so selfishly. We must work together regardless of the process through which some people have dragged us. I should like to quote my own words if I may, Mr. Speaker. On May 22, 1980, as reported at page 1317 of Hansard, I said:
This opportunity is also a challenge, because if we do not make significant headway now the negative feelings the previous speaker mentioned, which are real, and the feeling of hopelessness on constitutional talks, will be felt not only by the Quebecois but by all Canadians. There is presently a hope in our ability to overcome the obstacles which have created roadblocks in the past and that we now must meet in order to face the challenge we have as a nation.
I now read from page 1319 as follows:
In this respect I would like to remind hon. members that historically what has been called English Canada has always been a generation behind French Canadians in determining its own aspirations.
At the beginning of this century Henri Bourassa, as an MP in this House, rose to call for a Canadian identity. He was rebuked by those who wished to remain part of the British Empire. Twenty years later we accepted the wisdom of Bourassa's remarks. When Quebec premiers called out for the strengthening of the role of the provinces within confederation, the rest of the country ignored them and was appalled at the thought. A generation later we heard the same call coming from each and every region of this country. In the sixties when Quebec was asking to be mattre chez nous or master of their own destiny, the rest of Canada was accepting increased foreign control of our resources, our industry and our future. It has often been said that Quebec wants too much independence and that English Canada wants none. We are now in the 1980s and another generation has passed by. It is time for all Canadians to be asking to be masters of their own destiny.
March 18, 1981

At the bottom of page 1319 of Hansard, I said:
The mood of the country is open to changes in the constitution, especially after the decision of Tuesday night. This openness to change, however, might well dissipate if all points of view are not aired in an open and non-partisan manner.
Unfortunately, when I said those words last May I did not expect to be a prophet. No politician should ever claim to be a prophet, but that is exactly what happened.
Talks on the Constitution were held between the premiers and the federal government. Politicians from all parties held discussions. But these discussions certainly were in a partisan manner. People did not want to overcome their own political selfishness, no matter who they were, to work toward a Canadian future. I regret this partisan approach we have had in the last ten months. As I said earlier, it is not just the Tories-but all people-whether they are Liberals, premiers, interest groups or even, on occasion, members of our own party-have not acted in a non-partisan manner.
Many of the speeches in this House have been deplorable. Many of the speeches made outside this House have been just as bad. As in cases of war, people have tried to bring God in on their side. People have brought in regional hatred and all sorts of divisive forces to justify their own partisan needs. I would like to use just one example to prove this point. Like other Canadians, I am aware of many examples that prove we have not handled this situation in the manner in which we should. I refer particularly to the Conservative ad which appeared in many western newspapers.


Mr. McMillan:: It was a good ad.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It reads:
Broadbent just gave your vote to Trudeau.
The Liberal-NDP deal will make westerners second-class citizens.
Then there is a little "Pierre" with an "X" beside it. The ad continues:
If your riding elected an NDP Member of Parliament to fight for your interests in Ottawa, you've been betrayed. Instead of fighting for you, he-
They forget there are women in the House. The ad continues:
-has sold you out to Pierre Trudeau.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Beatty:: Read it again.


Rodney Edward Murphy: That is the whole problem. The Conservatives in this House are proud of that ad and yet it appeals to all the prejudices. By its very nature it is calling for more hatred, for more regional division and more separatist sentiment in this country. It is a disgusting, a partisan and a small-minded effort. Conservatives who disagree with the constitutional proposals have every right to do so. They have every right to speak out on the issue. They have every right to advertise their position. But, really, members, can you honestly say this ad addresses issues instead of prejudice?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Yes.
The Constitution


Rodney Edward Murphy: Can you honestly say it dealt with difficulties rather than personalities-


Henry Perrin Beatty: Yes.


Rodney Edward Murphy: -or that Canadian unity was asked for rather than regional alienation?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


An hon. Member:: You are learning.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Listen to your constituents.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Hon. members convict themselves. I do not have to say any more. They used a stupid, narrow-minded ad which they brag and gloat about. It is the worst advertising anyone could ever promote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: It does everything possible to work against Canadian unity, and they wonder why they are losing the respect of all Canadians. They do it to themselves.


