1981-02-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The bad news for the government is that 64 per cent of the Canadian people have been joined by the Premier of Saskatchewan and four members of the NDP in opposing the government's constitutional package. But the good news for the government is that Russia's Pravda, the official voice of the Communist party, has come to the Liberal party's rescue and lashed out at those who oppose the Liberal party's constitutional policy as reactionaries. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek):
That, in this case, the government listen to us so-called reactionaries and reconsider both the process and the substance of its constitutional proposals.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUBSIDIZATION OF UNITED STATES MOTORISTS BUYING CANADIAN PETROLEUM-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the latest figures which show the number of American motorists crossing the Canadian border to buy Canadian gas has risen to the point where some 24,000 cars crossed into Canada in a single day over the Peace River bridge at the Fort Erie-New York border crossing, and that these trips have increased by 60 per cent over 1980, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Cardiff):
That this House call on the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to determine what the total cost to the Canadian taxpayer is for subsidizing the U.S. motorists gassing up in Canada, which must be in excess of $100 million a
year, and that he make a statement as to what action the government will be taking to correct this situation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. On February 18 the Ottawa Citizen published an account of the treatment accorded a Canadian citizen, Mr. Ramnarine, a resident of my constituency, whom I have been trying to assist in bringing his wife and family to Canada since 1978. Immigration officials have managed to delay and bungle this attempted reunion so often that the family of seven are now on their fourth set of medicals. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broad-view-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That this House order the Minister of Employment and Immigration to provide all facilities necessary to ensure that this family be granted visas prior to the expiration of their fourth set of medicals, and that immigration officials responsible for the grossly incompetent manner in which this case has been handled be severely reprimanded, and full disclosure of the details of this mess be provided to this House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under Standing Order 43 to propose a motion. Having regard to the fact that the government's energy policy, as outlined in Bill C-48, now before the standing committee, is already showing serious dilatory effects on further exploration and development of new resources, and since provisions of Bill C-48 are clearly in contravention of certain

February 20, 1981
international agreements under GATT, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That the government withdraw the present bill and immediately replace it with legislation, clearly designed with the aim of achieving energy self-sufficiency, and with sufficient safeguards to assure not necessarily government but Canadian ownership and control, without the Draconian measures contained in Bill C-48.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (mo)


COMPENSATION TO FARMERS FOR EMBARGO ON SF1IPMENTS TO RUSSIA-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr.   Len. Gustafson@Assiniboia: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the fact that the government accepted the responsibility to pay farmers for profit lost due to the embargo on grain to Russia amounting to over $60 million, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight):
That the Prime Minister direct his minister to pay the farmers immediately.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact the Alberta government has moved heavily into state ownership with such grabs as Pacific Western Airlines and Alberta Energy Corporation from the private sector, and has now put Neptune terminals of Vancouver, 1,000 hopper cars, and three large inland grain terminals, under Alberta Tory state control, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the creeping socialism and state control exhibited by the Tory-Lougheed administration be heralded by this Flouse as a prerequisite for nomination to the Socialist International, and that these actions set the stage for Grant Notley to be the next premier of Alberta.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) is going to Britain in March to press the government's case for a charter of rights which purports to guarantee equality between men and women in Canada, yet the principal forum in which the minister intends to speak on the issue is the Canada Club in London that bars women from membership. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs recognize such total inconsistency and cancel any speaking engagement which takes him to a forum that treats women like second-class citizens.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the reports today in El Salvador that the United States is intervening in the affairs of that country in an effort to cut off political opposition to the present government, and in view of continuing grotesque violations of human rights within El Salvador, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Prime Minister impress upon U.S. President Reagan, during his visit to Ottawa in March, Canada's strong support for the preservation of human rights in Latin America.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
February 20, 1981


LABOUR RELATIONS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), I move:
That this House deplores the vindictive action of a number of Ontario hospital boards in suspending 2,500 hospital workers and firing 28 unionists, an action completely out of line with modern management labour practices and one that is inimical to the provision of health services, and that this House calls for the immediate reinstatement of all of these workers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, in light of reports from the United States Congress that it now has bipartisan support for increased military aid to El Salvador; in light of the statement by Senator Charles Percy, chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, that he will not rule out the use of United States troops in El Salvador; and since Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Human Rights Declaration and a partner with Mexico in seeking non-military means to resolve the situation in El Salvador, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath);
That this House direct the Prime Minister, during his meetings with President Reagan, to explore every opportunity of settlement of the El Salvador situation without involving military intervention by the United States armed forces.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
S)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Oral Questions
In a submission to the National Energy Board last week major consumers of energy, such as the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies, and a number of other associations stated they recognize that the number one problem with the government's National Energy Program is that it jeopardizes our security of supply. They also made the point that the industries they represent are being seriously hurt by the National Energy Program in two ways. The first is, because of the slowdown in exploration and development of the major projects, which is hurting them now and will hurt them more as the year progresses. Second, they say that their future security of supply is in jeopardy with serious consequences for industry.
Since the minister is responsible for the industries represented by these associations, has he had a meeting with these industries to determine first-hand their concern so that he might better represent their interests around the cabinet table when changes in the energy program are discussed?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, last week I met with a delegation from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and reviewed this aspect with them, along with a number of other aspects. I am satisfied the program we have put forward is directed in a way which is in the best interests of the Canadian manufacturing sector and Canadians generally, strengthening our industrial base and developing self-sufficiency in energy. If there is to be further adjustment in this area I think that while we are certainly ready to have discussions, if there is a slowdown in activity one must also look for the appropriate response from the government of Alberta, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has pointed out.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, along with the Minister of Finance and the minister of energy, basically dismisses the entire Canadian business community which says that this program is damaging, and damaging now. It is the view of the associations which represent industries primarily located in Ontario and Quebec that the economies of those provinces will be seriously hurt this year as a result of the National Energy Program and that they will be put in serious jeopardy in the future because security of supply will not be met by this program. Has the minister at least discussed this possibility with his counterparts in the governments of Quebec and Ontario to ascertain if, in fact, there are other people besides himself who share the view that the entire industry is wrong? Will he take the initiative to discuss this with his counterpart in the province of Ontario so that he may be apprised of the real situation?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I am certainly looking very carefully at what the Canadian Manufacturers' Association has said. I am always ready to have an exchange of views on these matters with my provincial counterparts, although our counterpart in Ontario is rather busy right now in another area of activity.
7508

February 20, 1981
Oral Questions
But I certainly touched on this, and a number of areas of joint interest, for example, when I was in Winnipeg earlier this week with my Manitoba counterpart. I am very interested in the potential for industrial development which I am convinced is there to be achieved through the implementation of our National Energy Program. Along with our own willingness to discuss the situation I think there must be an equivalent willingness on the part of the government of Alberta, since they are the ones refusing to proceed with major projects. It is not the federal government which is refusing to proceed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ROLE PLAYED BY GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the minister telling the House that he feels the government of Alberta is primarily responsible for the health of Canada's manufacturing industries and for the concerns of the industries represented by such organizations as the Pulp and Paper Association of Canada? Is that what the minister is telling the House? Would the minister please explain how it is that virtually the entire business community in Canada, not just the oil and gas industry but all of those who make daily investment decisions with regard to their future, has reached the conclusion that the energy program is disastrous? Could the minister tell me on what basis he reaches a contrary view?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, it is the hon. member who has reached certain conclusions. I am certainly prepared to consider very carefully what these organizations have said. But the most interesting point in the hon. member's question is the implication that he believes we should be taking a position of leadership, in terms of management and direction of major projects, rather than the government of Alberta. I hope he will explain that to his colleagues in Alberta.


PETRO-CANADA PREMIUM PAID ON ACQUISITION OF PETROFINA
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday, in answer to my question concerning the premium paid on the Petrofina acquisition being lower than the North American average for similar types of transactions, he said it was 37 per cent as against 56 per cent on similar transactions. In saying that he made the point that I have been trying to make over the past two or three weeks; he has established the premium of 36 per cent on the price of $87.50 which was the price at the time of the takeover and not
the price at which the shares had been trading before all the leaks over the past few months began occurring.
In view of the fact the price was $60 when rumours of a takeover occurred, and I remind him of the chart I showed him yesterday, how does he justify a 100 per cent premium in comparison to the 56 per cent North American average referred to in his answer?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, when 1 referred to the 56-57 per cent premium, it was a premium paid over the price of the shares at the time the takeover took place, and I compared apples with apples, contrary to what the hon. member is trying to do. I would invite my hon. friend to consider the facts. The important thing is what is the company's worth.
The overwhelming consensus of investment analysts who have commented on this is to the effect that Petro-Canada paid a fair price and no more, and that has been substantiated by outstanding analysts right and left in the investment community.


An hon. Member:: Mostly left.


Marc Lalonde: The decision taken by the management of Petro-Canada was based on information gathered from expert consultants they hired, so it was a good business decision, as were the decisions taken in the last two takeovers which were also condemned at the time by the Conservatives and which proved to be excellent deals for Canadians on all counts.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, using the minister's own figures, the 100 per cent premium that is clearly there, I show the minister the trading range of BP Canada, another candidate for acquisition, and the trading range of Petrofina which has gone through the roof as a result of the rumours resulting in the clearly exorbitant premium of 100 per cent compared to the minister's normal figure of 56 per cent. In view of that will the minister now acknowledge that the leaks which forced the price up to $87.50 when the deal was completed, have cost Canadian consumers and taxpayers up to $300 million in added costs, and will he also cease being so defensive about this matter and order the management of Petro-Canada to report to him on how they are going to act in the future so that these leaks do not recur and cost Canadians these large amounts of money?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, frankly, I do not feel any need to be defensive about this deal.


An hon. Member:: It is not your money.


Marc Lalonde: It has been and will prove to be an extremely good deal for Canadians, and I think my friend is in a very small minority in carrying on the old war of the Tories against Petro-Canada without any justification, and without support from the public.
February 20, 1981

As far as that particular deal is concerned, my friend should stop being so offensive in his innuendoes and implications. If he has evidence of leaks from Petro-Canada, let him state the facts and they will be investigated by the proper authorities. If he has evidence of leaks from Petrofina, then he should bring them to the attention of the securities commission concerned, and I am sure they will want to investigate them. That is the rule of the game, that is the law in this country. Once more, Madam Speaker, as far as this particular deal is concerned, I think Canadians support it and certainly the government does.

[DOT] ("25)


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the piano player my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns the rebate program which is currently being carried on by General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler in the United States. Rebates of up to $1,800 are being offered on cars, many of which are produced in Canada. The president of Chrysler, Mr. Iacocca, known as the Ayatollah Iacocca, is reported as making a remark to the effect that March will be "a great month for car buyers. We're really going to hype the market." I should like to ask the minister why are GM, Chrysler and Ford not going to be "hyping" the market in Canada, particularly in view of the fact that just a week ago the minister made a deal with Chrysler. Can he not see that the benefits of this kind of arrangement should go to the consumers of Canada as well as those in the United States?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I will seek further information about the way this rebate program is being applied. When I looked into similar matters in the past I found that similar or equivalent concessions were being offered in Canada but in a different form than those in the United States. I will check to see if this is the case in this instance.
It is interesting to note with respect to the announcement made about Chrysler, that the United Auto Workers issued a statement in which they endorsed the new operating plan proposed to the federal government by Chrysler Canada and agreed to by us last week. I think it is very important to recognize in this House that the workers, those whose jobs are most fully involved, support the agreement we announced last week.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, that has nothing to do with the rebate program. I asked a very specific question with respect to rebates. Rebates have been going on for some time, and the minister comes to this House and says he will look into the matter. By the time he finishes looking into the matter the
Oral Questions
rebate program will be over. Rebates are only planned for the months of March and April.


INVESTMENT BY AUTOMOBILE COMPANIES IN CANADA
Bob Rae: My supplementary question, Madam Speaker, is this: since the minister took over the portfolio of industry, trade and commerce and responsibility for the riding of Windsor West, he has promised the renegotiation of the Auto Pact, on which nothing has happened and he has promised other initiatives with the Japanese, and apparently nothing has happened on those. What exactly is he doing to ensure that Canadians will have a fair share of the new investment that will take place by GM and Ford in the years ahead? Can he give us a guarantee that we will have investment in Canada equivalent to our market share and that the marketing practices of the auto companies will be the same in Canada as they are in the United States, since they are getting such great benefits from the government and the taxpayers of Canada?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend should spend less time worrying about playing the piano and more time concentrating on the information provided to this House and the country about our efforts in the areas about which we are talking. We did begin with the previous United States government, as we promised, formal consultations on the operations of the Auto Pact. These discussions have continued and we will be pressing them forward with the new administration. As a result of our discussions with Japan, we have had responses from the Japanese industry in terms of major buying missions as well as the response from the Japanese government that it would be encouraging Japanese industry to respond positively to the type of action we want from the industry in terms of greater Canadian content here.
In our discussions with Canadian-based industry and through formal action we have taken steps which will lead, in the case of Ford, to the restoration of 1,300 jobs in the Oakville plant and the investment that is necessary there to have assembled in the Oakville plant a new front wheel drive fuel-efficient car. We have commitments by way of information from General Motors-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Ministers, too, should try to keep their answers brief.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, the minister said he would make a statement in the House on Chrysler. He has not done that. He said he would make a statement in the House on Massey-Ferguson. He has not done that. He holds press conferences. He is the minister for press conferences. He is not a minister responsible to this House telling the House what is going on here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 20, 1981
Oral Questions


Bob Rae: I do not need lectures from the minister telling me how to do my job. I have been in the House waiting for him to make statements.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member this is question period. Would he ask a question, please?


Bob Rae: My question to the minister is this: when is he going to make a statement in the House of Commons indicating what firm steps will be taken to guarantee Canadian shares, and to guarantee that Canadian consumers and Canadian workers will reap the benefits of the Auto Pact, rather than simply making statements outside the House as to what his intentions are over the next 25 years?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, through answers similar to the one 1 was giving a few moments ago, I was giving this House concrete, definite information on the action we have taken to bring a fair share of investment to this country, to preserve and to add to jobs for Canadian workers. If my hon. friend would spend less time on mock indignation-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -and more time listening to what concrete action we are taking, and what action we are going to take, he will be doing a better job than the one he claims he is doing for the people of Canada. At least, in doing what I am doing-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -I can demonstrate concrete action for Canadian workers, and that is more than he can do.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROVINCIAL BOUNDARIES
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. The minister will know from today's press that a consortium has been formed in the province of Quebec called La Societe de Developpement Quebec-Labrador-Rigolet Inc., with the acronymn LABEC. That consortium has asked the government of Quebec for permission to claim much of the mineral, forest, oil and gas resources of the province of Newfoundland.
If you will bear with me, Madam Speaker. The government of Quebec, would seem to be tacitly approving of this claim based on an anomaly in the law whereby, for example, they claim the government of Quebec did not agree to the privy council boundary definition of 1927. They base that claim on
the amendment of the Constitution of 1871 and the amendment of 1898, which gave to Quebec very much of the territory which is now part of the province of Newfoundland.
My question, Madam Speaker, is simply this: is the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada prepared to state in the House and reassure me, as he did in committee, that as the Attorney General of Canada he would be prepared to argue on behalf of Canada that the boundary between Newfoundland and Quebec, as defined by the privy council, of 1927, is and will remain the boundary between Quebec and Newfoundland?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I had to deal with that problem in committee. The government's view is that Labrador is part of the province of Newfoundland. Labrador is not part of the province of Quebec as it was established in 1949 when Mr. St. Laurent unilaterally accepted Newfoundland into confederation and. recognized, in so doing, the border according to the Canadian Constitution. Probably Mr. Peck-ford would be well advised to look to the federal government as his friend. He should not stay in bed with Mr. Levesque all the time.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, first, the minister should not try to deceive the House by saying that Mr. St. Laurent accepted Newfoundland unilaterally in 1949, because he knows that provision was made for Newfoundland's entry into confederation in 1867, and that it was agreed to by the partners at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: There was no unilateral action. All the minister has to do is read Section 148 of the British North America Act.


An hon. Member:: Read the Constitution.


James Aloysius McGrath: I notice the clowning Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask members to co-operate with the Chair and please ask their questions. We are having too many speeches and lengthy preambles before the questions.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, perhaps it might be easier for us if ministers did not try to mislead the House during question period.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister did mislead the House. However, my question to the minister is this. Is he prepared to state that the boundary established by the terms of union of 1949 shall remain? Just so there is no doubt in anyone's mind, is the minister now prepared-and this will go out as a signal of the position of the Government of Canada to this consortium in Quebec-to say to Newfoundland that you will exercise, as the
February 20, 1981

government, your constitutional authority and establish a corridor through Quebec so that Newfoundland's hydroelectric power can be transmitted to markets in New York? The minister has refused to grant that up to now, and he knows it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, we said we are willing to do for Newfoundland what we have done for any other province wanting to export natural gas, oil and so on to any other province using our federal power. In a letter signed by the Prime Minister of Canada to Mr. Peckford we said that we want to do that when there is a real contract and a real need. We all recognize it would be better for Mr. Peckford to try to make a deal with Mr. Levesque, they are so friendly these days, but I am pleased to see that the premier and the hon. member know that we need a strong federal government to protect the interests of Newfoundland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The minister has received a telegram from the archbishop's office of the Archdiocese of Vancouver signed by all the bishops of British Columbia and the Yukon. It points out that the present proposed charter focuses almost exclusively on the rights of the individual as an existential entity and very imperfectly recognizes groups in relation to society. One sentence from the telegram reads:
In our opinion the imbalance between individual and collective rights in the proposed Canadian charter poses a threat to many groups and societies including the church and church related societies such as schools, hospitals and social agencies.
Does the minister share these concerns expressed by the archdiocese in British Columbia? If so, is he willing to stake his reputation, without qualification, on the statements he made in committee on this subject that the charter would protect group rights, such as churches, independent schools, hospitals and social agencies?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, these questions were answered in committee dozens of times. The Canadian charter guarantees rights and freedoms, but it also protects group rights. We made sure that the rights entrenched in the Constitution, for example, in some provinces the right to have confessional schools, will be well protected. We have also recognized in the Constitution the principle of muticulturalism in Canada. We have recognized the collective rights of the Indian people. I think that during the proceedings of the committee the three parties gave their unanimous approval to
Oral Questions
each of those items. We have maintained a very good balance between individual and collective rights.


QUERY WHETHER CHARTER OF RIGHTS COVERS UNBORN CHILDREN
Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice, to whom I sent notice, because I think all members in the House will be interested in the precision of his answer.
In the proposed charter of rights, Section 7 reads:
Everyone has the right to life-
Section 15 reads:
Every individual is equal before and under the law-
Could the minister clarify the meaning of those two sections with respect to the abortion question? When the government uses the words "everyone" and "every individual", does the government include the unborn child? Will the government take steps to ensure there is no ambiguity concerning constitutional protection for the rights of the unborn child?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, we dealt with that problem extensively in the committee. I hope the hon. member read the committee's report. We said that the question of abortion in Canada will not be affected by the charter of rights, that the question of abortion will be dealt with, as it has been in the past, through the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code has a provision about it. It is clear, and it is enforced by the provinces. The situation will remain the same. We do not intend to change the legal situation in Canada with regard to abortion. It will remain as it is now.


REPRESENTATIONS WITH RESPECT TO STATUS OF WOMEN
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my first question to the Minister of Justice. The minister has been meeting with representatives of the ad hoc committee on women and the Constitution as a result of their conference in Ottawa last weekend which was so successful. Has the minister given serious consideration to some of the improvements they would like to see made in the charter, for example, the use of the word "person" where "individual" is now used? Will he advise which particular improvements or additions it might be possible to introduce in the charter?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, following the representations made by the different women's groups at the j committee stage, Clause 15 was amended to meet some of these requirements. They made other suggestions. As we are now in the final stage, the possibility of any change is not great. Some aspects were dealt with in committee and some of those were disposed of by the committee. We have already met many of these points but, as I told them, we will see whether it is
75! 2

February 20, 1981
Oral Questions
possible to make any further improvements. It is not possible to have a perfect charter. I repeat, I believe we met most of their points. If there is a possibility of more improvements, we will do our best to study all aspects of them. However, we are at the third stage of the resolution and the possibilities of amendment are quite limited.


VIEW OF MINISTER ON RECOMMENDATIONS RESPECTING STATUS OF WOMEN
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, the minister knows that the Prime Minister said these were probably worth-while additions. I will address my supplementary to the minister responsible for the status of women who has also been meeting with representatives of the ad hoc committee. Does the minister think these are worthwhile additions that are being proposed and, if so, which ones is he pressing upon his colleagues?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, we are always pleased to meet with representatives of any women's group to talk about different positions and different points of view. Also, I am very pleased to pass on their representations to my colleagues in cabinet, which I will be prepared to do in these circumstances.