Henry Perrin Beatty: What do your constituents say?


An hon. Member:: Read the polls.


Rodney Edward Murphy: One of the hon. separatists asks what do my constituents say. I have a two-two vote. Two for the issue and two against. I have talked to people throughout my constituency. They have not felt the need to have a big letter-writing campaign. As I said, I have two letters for the issue and two letters against.
Most people would like us to bring the Constitution home and to work toward our future, not build more hatred.


An hon. Member:: You are not getting your mail.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It is not just the Tories who have taken the narrow and low path in this debate. Many others have done so. The most forceful arguments made against these proposals usually relate to unilateral action. There is no doubt in my mind this is basically a unilateral decision. I face that fact and I accept it. I do not like it. I recognize that most Canadians do not like it. Yet, I have not seen any willingness on the part of provincial or federal politicians to work this out.


An hon. Member:: Do you include Saskatchewan?


Rodney Edward Murphy: The record of the provinces and the federal government is one of failure. Neither Canadian history, Canadian or British law, nor the interpretation of that law give us answers how to proceed to amend our Constitution. Because of that there is a deadlock. Needless to say there are antagonists on both sides of the question who will and do quote from different legal opinions and different legal precedents to justify their own position. But our Constitution, as it presently stands, and the Statute of Westminster are silent on how to amend this Constitution. This was deliberately the case. We as Canadians then and we as Canadians now have not found an

March 18, 1981
The Constitution
amending formula satisfactory to everybody. It is an unfortunate situation, but that is the situation we face.
Premier Lyon of Manitoba who occasionally parades himself as the leader of the premiers, has gone to Britain to suggest his own unilateral action. A press release put out by his own government's news service on February 6, 1981 reads:
He suggested the U.K. parliament consider relieving itself-in accordance with accepted constitutional practice-of the trust relationship with Canada by divesting itself of its power to amend the BNA Act and by recognizing the present constitutional requirement that amendments affecting the powers of the two levels of Canadian government be made only with the unanimous consent of the provinces and the Canadian Parliament.
In other words, Premier Lyon's unilateral action is that the British throw the whole thing back in our face and that each province should have a veto over any future amendments to the Constitution. That unilateral action suggested by the Premier of Manitoba is no different to the package which is being proposed here. Certainly there is different substance but the method of how they want to change our Constitution is the same. It was not only the Premier of Manitoba but others, representing both sides of the argument, who have gone to England asking basically for their own unilateral package. People forget that. What Premier Lyon is asking for is just as unilateral and just as much a change to our Constitution as the package which is before this House. Any Constitution which comes back to Canada and gives each and every province a veto will never be changed because no province will ever willingly give up that power of veto. It will not happen and it will not work. If the British were to accept Premier Lyon's unilateral action, we would never be able to amend this Constitution no matter how needed or how valuable an amendment would be.
That is not the only provincial suggestion as to how to amend the Constitution. There is the opt-out Vancouver formula which would allow each province to more or less make up its mind what it wants in Canada. In other words, some will add civil rights to a charter, others will not. Some will have resource control, others will not. Some will work toward the future of the country, others will not. When you get right down to it, despite the glossiness of the Vancouver formula, that is what it is all about. It says that we as Manitobans, as Albertans, as people from any province, will decide our options within confederation, we will decide to what extent we want to help other provinces or regions.
An hon. member has called it a drop-out formula. It is not only that, Mr. Speaker, it is a formula which will automatically create a breakdown in the unity of Canada because no part of the country is going to stand by and watch another province say: I am sorry, but I am not going to contribute to medicare; you cannot use our resources; we do not believe in a charter of rights or that your pension plans are not applicable in my part of the country, because that type of unilateral action by a province can only create more divisiveness, disunity and confusion as we progress as a nation.
There were a number of other points raised in the attack on the present procedures, one of which was alluded to in that infamous Tory ad, which suggest that somehow western Canadians become second-class citizens under this formula. Yet what it does is give each region and the federal government a veto, but, because of the differences that exist within this country now, the veto works differently.
Ontario is a region, therefore it has a veto. Quebec is the same. For historic reasons we are giving Prince Edward Island a bit more power in the Atlantic region, but basically there must be agreement of two provinces out of the four before there can be an amendment. It is a bit different in the west again, but basically there must be agreement of two provinces with 50 per cent of the population before there can be any change. They must agree before there can be any change in the Constitution, and that is a pretty substantial veto by any region, which makes it very difficult for anyone to ram an amendment through. There must be this agreement, therefore, the people of those provinces still have protection.
The argument that it is not fair has been made about each and every amending formula presented to us. There will always be someone who says: Oh, that is not quite as fair to me as it is to him or her. There will always be some province or region that says: It could be better for me. However, I hope we are going to get through this time, and whatever future we have as a country, with a less selfish attitude.
As I said earlier, the Tory ads play on regional separatism, alienation, small-mindedness and prejudice, but if that is to be the attitude taken in the future by any political party, then we are going to have trouble developing our future as a nation. We must work together, we must have a willingness to accept others views, and when we disagree it is better to take the high road, talking about the substance of our disagreement, rather than picking on one or another region of the country.
In the charter of rights we add something new to our Constitution, something that many of the provinces do not want, but something wanted by many Canadians. We will for the first time have civil rights in a charter. We have had civil rights in the past but we have also had examples, and we are not going to go through the list again, of how they can be ignored by governments, whether provincial or federal.
We will have a better, but not perfect, recognition of native rights. That is important to my constituency. It will recognize equality of men and women; again, it is not perfect but it is better than what we have at the present time. There are other groups such as the handicapped who will for the first time have recognition in a Constitution. This might be the best package that exists at the present time, but it is still not perfect and there are interest groups in this country who want changes. They have a legitimate right to work toward those changes, but because every interest group is not satisfied now is no reason not to go forward. We cannot even satisfy every province so how do we satisfy every interest group?
So we should not, to use the expression of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), hold our noses and pass it; we should look at the substance, at what we see as a reasonable charter, a
March 18, 1981