STATUS OF OPPONENTS OF GOVERNMENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSALS
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. Is it the position of the government that Canadian citizens and Members of Parliament who oppose the government's constitutional proposals are citizens with less commitment to freedom and justice than those who support it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: What a silly question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, that is a matter of debate. I would just say that I find it unusual for hon. members opposite to talk about being in favour of a charter of rights only if all the first ministers agree, when they know that in the case of the hon. member for Provencher the premier of his province said he will never accept any charter of rights in Canada. I therefore find that the hon. member is speaking out of both sides of his mouth, something I cannot do.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice has not answered my question. The points he raised today have been matters of debate. 1 am asking him about a statement that arises directly from the Prime Minister's statement yesterday. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development says it is a silly question. Maybe it was a silly statement on the part of the Prime Minister. What 1 am asking the minister, for the integrity of Parliament is this: does the government support the position of the Prime Minister that those Canadians, Members of Parliament and members of the other place, who feel there is a better way to have constitutional amendment are not just as Canadian and do not want to protect freedom and justice equally as those who indicate they support the government process, and justice, freedom and liberty?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I have not read the Prime Minister's statement. I suggest the hon. member's question is a matter of debate. I agree that hon. members are anxious to take action, but I wonder why the hon. member is so sensitive to arguments, since members opposite claim that we are bent on dividing this country and question our motives. If one believes in a charter of rights, one must believe also that it should apply to all Canadians. And I do not understand why the hon. member, although he claims to be in favour of a charter of rights, will not make sure that all Canadians enjoy the same rights. In this connection, I think that if he has firm convictions, he should see to it that all Canadians enjoy equal rights.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. CBC reports last night indicated that the assistant secretary for European affairs in the Reagan administration is visiting various European countries to ask them to suspend food aid which they propose to supply to the people of El Salvador through relief organizations such as the International Red Cross. I know that yesterday the minister said he would not lead a crusade against the attitude of the American administration. I wish to ask him whether he will immediately let the United States state department know that Canada disapproves of any attempt by the United States to influence the cutoff of much needed food supplies to the people of El Salvador, particularly when those food supplies are being distributed through highly respected international relief organizations.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, we are certainly not considering any cut-off of food aid in the manner described, nor am 1 aware that we have even been asked to do so. Emissaries from the U.S. government visited my department this week concerning El Salvador. To the best of my knowledge at the present time, and I will check further, the conversation had to do exclusively with information concerning the supply of arms to the rebel forces in El Salvador. I repeat, I am not aware of any such request.
February 20, 1981


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That was not the question, Madam Speaker. 1 asked the minister if he would bring to the attention of the American authorities the disapproval of Canada as to the way they are proceeding to try to influence other countries, particularly now in Europe, to cut off food supplies through international agencies. It is my understanding that Canada has been asked to make a very modest contribution to the International Red Cross to assist with food aid in El Salvador. Has a decision been made to supply that modest contribution? If not, how quickly will it be done to help out in this humanitarian effort?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, any decisions that we make with respect to food aid in El Salvador or elsewhere will be made on the basis of normal principles. My answer to the previous question did answer what the hon. member asked. I stated I was not aware that the United States was making any such representations. It would surely be gratuitous for us to make a protest against something we do not believe has happened.
Oral Questions
leagues representing francophone constituencies outside Quebec, I would like to say first of all that I have arranged a meeting with the president of the FFHQ and members of her executive Monday afternoon. I imagine that she will want to discuss this question.
I also want to add, Madam Speaker, that at my last meeting with the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada held in Fredericton two or three weeks ago, I discussed this matter with the ministers of education of the various provinces when we renewed for the fiscal year 1980-81 the statutory transfers for minority official language education and also for second language instruction according to the provinces. I indicated for my part that the federal government would not be willing to renew automatically a new five-year agreement unless we could come to an agreement on the matter of accountability mentioned by the hon. member. The ministers of education agreed to form a task force which would look into the matter and report to the Council of Ministers of Education in September.
* *
*
[DOT] (N50)

* *
*



TRANSPORT


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: I thank you, Madam Speaker, for recognizing me once again. My question is for the Secretary of State. In view of the lack of monitoring mechanisms at the federal level concerning the ultimate use of formula payments to the provinces under the official languages program for minority language education, can the Secretary of State assure me that he will try to do better than his predecessors in this regard so as to make the provinces accountable to the Canadian people, and that he is not planning on hiding behind the argument that he can do nothing as education comes under provincial jurisdiction? I ask this question, Madam Speaker, in view of the report of the FFHQ, which severely condemns the lack of monitoring mechanisms and which even hints at misappropriation within provincial jurisdictions, and also because of the appeal by the people of Vonda, Saskatchewan, which has been rejected.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eymard G. Corbin: They are not interested over there. Shame on them!


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, in reply to this very important question, which is of major concern to my col-



FREIGHT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR RAPESEED PRODUCTS

Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Can the Minister of Transport assure the House that the interim freight assistance program for rapeseed products will be extended beyond March 31, and could he also indicate whether there will be any modifications to the existing program to cover the full differential between the minimum compensatory rate and the frozen rate? I ask this as a matter of importance to the rapeseed industry, which is contemplating export and domestic markets at the present time.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I am very sorry, but the question should be addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The rape-seed product subsidy is one which falls under his department.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I thought the Minister of Transport had some responsibility for matters pertaining to transport. Perhaps he could elicit the answer from his colleague.
May I then direct the question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and ask him if he could assure the House that the interim freight assistance program for rapeseed products will be extended beyond March 31, and may I also ask him whether there will be any modifications to ensure that the full differential will be taken into consideration? I refer to the differential between the minimum compensatory rate and the statutory frozen rate.
75! 4

February 20, 1981
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, this matter is being worked on at this time, and I hope it will be possible for us to make an announcement very soon.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. On February 11, 1981, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and Senator "Bud" from the other place, announced the establishment of a $1 million emergency fund to "enable Indian groups to protect themselves against adverse social and economic effects of major natural resource developments in or near their communities". As of February 11, was that $1 million emergency fund allocated by the Treasury Board and, if it was not by February 11, has it been allocated as of today?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, approval in principle had been given to the existence of such a fund. I do not recall whether all the details with respect to the specific areas of allocation have yet been established.



COST OF IMPACT STUDIES

James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


An hon. Member:: He is not here.


An hon. Member:: He was here a second ago.


James Ross Fulton: He was sitting here just a second ago. Perhaps in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I will put my question to his parliamentary secretary.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has identified 126 major projects involving billions of dollars which will impact upon Indian communities in Canada. I wonder if the minister, his parliamentary secretary or someone responsible in this House for Indian Affairs and Northern Development could indicate whether $8,000 per impact study is viewed as adequate by the government.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I shall see to it that this question is referred to the minister, and I wish to assure the hon. member that he will obtain a reply in the very near future.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. For some time now, we have been considering the bill to turn the Post Office into a Crown corporation. Does the Minister intend to bring the bill back to the House in the near future, that is to bring it in for third reading, and if not, why the delay? Also, can the Minister tell us when he intends to proceed with third reading of the bill?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, it is my hope that our House leader, together with his counterparts in the other parties, will find some available time so that the House can pass this bill. As hon. members know, this legislation has long been awaited by Post Office employees and management, and I hope that it will be passed in the very near future.



HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It has to do with exploding glass panels on fireplaces. In view of at least ten reported cases-known to his department-of potential injury and death from red hot glass missiles from all makes of exploding heat circulators, I wonder if the minister could give us a progress report on the investigation now under way by the product safety branch of his department.
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, one of the
reasons why these panels explode is that unfortunately some consumers fail to clean and maintain them. I thank the hon. member for bringing this case to my attention. I know that my officials will be taking a closer look into this matter, but I do not think we would be justified at this time in labelling them as dangerous products.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I have another list I could bring to the minister's attention. Apparently these glass panels can break or explode if rolling logs hit them, if there is water on the glass, if hot embers should hit the glass, or if cold air rushes from chimneys. The list goes on and on. I was amazed to learn that the product safety branch knew a full three weeks to a month after the first reported incident before letting the
February 20, 1981

public know about this serious situation. I ask the minister, please, to investigate why his product safety branch sat on this red hot situation for almost a month and did not live up to its mandate to issue a very strong warning to consumers. Will the minister look into that inexcusable delay, particularly at this time of year?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, products of this type have been on the market for years. A few such incidents do not necessarily mean that it is a dangerous product and I suggest the hon. member is wrong in being concerned about the quality of that product.



MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. As the minister knows, municipal taxpayers in the Ottawa-Carleton region are facing municipal tax increases ranging from 12 per cent to 21 per cent this year. Strong doubts are being expressed as to whether the federal government is paying its way, notwithstanding the changes made, by the agreement of this House a little while ago, to the grants in lieu of taxes program. Would the minister personally review this matter, in view of the fact that there was unanimous approval in this House, to see if the program is being applied fully, fairly and without discrimination in this area?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to report to the hon. member because of his natural interest in his constituency and this area.
My officials have reviewed the matter. In fact the additional $5 million payment which the federal government has estimated will be paid this year over last year to the city of Ottawa is made on the same basis as payments to other cities, not only in Ontario but across the country. I regret that I must inform the House that the claims made by the city of Ottawa for three times as much as anyone else is getting really do not support a reasonable case or a reasonable review. We think their claims are highly unrealistic, and the way in which they have gone about it has brought little credit to the city and to the council.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the question of transmitting the true situation is very important. It can be done in terms of this House of Commons as the minister has tried to do, and I do not fault him for doing that, but I think it could best be done if the minister would arrange to meet personally with the elected officials of the city and, if necessary, of the region, to clear the air with respect to the matter because, as I said to the minister, this bill was approved by all parties in the House of Commons. Would the minister
Point of Order-Mr. Fulton
undertake to do this and explain, so that we and the officials can be absolutely sure that there is no shortfall as they are claiming?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I have already had the opportunity to discuss this matter with the mayor of the city-


Mr. Nielsen:: On the telephone.


Paul James Cosgrove: I must admit that the confusion, or however it is described, in the situation at present was certainly not brought about by the actions of the federal government. The problem, in my opinion, is one that has to do with the assessment of the value of the property, which is prepared by officials of the province of Ontario and not by the city or the federal government. Our officials, who have reviewed their estimates, have said that technically there are adjustments to be made because there are miscalculations. I do not think this is a matter which politicians can solve, but rather a matter on which officials are working at present. I hope it will be resolved and that reason can prevail in this situation.



PRIVILEGE


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, since the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), who answered my question yesterday, is not in the House, and since the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), who is the minister responsible for the riding of Broadview-Greenwood, is presumably either in the riding of Broadview-Greenwood or thereabouts or somewhere else, I should like to wait until they return to the House. Since I will not be in the House until next Wednesday, I give you notice, Madam Speaker, that I intend to raise this matter on Wednesday.



POINT OF ORDER


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was my understanding that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) was going to be in the House, and he was. This is an important question. Now that he is in his place could I get a response from him, because I have a very important and urgent question regarding emergency funding. The question to the minister was regarding the $1 million emergency fund to native people for socioeconomic-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member presented his question of privilege the other day, and possibly the minister has read it in Hansard. Is the minister prepared to answer that question of privilege today, or does he want to

February 20, 1981
Introduction of Bills
wait until both ministers are here? Is the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) asking a question? The question period has concluded.
Mir. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood): Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The point of order of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) has nothing to do with the question of privilege. It has to do with the fact that at the beginning of the question period the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) was in the House. If the minister was in the House at the beginning of the question period, can we not assume that that same minister will be here when the time comes to ask a question? That is a fundamental question-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I ask the indulgence of the House, but I was talking to the hon. member just a couple of minutes ago before he asked the question and then had to slip out of the House for a few moments. I am aware of the question which the hon. member asked and I would indicate to him that this $1 million fund-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. My loudspeaker was not working and I did not quite hear what the hon. member for Skeena said at the beginning. I thought he was referring to his question of privilege the other day. This is no time to ask a question or even to answer one once the question period is over. The hon. member can ask his question on another day when I will be glad to hear him.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts-Mr. Clarke.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-630, to amend the Statistics Act.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Madam Speaker, this bill will permit a person who objects to answering Statistics Canada questions to do so without penalty, except in the census of population or census of agriculture.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, The following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,273, 1,426, 1,547, 1,698, 1,708, 1,830 and 1,893.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	For each year from 1975 to date, by province, how many (a) homes (b) apartments (c) commercial properties did Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (i) put on sale to the public and what was the market value of such properties (ii) sell at market value (iii) sell below market value and what was the dollar differential involved (iv) rent out and what revenue per annum was obtained from such rentals (v) leave standing empty and for what reasons (vi) enlist the co-operation of real estate boards to handle and what boards were involved at what cost or fee to the corporation?
2.	For each year from 1975 to date, by province, how many (a) homes (b) apartments (c) commercial properties did CMHC offer incentives to purchase on, and (i) what was the nature of such incentives (ii) what was the cost involved (iii) what percentage of the costs were CMHC responsibility?
3.	For each year from 1975 to date, by province, how many (a) homes (b) apartments (c) commercial properties did CMHC advertise for (i) sale (ii) rent and what media was used for such advertising and what was the cost of the advertising, in each case?


Paul James Cosgrove: A reply to this question would require the tabulation of financial details relating to the sale and/or rental of more than 50,000 properties. The labour costs involved in such a task would be prohibitive.


Mr. Halliday: For the past two years for which statistics are available, what was the cost of the Zenith telephone service for citizens to contact the local offices of (a) the Department of National Revenue (b) Air Canada (c) the RCMP (d) the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


David Michael Collenette: In so far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned:
(a)	Taxation	1978-79 32,274,794.85
1979-80 32,856,947.36


Some hon. Members:: Explain.
Customs and Excise Nil
February 20, 1981

In so far as the management of Air Canada is concerned:
(b)	Charges for Zenith toll-free telephone facilities, provided for customers in offline cities, are included in total billings to each reservations office where the lines terminate. To determine these specific charges would require excessive time and cost.
In so far as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is concerned:
(c)	1978-79 $290,132 1979-80 $282,026
In so far as the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is concerned:
(d)	Nil. CCA does not utilize Zenith telephone service.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	Since January 1, 1980, did the government advance any money to the Trident Aircraft Limited in British Columbia and, if so (a) in what amount (b) were guaranteed loans for the corporation underwritten by the government (c) for what purposes?
2.	Was Mr. Derrick Lock attached to the corporation and, if so, was he paid from public funds and in what amount?
3.	Is Mr. Lock listed on the public service payroll for purposes of seniority, superannuation or for other public service privileges?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion as follows:
1. (a) Since January 1, 1980, IT&C has paid to Trident $2,408,908 in the form of a repayable contribution, (b) and (c) Under the Canada-British Columbia Industrial Development Subsidiary Agreement, DREE has agreed to cost share with the province a low interest loan in the amount of $2.9 million to the British Columbia Development Corporation (BCDC) to finance the construction of 110,000 square feet of manufacturing space for Trident Aircraft Limited at the Victoria International Airport. This loan to B.C.D.C., who will build the space for Trident on a lease-back basis, has as one of its conditions the requirement that Trident must have all its financing in place before any disbursement will be made on the loan. As the condition precedent has not been met, no DREE funds have been disbursed to date under the terms of the agreement with BCDC for the Trident facility.
2 and 3. Mr. Derrick Lock is employed with Trident under the Public Service Commission's Interchange Canada Program. Mr. Lock's salary is paid by the Crown, with the company reimbursing the Crown for the full amount; Mr. Order Paper Questions
Lock of IT&C is in the commerce officer category at level 2, salary range $26,509 to $37,556.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the Prime Minister's visit to Saudi Arabia, the Yemen Republic and Arab Republic of Egypt between November 15 and November 22, 1980, what are the names of all persons who will accompany the Prime Minister including public servants and their job designations and the reason for their presence?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: The Prime Minister was accompanied by: Master Sacha Trudeau; Mr. James Coutts, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister; Mr. Michael Shenstone (Riyadh, Jeddah, San'aa, Luxor, Cairo), Assistant Under-Secretary, Department of External Affairs; Mr. L. H. Smith (Riyadh, Jeddah), Assistant Under-Secretary, Department of External Affairs; Mr. Robert Fowler, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, (Defence and External Relations); Mr. Ted Johnson, Executive Assistant to the Prime Minister; Mr. Patrick Gossage (Riyadh, San'aa, Cairo), Press Secretary to the Prime Minister; Miss Nicole Senecal (Cairo), Asssistant Press Secretary, Prime Minister's Office; Mr. B. V. Johnstone (Jeddah, Cairo), Visits and Conferences Services, Department of External Affairs; Mr. Ralph Coleman (Riyadh, San'aa), Special Assistant, Prime Minister's Office; Inspector George Carter, RCMP Liaison Officer.
The descriptive titles of the individuals indicate the reason for their presence.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	For the past year, what was the number and value of Department of National Defence contracts for fruit and vegetables?
2.	How many of the contracts were placed in (a) British Columbia (b) Ontario (c) Quebec (d) Nova Scotia and, in each case, what was the total value of the contracts?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. For 1979/80 the total number of contracts were 678 at a value of $3,701,468.84.
2. (a), (b), (c) and (d):
The breakdown of the contracts for the four provinces asked for in the question is:
Province
British Columbia Ontario Quebec Nova Scotia
No. of Contracts 80 138 134 100
Value


[Stage Direction]
LANG, MICHENER & CO. TORONTO
Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 1,489 which states in part, that Lang, Michener & Co. of Toronto received payment in the amount of $8,124.34 for government legal work (a) what is an exact outline of all work done (b) on what dates was the work performed (c) on what dates was the firm paid for the

February 20, 198!
Order Paper Questions
work involved and, if in instalments, what was the date and amount of each instalment (d) what are the names of the lawyers who performed specific work?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The reply to Mr. Cossitt's question No. 1,489 stated, in part, that the firm of Lang, Michener & Co. of Toronto were paid $8,124.34 for work performed as legal agents. In researching the answer to question No. 1,830, it was determined that Lang, Michener & Co. did not act as agents of the Crown but rather they acted as the solicitors for the plaintiffs (the expropriated owners). The $8,124.34 was in fact a payment by the Crown of legal costs reasonably incurred by the expropriated owner in asserting a claim for compensation under the Expropriation Act. As a result of a clerical error, the $8,124.34 was incorrectly recorded as an agent's fee.
Consequently, the answers to the above question are:
(a)	Nil;
(b)	Nil;
(c)	Nil;
(d)	Nil.


Mr. Herbert: How many public servants retired with pensions in (a) October (b) November (c) December 1980, and how many are eligible for a pension increase of 9.7 per cent on January 1, 1981?


Donald James Johnston: Preliminary data indicate that the numbers of public servants retiring with pensions in October, November and December of 1980 were as follows:
(a)	October-466;
(b)	November-549;
(c)	December-1,937.
All of the foregoing would be eligible for the 9.7 per cent increase commencing in January, 1981, under the terms of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 586 could be made an order for return, that return could be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 586 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Stewart: During each year (a) 1978 (b) 1979, did the government make use of private courier services and, if so, by department, what was the (i) name of the courier (ii) amount paid to each?
Return tabled.
[ Translation]


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions 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.
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, last night at ten o'clock p.m. 1 was in mid-flight in my speech. I was making the point that if we are going to entrench rights in the Constitution, the very fact that we are entrenching them makes it imperative that we be careful what we entrench. I was trying to make the point that one of the ingredients which we are, perhaps unwittingly but nevertheless actually, entrenching is the principle of unfairness because of the kind of amending formula contained in this charter and what it does, for example, to the province of British Columbia, in that it makes us wait at least 140 years, and perhaps 200 years, before our province can find equality with two other provinces. That is an unfair principle, and you cannot entrench a charter of rights and expect it to last if it embodies a principle of unfairness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: The second point I was trying to make is that we are entrenching in this charter an illusion that while the charter talks about entrenching human rights, citizens' rights, the language of the charter really reverses that. When you look at the language of the charter and you see who is
February 20, 1981