reasonable amending formula, a reasonable constitutional package and accept that. To do otherwise is to be unfaithful to Canada's future because a Constitution sets the groundwork for where we go as a country. It recognizes our past, the significant events in our history, and our geography. It recognizes that we have to work within that framework, we have to recognize regional and ethnic differences, the different economic aspects and needs of our nation. We do that through resources, equalization and taxing formulae. That just sets a framework, because what happens in the country is based only on the Constitution. A Constitution cannot force a country to take hold of its future, force a government to pass good laws, or force the provinces to respect everyone. It can, through appeal to the courts, force them to respect human rights, but it does not guarantee they are going to offer the educational, medical and social service facilities that will enable every Canadian to live a successful and happy life. It may not do that, but it does set that framework. It is a framework which we can use only if the provinces and the federal government are willing to take hold of it, pass the laws and take the actions which will lead to a greater future. Our future depends on something else. It depends on good will. It depends on honest efforts. It depends on people being willing to work together to try to solve the problems we face.
Earlier I said the process we have gone through has not enjoyed that good will. There has not been honest effort. I also mentioned that this is not something unique in the last ten months since the May referendum. That has been the situation through every generation of our history. It was the situation prior to the BNA Act being accepted. There were separatists then. There were people with regional differences then. There were politicians who played on those regional differences then. Throughout our history we have had those problems. Throughout our history Canadians have not always taken the high road. That is the situation again now, but I hope people in this House and throughout the country will feel the package is good as far as it goes and that while some Canadians may not like everything in the package, if it passes we will have to live and work with it within the Constitution. We should do everything we can to make our country the greatest it can become, and to make sure it respects the rights of individuals to the greatest extent possible. If we do not do that, then it does not matter what is on paper. Everything really depends on good will and the proper exercise by governments of their powers, whether those governments be provincial or federal. They should do all they can to help Canadians in every walk of life.


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in this constitutional debate not only to my colleagues on all sides of this House, not only through television and Hansard to the country and to all Canadians wherever they may be, but to speak on behalf of our children and grandchildren. If the Lord be willing down the path of time my grandchildren will ask me where I stood and what I said
The Constitution
when I held the floor on an issue which may substantially alter their lives and their country. I want them to know that at least I tried and that my party made every effort to speak out and persuade the members of the government party that what they were doing was wrong and would have implications far beyond their narrow thinking at the moment.
I speak from the heart. I wish to express my fears and reservations about a Constitution which will divide us, not unite us, a Constitution with built-in conflicts which can lead to chaos and a Constitution which easily may lead to the end of Canada and possibly the birth of several smaller, independent nations in what should and could be a far greater nation.
I first ask whether the people are in favour of this document. Do Canadians from coast to coast endorse it? Is this what Canadians want? Let us examine the score card at the present time.
The last Gallup poll on the subject showed that 64 per cent of Canadians disapproved of the government's unilateral action in trying to bring an amended Constitution to Canada from Britain. Only 22 per cent approved. Eight of ten provinces-Ontario and New Brunswick being the two exceptions-are against this action. Six of the ten provinces are fighting this action in the courts. Quebec Liberal leader Claude Ryan is totally opposed, as is the present Quebec premier. The NDP provincial parties in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec have publicly spoken against it. Four NDP Members of Parliament have broken with their party leader and have stated they will vote against the Liberal package in the House of Commons. The Ottawa West NDP riding association has called on the federal party to withdraw all support for the Liberal package. Four Liberal senators- the hon. senators for Lauzon, Dovercourt, Harbour Grace and, most recently, the hon. senator for the Ottawa Valley-so far have spoken against the Trudeau proposal in the Senate.
Two Liberal members of Parliament, the hon. member for Montmorency-Orleans (Mr. Duclos) and the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), spoke out at the constitutional committee hearings against parts of the package. Gordon Robertson, former secretary to the cabinet for federal-provincial relations and for many years Trudeau's top constitutional adviser-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: -has spoken out against the referendum.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, 1 hate to raise this at this late date, but the hon. member has been using unparliamentary language. He may be quoting from a newspaper or other documents, but I would advise Your Honour, and we have done a bit of work on this, that Beau-chesne's fourth edition Citation 175 states in part:
It is out of order to read extracts in a debate if they . . . contain unparliamentary expressions, as no language can be heard in quotation if it would be disorderly if spoken-

March 18, 1981
The Constitution
I ask Your Honour to admonish the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) for trying to get around the rules in this manner.


Madam Speaker:: 1 am sorry, but I was discussing something with the Clerk at the time and the expression used by the hon. member escaped me. The parliamentary secretary is right in saying that hon. members cannot do indirectly what is not allowed directly. That must mean that if there is a word which is unparliamentary, the hon. member cannot use it even if he is quoting from an article or from something else.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I think in all fairness, and I understand that Your Honour was discussing a matter with the Clerk, it might be worth while for Your Honour to read the transcript before making a final decision. It strikes me that there may be a number of occasions when it would be appropriate and quite permissible for a member to read from a transcript, to make a point. We have to look at the context within which that is done. I think it would be appropriate that the hon. member be allowed to continue with his speech and, possibly tomorrow, we can at more leisure consider the point of order raised by the parliamentary secretary.


Madam Speaker:: I have to say in response, that hon. members cannot use words which are unparliamentary just because they are quoting. If the words were unparliamentary, they must be withdrawn. I did not hear them, and I am sorry, but if the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) feels he has probably gone beyond what he wanted to say or what he meant to say, perhaps he could withdraw now and the incident will be closed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the word in question was "Trudeau". If that is unparliamentary, I apologize, but I do not think that particular word is unparliamentary.