speaking and to whom that speech is addressed, you find that we are not at all entrenching citizens' rights because the language of the proposed charter says that the speaker is the government, and the government is saying that every citizen shall have the following rights. The government is the speaker. If the government is the speaker and citizens are the audience or the recipients, it means that the government has the real power and all the rights, except those which it enumerates or out of some gratuitous impulse extends to citizens. The government is presenting a proposed charter which purports to give rights to citizens. It is presenting an illusion; it is a fraud. It is not entrenching the rights of citizens; it is entrenching the power of the state.
Time does not permit me to develop the following point, but I should like to indicate that the charter is entrenching memories of rancour and dispute. Members on the government benches are trying to say that this is just another flag debate, that given ten or 15 years all ill-will will dissipate and people will be thankful for the government presenting its charter. I want members to know that this is not an ordinary flag debate. Parenthetically I would add that there are many thousands of people across Canada, particularly those who fought under the Red Ensign in two world wars, who still regard it as their flag, even though they have accepted the present one. All the rancour from that debate has not dissipated. But, the flag is a symbol; the Constitution is the fabric of our country. We are not talking about symbols here; we are talking about what will make our country function. When a level of dispute and division is stimulated by this proposal, both in its text and in its method, we cannot but expect that memory will stay for the entire life of the Constitution; it is entrenched in the Constitution.
I should like to refer to a story which appeared in this morning's edition of The Citizen. This banner story gives an indication of the level of rancour and ill-will. The article by Mr. Iain Hunter is entitled "Patriation dividing Canadians, PM admits", and in part it refers to a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) while he was in Vancouver. It reads:
The NDP, he said, were split between "those who like freedom and justice more and hate the Liberals less," and "those who hate the Liberals more and like freedom and justice less."
Ideologically I am poles apart from the NDP. Those who heard my remarks last night will know that I am poles apart from them and their position; but far be it for me ever to say that they are less patriotic in having taken that position. For the Prime Minister to go around the country making the statement reported in The Citizen results in that attitude being entrenched in the Constitution; it is now entrenched in the Constitution.
In the two minutes remaining I should like to refer to the wording of the Constitution. One of my colleagues said that there was a similarity in the wording of this proposed charter and the existing one in the Soviet Union. This is right, it is the same passive mood; it is the same enumeration of rights to
The Constitution
citizens, while government holds all powers. The structure of the two charters is identical, the hon. member for Northumb-erland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) said that the Canadian and Russian are the same. I want all the constituents in North-umberland-Miramichi to know what their member holds as an ideal comparison to our country, and that he seems to believe this is an endorsement of our Constitution rather than an anathema to our country.
The constitutional proposal is opposed by four western provincial governments, by 70 per cent of the members of Parliament from those provinces, and by 67 per cent of the population of Canada. With such opposition we can hardly assume that the Prime Minister has a mandate for this charter of rights or the resolution. If judgment is reserved for those who tamper with weights and measures because it oppresses the poor, how much more judgment will be meted out on us in this chamber if we endorse the injustice of this proposition?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, it was almost with a sense of humour that I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). To try to equate in the Canadian Parliament such a fundamental matter as the entrenchment of the charter of rights and freedoms with anything analogous to what goes on in the Soviet Union indicates such excessiveness as to be almost totally irrational. It is indicative of the desperate situation in which some members of the official opposition find themselves in opposing this resolution in the first place.
There is no doubt about it. I have talked with many of my fellow Canadians, and I believe that we should exhibit a sense of pride in the process of patriation. It is long overdue. If one puts any confidence in polls, I think the polls would indicate that the vast majority of Canadians are in favour of the entrenchment of a charter of rights and freedoms to ensure equity and justice for all of us in the country.
But in terms of my special responsibilities as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the hon. member would be wise to note the significance and impact of the charter of rights and freedoms upon the aboriginal peoples of this country. It is the greatest single advance in 100 years in terms of the protection of those rights. There are many citizens who are original peoples in all four western provinces. I dare to say that if you speak to those Canadians, those first Canadians, with respect to what they feel about the necessity for the enhancement of those rights now entrenched in this declaration of rights and freedoms, you will find quite a different response from the first citizens in western Canada. If there is any doubt perhaps the hon. member would wish to speak to some of those Indian leaders who have fought so long and hard to achieve the very objective which is now before us.
These rights and freedoms have a double significance, if you like, for all Canadians. They reinforce the desire for the

February 20, 1981
The Constitution
entrenchment of aboriginal and treaty rights in the Constitution. It now makes their position in Canada a secure one. I might say it no longer equivocates with respect to what those rights are. No longer are those rights ambiguous as far as the aboriginal peoples of this country are concerned. They now know that those rights are part of the fundamental laws of Canada. It symbolizes their uniqueness as Canadians. At last it does away with the paternalism that they have often felt relative to other Canadians and Canadian institutions. So it means a great deal to them.
Indeed, it is a critical milestone they have achieved. I am confident it will lead to a much better understanding of Canadians and Canada by the aboriginal peoples of this country. Those people do have a very unique type of concern for Canada which has not always been understood by Canadians. As I have said, they have been trying for 100 years to achieve this. They regard it as a special commitment by the Parliament of Canada with respect to the passage of this resolution. Analogous to this special type of commitment they have always had for Canada is their commitment to the preservation of our political integrity in this institution.
I would like to indicate a personal experience of mine with respect to this special type of commitment that the aboriginal peoples have for Canada. I travelled to northern Quebec before the referendum to speak to Charlie Watt, the head of the Inuit people in northern Quebec, and Billy Diamond, head of the Cree people there, to find out what their position was with respect to the referendum and, indeed, if it was warranted, to encourage their support for the no side. They did not need any encouragement from me. They were committed to voting no because of their deep sense of commitment to this country.
They are looking to this national institution, Parliament, to entrench the bargain which they fought so hard to attain. We must realize that there has always been a special relationship between a recognition of the culture of our aboriginal peoples and their commitment to this country. Because of what this Parliament has done and because of what the committee on the Constitution has done in terms of recommending this proposal to Parliament, the link between their culture and their commitment to this country has been strengthened. That is no mean achievement which they have attained.
i congratulate the committee for the work they have done. As the hon. member from the eastern Arctic said in his speech, which I read with considerable interest, he felt that now that these principles have been established in this resolution, Canada's original peoples can work with the rest of us together to build a great country. He emphasized the aspect of togetherness in terms of achieving this objective. The Inuit, the Indian people and the Metis have a right to feel a great sense of satisfaction with respect to what has been achieved.
I think, too, that some special recognition should be given to the members of the committee on the Constitution, and they would be the first to agree. What the members of the committee have done is fundamentally change the relationship between Canada and the aboriginal peoples. They did it in a real
sense of non-partisanship. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), my predecessor, played a critical role. The hon. member from the eastern Arctic-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nunatsiaq.


John Carr Munro: The hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) represented his people with skill and commitment. The Leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), displayed his commitment to the enhancement of aboriginal rights throughout, and to the desperate desire of the original peoples of this country to attain this type of equality. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) in all his work has shown a dedication to the same objective. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), who has fought diligently and valiantly for months to achieve this objective, deserves the recognition of all of us in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: The list goes on and on, including the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), Senator Austin who, when this final entrenchment took place in the committee, had tears in his eyes, and others who were part of that constitutional committee, such a fundamental breakthrough was this provision.
Again, I do not think there would be a member in this House who would take away the justifiable credit which is due to the Inuit and Metis people themselves for this achievement. They have done extensive work. It is the beginning for them of a new period of accomplishment. Since 1971 they have had endless meetings. They have lobbied and researched time and time again. Sometimes the meetings were heated and sometimes there was confrontation. But gradually there was increased understanding and, I think, increased mutual respect. Many of us, including myself, have learned to listen a little better. Thus, we must give credit where credit is due, and that is to the aboriginal peoples of this country for what they have achieved.
Not so many months ago, in December, the Indian people came by the hundreds to Ottawa. The way in which they conducted themselves showed wisdom and sagacity which was, perhaps, the envy of many of us here in public life. They did not go in for confrontation but rather to win support through reason. It is indicative of the strength of their culture and the wisdom of their elders that they have been able to achieve this remarkable feat.
Some of the leaders are here with us, in the gallery, and I would like to recognize them. We have Sykes Powderface of the NIB and Saul Sanderson of the Saskatchewan Indian Association. We have Indian members of the minister's office and staff. We have many who must feel a great sense of elation at the achievement of this unique feat. George Manuel, who used to be president of the NIB and is now head of the British Columbia Union of Chiefs, is here. It must be with some considerable satisfaction that they see Parliament has at last entrenched these rights. Charlie Watt of the Indian com-
February 20, 1981

munity and Mr. Daniels of the Metis deserve a great deal of credit. Their expectations cannot be disappointed now.
If the resolution were not approved and if the entrenchment of these rights were to be omitted, as members of the official opposition indicate, then the aim of entrenchment of aboriginal rights would become just a token in the negotiating process and all this achievement would be lost. It would be intolerable to the original peoples of this country.
That is why, as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, having talked to them about their absolute determination to achieve this objective, it was very disappointing last night to learn of the position of Premier Blakeney. The vast majority of the federal members of the NDP have led in the entrenchment of these rights, and it seems strange for Premier Blakeney, in light of the significant native population in his province and what has been achieved in terms of that entrenchment, not to support the resolution at this stage. It seems to me a remarkable letdown for this jealously guarded right they now wish to see preserved.
One must recognize at the same time that they are the first citizens of his province, and as premier he has extolled the necessity for the entrenchment of these rights. So I can say with considerable confidence, as Sol Sanderson, president of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians, has said, that if they say they do not have support in western Canada for entrenchment of these rights, they do not speak for the Indians of Saskatchewan and neither does Premier Blakeney; rather it is the federal Members of Parliament who have fought so.long and hard behind the Indian people to gain this entrenchment.
Can we now talk about some of the general provisions rather than the special provisions respecting aboriginal rights. We know these rights for all Canadians will include basic democratic rights, fundamental legal equity, the elimination of discrimination based on race, religion and sex. But they have a special significance for the aboriginal people in our cities; these anti-discriminatory provisions will mean that they will have protection against discrimination in the cities and job markets everywhere.
Their equity in our legal system will be guaranteed; Indian women will be protected against discrimination both as Indians and as women. The discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act, intolerable to Indians, as they are to other Canadians, will be eliminated and the government and Indians will have time to work together to find new membership provisions that will be just, equitable and appropriate to the Indians' cultural interests.
Furthermore, let me talk about the special rights achieved for our aboriginal people. Aboriginal and treaty rights are now recognized and affirmed in a special part of the Constitution Act devoted solely to this subject. The inclusion of these provisions was the occasion of the most spontaneous expressions of satisfaction in the committee that any parliamentarian can recall. I believe members of that committee felt they had arrived, together with the aboriginal people, at a turning point
The Constitution
in the status of native peoples in this country. I agree it is a turning point, perhaps a new starting point.
Second, the aboriginal and treaty rights and freedoms established by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, as well as land claims settlements, are protected by the rights and facedowns accorded by the charter. This is a unique protection based on a unique heritage.
Third, the Constitution Act will ensure that constitutional questions of interest to aboriginal peoples, together with the question of which rights should be included, will be discussed by their representatives with first ministers. This guarantee symbolizes, indeed formalizes, the commitment of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the aboriginal peoples in October 1980, that in the next phase of constitutional negotiations issues such as an elaboration and definition of what those aboriginal rights are will be discussed. Internal native self-government, representation in political institutions and the responsibilities of federal, provincial and territorial governments for the provision of services will all be discussed, and with good will we can define precisely what we mean when we entrench these fundamental rights.


An hon. Member:: Where is the good will coming from?


John Carr Munro: I would like to indicate that as far as the Leader of the New Democratic Party is concerned, I understand that during the course of this debate he will be proposing the inclusion of a provision affirming aboriginal and treaty rights in Section 54 of the Constitution Act. The government will support this amendment. This is a significant acknowledgement of the importance of aboriginal and treaty rights in Canada. The result of such amendment will be the entrenchment of aboriginal and treaty rights in the same manner and degree as other fundamental provisions of the Constitution, including the office of the Queen. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and aboriginal and treaty rights will be subject to change only through the general amending formula that applies to all other key provisions.
There is, then, added symbolism in this amendment which I believe will not be lost on the aboriginal peoples. They have always regarded the Queen as the symbolic protector of their rights and freedoms. The role of the Queen is not changed by the resolution, and protecting aboriginal and treaty rights in the same clause as the Queen's office demonstrates the significance of the proposed amendment.
In addition, the government acknowledges a need for other processes to discuss and respond particularly to the special needs of Indians. Therefore the government is prepared to discuss with them in coming months ways of formalizing discussions between ministers and Indians that will promote the long-term development of a more responsive and effective relationship with the federal government. I am personally prepared to take a leadership role in the establishment of that process. So let us not underestimate the importance of this charter of rights and the Constitution Act. This act establishes once and for all the basic principle that aboriginal and treaty rights are recognized and affirmed.

February 20, ! 98!
The Constitution
This basic fact will apply to all governments at the next stage of constitutional renewal in the discussion on the refinement and elaboration of these principles, and this is extremely important. This fundamental law of the nation will bind the federal and provincial governments to respect and support these aboriginal rights. To do otherwise would be to perpetuate and, indeed, permit potential inequity and arbitrary actions in our relations with our native peoples. To endorse a concept such as the Vancouver formula with its checkerboard effect would mean some provinces would have these rights and some very possibly would not.
And so, Madam Speaker, the government acknowledges the great need for approval of this charter and this Constitution Act. I, along with others, am prepared to renew my commitment to the native peoples as to their involvement in a very real way in the future process. 1 cannot emphasize that enough. Regardless of the outcome of the discussions on the Constitution. I believe, because of the provisions of the proposed charter, no government or individual will again be able to put aside or disregard the rights of Canada's original peoples.
For this reason, among many others, I believe sincerely that this House must, and indeed should, approve this resolution. If we were not to do so at this time we would be breaking faith with Canada's Indians, Inuit and Metis, who came together with representatives of this House and the Senate to develop the words that have been included in the resolution now before us for consideration.
May 1 again indicate to members on all sides, despite the rhetoric we have heard expressed in recent days, my appreciation of the non-partisan support they have afforded and the very real effort they have extended. There should be a great sense of pride in what has been achieved. Surely if the native peoples, the original peoples, the aboriginal peoples of this country, have anything to say about it, we will no longer denigrate the charter and what it means to Canadians, more especially the first citizens of this country.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to take part in this historic debate. I wish to join with others in the House in expressing appreciation to the committee, to those members from all parties who gave leadership at committee stage, bringing us to this stage of discussion.
I am one who could identify with the minister as he spoke of our native and aboriginal people and the importance of ensuring their rights. I am interested that as he speaks on behalf of the government and in his portfolio, he does not speak about Indian women and does not address the representations made to the government and to him by the conference which was held in Ottawa last weekend.


John Carr Munro: I did.


Walter Franklin McLean: At that conference the leaders of women's movements across Canada questioned whether we were
approaching the charter in the right way. They affirmed the importance, as did the minister, of the charter and came down squarely on the side of the charter, but they said, "Do it right." They said-and many of them are brilliant lawyers- "We believe that the charter as it now stands will entrench discrimination against Indian women." While sharing the minister's commitment to human rights, I would point out to him that I hold a commitment that when we act in this symbolic and real way, then our charter should do what we and all Canadians want.
In my opening comments, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reflect for a moment on comments made in 1948 by Canada's first Canadian-born Governor General, Vincent Massey, when he spoke about his dream for Canada. I should like to share with this House, and through this House with my riding of Waterloo which I have the honour to represent, indeed with all people across Canada, my concerns about what is happening to my Canada as we move too quickly to do something that we all want.
Speaking about his love for the nation that we all love and which we wish to serve in this Parliament and through this action, Massey said:
I believe in Canada, with pride in her past, belief in her present and faith in her future;
I believe in the quality of Canadian life, and in the character of Canadian institutions;
-I believe that Canada is one, and that if our minds dwell on those things which its parts have in common, we can find the unity of the whole;
1 believe that with sound work, the spirit of a team, and an awareness of ourselves, we can look forward to achievements beyond our imagining.
That imagery and devotion that Massey expressed is not present in the component parts of our country. Increasingly the spirit of a team, the spirit of a partnership, is being threatened by proposals put forward by the government to change the nature of, and fundamentally remove from, component parts in the Canadian experience, rights which have been ours and are ours constitutionally.
Canada is a federation which has developed through a spirit of co-operation and consensus throughout its history. What we now have before us is a constitutional proposal which undermines this historic reality. We find in this unilateral action, the intention to move outside Canada to take decisions about the rights of all Canadians. We find something which does not lead to a sense of team spirit or a sense of partnership.
1 am more and more tempted to think of the analogy of a marriage breakdown or divorce, or a family relationship in which one of the partners decides to rule the roost. Without the necessary accommodations we seem headed toward divorce. In order for people to hear each other it is sometimes wise to have counselling, but this takes time. Today I plead with the government to give us the time we need in order to do this thing properly. Let us bring the Constitution home. Let us agree on the amending formula and then together, within an agreed time frame, let us look at the package of rights and reach agreement in this House. We want to be supportive but the process is wrong in terms of nation-building and in terms of human dynamics.
February 20, 1981

We must look at the manifestations of this action across the country and hear what the groups are saying. Let us not be led to believe that it is merely a matter of the provinces versus the nation; let us hear the people through their groups and institutions as they speak to us as Members of Parliament.
Let us remember that as a nation we have lived by consensus and that we have agreements. The quality of life that we celebrate is the result of consensus. The provinces have been a part of important agreements which allow our country to operate. We can think of the Old Age Pension Act in 1927, the depression years and the series of annual relief acts, the hospital insurance plan, the Canada Assistance Plan, medical insurance, unemployment insurance and the Canada Pension Plan. In each case the federal government and the provinces reached consensus and found ways to accommodate their differences.
I serve one of the most unique and rewarding ridings in the country, the new riding of Waterloo which takes in Kitchener-Waterloo. I have had the opportunity to live and work in Prince Edward Island and Atlantic Canada and to serve as a civil servant in Manitoba. I have worked in Saskatchewan and I was raised in British Columbia. As I look at this country from coast to coast, I see the resources and the differences and I celebrate them. I crave a process which will allow us to hear one another more fittingly and more fully.
In my own riding I see the need for consensus in order to accommodate the great and exciting diversity of the area. The Pennsylvania Dutch Mennonites settled the region. They were followed by German craftsmen whose heritage is kept alive by the German clubs and the annual celebrations of Oktoberfest. The 1971 census showed that 32 per cent of the population of Waterloo is of German origin, as is 27 per cent of the population of Kitchener. In recent years this area has led the country in receiving the boat people. Across the community, in the universities and in the workplace we find the Germanic and Asian groups coming together with a diversity of peoples and interests which range from the farming communities to small business to the electronics industry, the rubber workers and the insurance industries. They have different agendas, yet find the forums to hear each other in order to build a community with pride, one for another. The process of finding consensus in moving ahead, in terms of our seeking a national constitution, is wrong.
The complexities are many. But we must take the time, as we do in our communities, to understand the issues and to listen to them. As this debate goes on, and through the televising of the committee hearings, people realize the confrontational style of "Here is the package; you must do it". This attitude is bringing more resentment than unanimity.
From the government benches we hear the argument raised from time to time that this country is difficult to govern. Someone has said it cannot be governed. I believe that Canada can be governed. I believe that our pluses far outweigh our minuses. Canada has today, which it did not have in the past,
The Constitution
an excellent network of communications and of transport. We can meet each other. We can talk to each other, often via electronics. We can communicate.
I had the opportunity to serve Canada while living abroad in Nigeria for some five years. I think of the difficulties that young nation had in nation building. I think of the major cleavages and the strong feelings among tribal groups and among major religious groups. Initially, that nation's historic pattern was to try a unitary system. That was unsuccessful. But then the nation's builders listened to all parts of the country. A constituent assembly was formed which enabled the diverse sections of the country to be heard. As people began to talk again after the tragic civil war, they began to find structures which would accommodate their diversity. We now find a modern day Nigeria moving ahead. It is made up of 19 States. Its system of government had gained and is gaining strength through the recognition of its diversity.
On the matter of rights, we come to a question of philosophy which is important for Canadians to address, both in terms of personal worth and in terms of the focus by which they approach life in our nation.
Let me suggest that the discussion around whether or not our charter will include a reference to God is one which goes to the nub of the issue in terms of the point where we begin. Do we begin with inalienable rights or do we begin with rights which are somehow granted by the government?
In committee, representatives of the Progressive Conservative Party suggested in a motion that a preamble be added to the charter of rights. It was rejected by the committee. However, the preamble would have affirmed that the Canadian nation is founded on principles which acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free individuals and institutions. Individuals and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law.
As the record will show, this motion in committee was opposed by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). The argument was that many people do not believe in God; therefore, the reference should not be included, that any such inclusion would diminish their rights as a consequence. There was some discussion that this ought to be in the preamble instead of Clause 1 of the charter, and if so, it could be approved by the provinces. We should remind ourselves that our Judeo-Christian roots have had a reference to God as part of the building process of this nation and its values. Immigrants coming to Canada came for the freedom to express their concepts of God as they saw fit, so the Mennonites, the Hutterites and the Soviet Jews came.
God and the motivation of that belief has played an important part in the building of our nation. Take, for example, hospitals, agricultural development and transport. These roots come from the premise that God gives life and gives rights, and governments perform under God. God grants rights, not governments. Governments are there to see that rights are maintained. The charter we agree upon is to serve that func-