René Cousineau: We know what you are trying to do.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, we have sat here patiently through the last five weeks. We have seen the rules of debate transgressed by members of the Conservative Party, and I think it is time we put a stop to it. No member may refer to another member by his name. We must refer to hon. members either by their titles as ministers, such as the Prime Minister, or by their constituencies. This transgression has taken place for the last four or five weeks, and I wanted to bring it to Your Honour's attention. Your Honour usually does not sit in the chair during the normal debates because of other duties. I know Your Honour is here because of royal assent, and I wanted to bring to Your Honour's attention that this has been going on. I respectfully ask that the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby refrain from using the unparliamentary practice of calling the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) by his name. That is not permitted in debates.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He was reading from a transcript.


David Michael Collenette: Same thing.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Madam Speaker, I have been reviewing my notes thoroughly, and I did not refer to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The only name I have used in my comments to this point is the name Gordon Robertson, and I do not believe he is a member of this House.


David Michael Collenette: Trudeau.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: I will have to see the blues before I am prepared to withdraw because I do not believe I said that.


Madam Speaker:: Since there is a divergence of opinion as to what was said, I suppose the only recourse we have is to wait for the blues.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I don't think anybody should mention Trudeau's name either.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Madam Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: I will wait for a decision tomorrow as to whether unparliamentary language was used. If there was, it was not intended.
The people of Canada are having a great deal of difficulty understanding this constitutional reform package now before Parliament. This may be because of the persistent campaign of innuendo and false rhetoric about what is proposed and how the Constitution is going to work.
The most outrageous statement being made is that our Constitution will be patriated to Canada. In a statement released on October 2, 1980, the Prime Minister said that the resolution proposes first that the Constitution be brought home. At long last, he said, we will have a Constitution truly our own. Freed of the paralysis of the past, with our Constitution home, with our independence beyond question, with our rights and freedoms guaranteed, the process of reform and renewal can truly proceed, the Prime Minister said.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) said, "I am proud to have the opportunity of introducing a motion in the House of Commons which will be able to bring the Constitution home. After 113 years of nationhood, Canada at last will be able to bring its Constitution home."
In addition, we are being brainwashed with our own tax moneys. Accompanying a copy of the resolution, are two government published pamphlets entitled respectively "Highlights of a Proposed Resolution Respecting the Constitution of Canada" and "An Explanation of a Proposed Resolution Respecting the Constitution of Canada". The first contains the following statement: "Canadians are now witnessing a truly historic event as Parliament is being asked to take steps to patriate Canada's Constitution. The Government of Canada has placed before Parliament a proposed resolution to bring the Constitution home."
March 18, 1981

The second is even more enthusiastic in its misstatements. It says, "In view of the fact that there is now a widespread belief that patriation has become essential for reasons of both national pride and practicality, the Government of Canada has laid before Parliament a proposed resolution designed to bring about the patriation of the Constitution. When these proposals come into effect, they will signify the passing of the last vestige of Canada's former colonial status."
These statements, Madam Speaker, are not true. There is not a clause, a sentence, a word, a period, a comma or a semicolon in the resolution which can be construed as establishing a Canadian Constitution at home in Canada. Our Constitution will continue to be a collection of acts of the British parliament, and it must not be forgotten that what a Parliament enacts it always has the power to repeal.
This government's suggested creation of a Canadian Constitution, by a British act, will still be capable of repeal by the British Parliament. There is no provision whatever for the establishment of a Canadian-based Constitution, and anyone who says otherwise has not read or understood the resolution, or is attempting to deceive.
Let us turn to the so-called Victoria amending formula. This method of amending the Constitution which in perpetuity gives the right to Ontario and Quebec to individually block any constitutional amendment-


An hon. Member:: The messenger is knocking.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: I am a westerner and I say this is totally unacceptable to the west. It is a continuation of the domination by the central provinces over other rapidly growing, expanding and vibrant regions of this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Tories have no respect for the Crown.
Royal Assent


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Population is important, but the rights of the minorities-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I believe we have a message from the other place.



[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-55, an act to amend the Canada Student Loans Act;
Bill C-34, an act to amend the Judges Act and certain other acts in consequence thereof;
Bill S-15, an act respecting the Royal Canadian Legion.


Madam Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.05 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 19, 1981