February 20, 1981
The Constitution
tion. It seems to me very arrogant to leave out a reference to God.
For those who say our society is changing, let us look at our multicultural mosaic today. Let us be reminded that those who come from the Islamic, Buddhist, Confucian or other religious backgrounds bring with them a concept of God which is not strange to their culture. Surely as we look at our roots and try to imbed our determination to protect rights, we need to go back. We need to go more slowly to see that the premise on which we build is still maintained in the charter, in its preamble, or wherever.
When we resume in the time remaining I wish to continue discussion about our rights. I want to reflect upon a most significant meeting, held here in the nation's capital last week when over 1,000 women were present. I want to reflect on the charter proposal and to reflect upon whether or not it will serve their interests. I want to reflect upon the proposals put to the government by the women of this nation. I want to reflect upon the growing concern of other groups across this country, including questions which have been raised in the media this day by the Canadian Council for Social Development, and as other groups begin to say "Slow down, do it right, do what you want to do."
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will call it one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As suggested by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLeah), we will call it one o'clock.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 12.58 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) had the floor.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, before the lunch break, I was suggesting to the House that there is a need to recognize our Canadian tradition of dealing by consensus rather than unilateral action. We have a rich diversity which needs to be respected in all of its variations in the process of developing our charter. It is argued that Canada is difficult to govern under our federal system, that we need this unilateral action in order to become a changed nation. That flies in the face of modern technology, communication and transportation. Compared to other parts of the world, this nation is much more governable and these are not the problems they are painted.
I was also suggesting that the very essence of the proposals put forward is that they put the supremacy of government over and against the supremacy of the individual and the inalienable rights we have, and that the omission on the part of the government of any reference to God is symbolic of that shift toward the tendency of the government to decide rights rather than rights being given as a gift to us as part of our humanity.
I stated also that I wished to talk about the importance of the charter. We on all sides of the House should begin to realize that there is concern with respect to seeing that human rights are protected. At the moment the government has before it well-thought-out and articulated proposals which are the result of the conference held by the ad hoc committee of Canadian women here in Ottawa on February 14 and 15. We will be waiting to hear how the government will respond to the proposals and amendments recommended for inclusion.
Today another council, the Council on Social Development, said publicly that the charter of rights could be used to deny access to social services. This is another group which should be heard, and the concerns which are raised should be addressed in order that we can have a sense of unity with respect to the proposals before us.
In the context of this debate and as we deal with human rights, I want to say that our charter and package on human rights must do what we want it to do. The outcome of the committee meeting of women this past weekend was a clear signal from women that the entrenchment of human rights is something they want and affirm; but it should be done properly and the proposals now before the House and the nation are not good enough.
It is interesting that today in the question period the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) confirmed that very few additional proposals will be included. He seemed to indicate that the government intends to ram through its proposals regardless of the opinions of large sections of our nation and regardless of the opinions of the provincial governments.
Women have sent representatives to Parliament Hill to speak to every member of Parliament, despite the discouragement of the Minister of Justice. Over 1,000 were here for two days, and they want their views known. They are concerned that the Constitution committee did not travel and that women who do not have the financial base men across the nation have are handicapped and disadvantaged again in the matter of their ability to travel, to speak and to articulate their concerns.
The committee heard four or five representations or groups and received other submissions, but many of the 1,500 or more women's groups across the nation are only beginning to be aware of the implications of what is before us, as is the nation as a whole.
It is very interesting to me as one who was able to attend that meeting for two days, along with my colleagues, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss
February 20. 1981

Jewett), that there was not one person from the Liberal government benches who was there throughout the meeting, and there were no women from the Liberal Party.
The proposals in the charter before this House and this nation were prepared by a cabinet of which one woman is a member. They were prepared by a bureaucracy which is headed by men in almost every case. It is small wonder that the women present were very concerned as to whether their concerns will be met.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member who presently has the floor noted the absence of women members from the Liberal side at the weekend meeting of women from across Canada. I point out to the hon. member that this party was represented, not by one but by many members in the constitutional committee, and they listened to the requests of women from across Canada. The party opposite was not represented by one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Waterloo has the floor. This appears to be an exchange.


Walter Franklin McLean: The conference raised the question whether the transitory majority will impose its will. Will it not hear the concerns of 51 per cent of the Canadian population? Women have not yet ruled out whether they, along with other concerned groups, will find themselves having to lobby overseas. The importance of this meeting cannot be underestimated because it was a reminder that no longer can decisions be made in Canada without women being part of them.
When questioned clearly as to whether the provisions as they now stand in the human rights charter are acceptable, a panel of women lawyers thoughtfully commented that there are no guarantees that women will be any better off than they are now. The words in the charter are too ambiguous. You either have equality or you do not. It is hard to have a little bit of equality. Those women lawyers went on to suggest that there are other dangers, such as the danger of entrenching discrimination on the basis of culture, and that these concerns need to be addressed. It is small wonder the conference found itself anxious about the time-frame and the limited opportunity.
Women are also unsure where the government stands. A headline in the Ottawa Citizen on Thursday, February 19, reads: "Women unsure where Axworthy stands". The former president of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Doris Anderson, took exception to the comments of the Minister of Justice in his opening remarks in this debate. She objected on Wednesday to the minister's quoting her as saying that the changes are a major step forward. According to the Ottawa Citizen:
Anderson said at a news conference that the government has come a long way toward meeting the needs of women in its proposed charter of rights, but that doesn't mean it has come far enough . . . "to make it absolutely clear that Canadian women have equality in this country . . . changes should be made."
Changes are recommended in the thoughtful brief which is presently before the government and the minister for consideration. The resolution of that conference was that it endorsed in principle the concept of an entrenched charter of rights as per
The Constitution
the recommendations made on February 14, 1981, and that unless the charter reflects the amendments suggested, it should not be included in the submission to the British government in order to provide time to incorporate these amendments.
I know that the House and the women of Canada will be waiting for the minister responsible for the status of women to comment on this thoughtful submission which has been given to him.
In their resolution the women went on to say that, failing the full adoption of these amendments, incorporation of a charter of rights should be accomplished by a constituent assembly, the membership of which should be 50 per cent women. They went on in their review of the charter to say, for example, that there should be an amendment to Clause I of the charter so that it will include a statement of purpose providing that the rights and freedoms under the charter are guaranteed equally to women, and with no limitation. What they are saying is "Do it right."
They go on in another thoughtful recommendation, which is before the government, to suggest that Clause 7 be amended to include the right to equality of economic opportunity. Why are women so concerned about economic opportunity? Economic opportunity has not been incorporated in this document, and that reflects the reality of the discrimination. In a pamphlet published by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women the following facts are outlined:
51 per cent of working-age Canadians are women.
47.8	per cent of all women are working or looking for work, compared to 37.1 per cent in 1968.
38.9	per cent of the labour force are women: an increase of more than 6 per cent in the last 10 years.
1.635.000	women have joined the labour force since 1968, compared to
1.296.000	men.
They go on to write about employment discrimination in these terms:
For every dollar a man earns, a woman earns only 60 cents-
Women have to work more than eight days to earn the same money that men do in five days.
And so the litany goes on. They remind us that:
4.9	per cent of working women are in managerial-administrative positions.
62.7 per cent of all women working for pay are in clerical, sales or service jobs:
36.9	per cent in clerical, 9.4 per cent in sales, and 16.4 per cent in service.
The discrimination is known and the facts are becoming more and more part of our thinking, but the process of meeting these concerns and the time required in order to see that these injustices are addressed in our Constitution, as in so many other areas, have not been provided. I want to suggest that not only has the women's conference focused on injustice, on deep concern and a rising awareness-small wonder that the minister was not anxious that that meeting should be held in terms of its comments on the proposal that the women are determined to move quickly with as much understanding as possible at the grass roots level across the country-but at the conclusion of the conference the women said that the process of

February 20, 1981
The Constitution
creating our Constitution was too hasty and that it does not adequately reflect the needs of women. Their resolution stated that the Women's Conference on the Constitution insists on a full and fair debate in Parliament on the constitutional package before it, and opposes any closure of debate.
We are beginning to see a new form of closure. We find fewer government members speaking, shorter speeches by members on the government side, a tendency to say, "We will let opposition members talk it out as quickly as they can and we will try to get it through before the nation understands what is happening to the fundamental nature of the nation"; and we will have a package to boot, if they have their way, which does not do what we want.


Walter David Baker: You are hitting home.


Walter Franklin McLean: Let me suggest, Mr. Speaker, about the process of indecent haste, that in the arguments which I have heard in my 44 years as a Canadian, through my schooling years, through eight post-secondary years and at university, I do not recall any discussions in the classrooms and in the coffee shops about the nature of our country. I have to say that the discussion which is now taking place is going in the right direction and is healthy, but to attempt to terminate the debate at the point when people are becoming informed and are discussing the nature of the nation is beyond belief.
How do we learn, Mr. Speaker? We learn not just because somebody publishes an article or a speech is made. We learn through the conversations that have gone on, through the networks we have, through the groups and organizations where we test our values, we look at what we believe in, at what we think is important and where we rehearse our history. This process takes time. If you take, as an example, the women's network in Canada, you find that in many cases it is just beginning to develop. It takes time for them to begin to address what these things which are alleged to protect their rights are and whether in fact they will do so. When the time comes for a charter to be written which we can all support, I want to see the Constitution brought home with an amending formula. I want to vote for it, and, at a later period, after there has been time for consensus-building, after there has been time for consultation and recognition of our diversity, I want to join in supporting human rights, as does every member of the House.
A process which is wrong illegitimizes the entire Constitution and it creates, as we have seen, ill-will and suspicion throughout the nation. As my colleague, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), said, every time the government decides that the means justify the end, ordinary people are hurt, and in this process ordinary people are being hurt as they feel disillusioned in their country and disaffected.
If the hon. member who shakes his head would spend more time in the various regions of this country, he would know about that suspicion. He might say that it makes it worse to talk about it, but that is not so. As one who has roots in the west as well as in central Canada, I grew up knowing and always being aware of what it costs to be from western Canada
as compared to being from other parts of the nation. Perhaps it has taken 54 years to discuss this from time to time, but let us by all means carry on the discussion in an organized and systematic way, not with indecent haste. So far there has been little chance for our 22 million people to be involved and to give expression to their concern.
The process is leading to hostility. It is alleged that we are too concerned with the process. We are concerned with the process because the process brings a fundamental change to the nation and to its conceptions upon which we wish to build our sense of justice and our rights. There is a saying that justice not only must be done but must be seen to be done. In the process which takes place across the nation at this point, whether it involves women, whether it involves councils on social welfare, or whether it involves other groups which have appeared before the committee, people have not yet recognized the validity of what we are doing in this place.
At the beginning of my comments 1 spoke about Vincent Massey's dream for Canada, his belief that one Canada is possible if our minds would only dwell on those things that we have in common. He said he believes that with sound work, a team spirit and an awareness of ourselves we can look forward to achievements beyond our imagining. I suggest that at the moment the spirit of the team is missing in the nation. The spirit of the team is built when we communicate, when we share our beliefs, our convictions, our history, our background and our hopes for the future. The spirit of the team is not built when the captain of the team says, "You run this way and that and do what you are told; I do not mind what you think."
I have alluded earlier in my remarks to a marriage breakdown. A marriage can be saved if there is wisdom to listen, to conciliate and to begin to recognize the yearnings. There is a great love of our nation across this land; there is a great resource of human spirit. At present, the rights we want to be preserved will not be preserved. We are hearing increasingly often from those we wish to serve, and therefore I support the amendment that we bring the charter home, as we want to do on all sides of this House.
We should come to an agreement on an amending formula and deal with the whole process within a certain time-frame. We should not push aside the reaching of a consensus on the right package. Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to make this intervention.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, on February 8 last, the New York Times published an international economic survey. I looked through it, as is my custom, to see if there was an article there on Canada, and sure enough, on the last page, appropriately positioned, was an article entitled "Canada, Poor Prospects and Fragile Unity". Datelined Calgary, the article began:
It was the start of an evening of car races here not long ago when the track announcer asked the spectators to rise for the recorded playing of the national anthem, "O Canada."
February 20, 1981

Not five seconds into the solemn song there was a jarring scratching sound as the record needle was lifted. "You all know the rest", the announcer said, dispensing with the national formality. "Now, on with the races."
We can contrast that with referendum night in a constituency in east end Montreal in which I worked. It was a seat held by a PQ member of the National Assembly. We managed to win by 1,000 votes-52 per cent to 48 per cent. A number of speeches were made, and then they asked me to say a few words. I had the feeling that quite enough had been said and said, "I only want to hear one thing; I would like to hear our national anthem". One can imagine a hot committee room packed with 200 people. They belted out "O Canada" louder and with more feeling than I can ever remember.
During the referendum we discovered two things. We discovered our flag and we rediscovered our national anthem. The contrast between the referendum night and the Calgary race track could not better illustrate the necessity to reform our Constitution without delay. It is clear that we are at an impasse. It is most evident in the disagreement about the amending formula. Members of the official opposition cannot accept that Ontario or Quebec have vetoes, ignoring their populations which still make up over 60 per cent of Canada, ignoring the vital reasons of Quebec for retaining such a power. They also ignored the formula that met with the approval of all provinces in 1971.
Members of the official opposition also find the referendum proposal equally offensive. They invariably choose to ignore that in order to pass a referendum would require a double majority-a majority throughout Canada as well as a majority in all regions of the country. They choose to conjure up visions of the most outrageous circumstances one could imagine- expropriation of resources and the change of provincial boundaries-which they know would never secure the required majorities in any event. They ignore the fact that referenda have produced very conservative results in a number of federal states where they are in use, including Australia. In that country 16 constitutional referenda have been held since 1900, some dealing with several subjects. Of the 36 proposals put to the people, only eight have obtained the required majority.
The official opposition likes to pretend that the federal government could tilt a referendum in its favour with a heavy advertising campaign. However, I believe that this demonstrates a lack of credit in the inherent wisdom of the Canadian people. They choose to forget that in spite of a heavy propaganda campaign conducted in every conceivable manner over three and a half years and a question designed to meet with the maximum approval, the Parti Quebecois lost the historic referendum last May.
I suppose the strongest objection raised by hon. members opposite is to the unilateral nature of our action. This is where the differences between our parties are most fundamental. There is no recognition by the official opposition that the national government may have any overriding responsibilities.
I think this is well illustrated in an exchange which took place in the committee on January 8 between the hon. member
The Constitution
for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) and Professor Maxwell Cohen who was appearing as an expert witness. The exchange revealed that in a reference case the federal government can go directly to the Supreme Court, whereas provincial governments must initiate their cases in courts of appeal. This offended the hon. member's view of the "necessary symmetry and balance" between the two levels of government. In his response, Professor Cohen stated;
It would be a pity not to see a very positive side to the federal Parliament and federal parties. After all is said and done they are part of the national system.
He put a series of questions to the hon. member:
Are you not unhappy with the over-use of the theory of equality of the two levels of government because in fact are they really equal? Do you conceive of the provinces? Yes, they have jurisdiction, they have exclusive rights in a particular area but are we really talking about equality in the ideological, over-all, political, historical sense? Do you not want to retain the sense of there being an overriding Canadian national identity and interest?
We in this party believe there is an overriding Canadian national identity and interest. The federal NDP feels the same; members of the Official Opposition do not. We in this party believe that we have responsibilities which must be exercised now, for the good of the country as a whole.

How did we ever reach that conclusion, Mr. Speaker? Some members of the official opposition and certain newspapermen would have us believe that our actions are dictated by what they think is the personal obsession of our leader. Not only is that an insult to our leader but it is an insult as well to my intelligence and to the intelligence of all members of our party.
I would like to say to our critics that the members of this party share a vision of Canada which reflects that of the great majority of Canadians. Each one of us has his or her own reasons to arrive at that conclusion and to share that vision of Canada. We have all followed our own line of reasoning.
I would like to explain today some of the reasons why I took this position. First of all, I grew up here in the city of Ottawa and although I was raised in an anglophone environment I number among those Canadians who are of neither French nor English origin. When I studied Canadian history I had no prejudices or preconceived ideas, but I have always felt sympathy for the underdogs. I recall a certain sadness when I read about the defeat of Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham. Over the past eleven years I have had the privilege of living in Quebec and I like to think that I understand the aspirations of French Canadians. How many times I sat at a lunch table and heard about the ups and downs of French Canadians trying to go into business 30 years ago!
Mr. Speaker, let us imagine the difficulties, the hesitations and the doubts experienced by any young man going into business. And on top of that francophone businessmen had to express their hopes and their dreams before bank managers who did not speak a word of French. That explains the popularity of the PQ slogan d'egal a egal during the referendum campaign, even among those who voted no. As they

February 20, 1981
The Constitution
renewed faith in Canada, their Canada, the people who voted no expressed a feeling which underpins human dignity-the wish to be treated as equal, the will to lead a productive life in which their opportunities are as good as those of other Canadians.
The time has come to keep our promises. Since 1963 when Lester Pearson commissioned a report on bilingualism the constitutional debate has widened. Those who were born in 1963 are now 18 years old. Many of them attend university or join the labour force. They are a full generation behind us, however, today still, certain Canadians fight for their fundamental rights.

I heard the hon. member opposite who preceded me speak about the fact that it takes time to come to a consensus about what our rights are. But I would ask him: how long does one wait when people in the country are deprived of rights which ensure their basic human dignity? We may disagree about the method but I think that we can unite around the charter. I have no doubt but that the vast majority of Canadians uphold the rights set out in the charter. I believe it is a noble statement and a noble expression of our commonly shared values and can become a powerful force for unity.
Professor John Humphrey, president of the Canadian Human Rights Foundation, gave me the following definition of a bill of rights. He said:
A bill of rights is, or should be, the concrete legal embodiment of the national consensus as to what minimum rights belong to individual men and women in their quality as human beings, that is, because they are human beings and for no other reason. That is why they are called "human" rights. And because there can be no human dignity without them they should be the same for all Canadians in all parts of the country wherever they live.
Surely, the rights that allow us to live in dignity go right to the heart of our existence as a nation. Surely, this is what the groups who appeared before the committee on the Constitution meant when they said that the same basic rights and freedoms should apply uniformly to all Canadians, whether in British Columbia or Newfoundland. It seems to me this is the exercise we have been engaged in over the past several months. We are defining those basic minimum rights which we feel should exist from coast to coast and without which this country cannot survive. We have heard the submissions of groups and individuals representing millions of Canadians. We have considered the representations of the provinces and we are doing it from our perspective as parliamentarians who represent every corner of our country. It is an exercise which cannot be done from the perspective of a provincial capital and which surely cannot be done from Westminster.
I would like to say a word or two about the rights which we have included in the charter. There are rights which are called "fundamental", as if to suggest that the other rights are any less fundamental. I reject any such distinction. I believe that all the rights set out in the charter are fundamental human
rights of equal value, without which there can be no human dignity, in the words of Professor Humphrey.
Having said that, it is probably difficult for many Canadians to conceive of a Canada where we could not enjoy the basic rights set out in Section 2 of the charter, the so-called fundamental rights. Those who were born after World War II, like me, have enjoyed greater liberty than any other generation in history. At times we may take our freedoms of thought, religion, expression, assembly and association for granted. However, the committee was reminded of occasions in Canadian history in which such rights were infringed. To prevent such abuses and to remind ourselves of the importance of such freedoms, they should be entrenched in the Constitution today.
Other rights in the charter, though equally fundamental, are more difficult to secure in practice.

Since coming to Parliament, Mr. Speaker, I have realized that every Canadian needs to have a charter of rights entrenched in the Constitution. Like any other member of Parliament, I have had the opportunity, through meetings with my constituents, to realize the problems faced by those whose rights are not respected, who cannot find a job become they are considered too old or because they are handicaped or simply because they are women.
As Gordon Fairweather, the president of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, said before the constitutional committee, the purpose of the charter of rights and freedoms is to protect the weak from the strong and those who are powerless from the powerful. Mr. Fairweather also said that in his three years of experience with the commission, because it has been in existence for only three years, he has come to realize that many Canadians are completely powerless.
Mr. Speaker, human dignity for the people in my riding of Laurier, is the right not to be told at age 40 or 50: you are too old to work. Human dignity for a textile worker is the right to not be paid under the minimum wage just because that worker is a woman. Human dignity for a handicapped person is the right to work and to lead a productive life. And as I said in my maiden speech in October, 1979, human dignity is the right for all Canadians to work anywhere in Canada.
While doing door to door campaigning in my riding 1 met many construction workers who used to work in Ontario when there was a slowdown in the building industry in Quebec. This freedom of manpower movement is vital, I think, and I find it unfortunate that it ceased because of the building war between Quebec and Ontario. When I say that this issue seems vital to me, I am sure it seems much more vital to those people who find themselves without any means of livelihood because of economic barriers erected during the last few years.

An entrenched charter of rights will allow the courts to play a much more important role in the protection of human rights in Canada. Any student of constitutional law can tell you that
February 20, 1981

the courts have treated the Canadian Bill of Rights as what it is-ordinary legislation-and have interpreted it as not to invalidate conflicting legislation.
A result of this interpretation is that a Canadian, Sandra Lovelace, has been forced to seek remedies outside Canada by going to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. It is a scandal that she should not be able to find justice and equality within Canada. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, how Canada will look in the eyes of the world community if a judgment is rendered by the United Nations Human Rights Committee declaring that the particular provision in the Indian Act discriminates against Indian women.
One of the main criticisms of the constitutionally entrenched charter is that Parliament and not the courts should be the final arbiters in matters relating to human rights. In the British tradition this function belongs to Parliament. However, every Member of Parliament knows that on a day to day basis courts can best protect an aggrieved individual. Parliament has little time to concern itself with the personal problems of the man or woman at the corner of Peel and St. Catherines, or Portage and Main for that matter. It is true that at the allotted time a Member of Parliament can put a question to the government in power, which may result in an investigation, or even in new legislation. But what guarantee do you have that you will be able to catch a minister's attention or that he will listen to you? An individual acting alone has very little clout, and even less if he happens to belong to a minority. He has a much better chance of bringing his case before the courts, and if he has a good case he will obtain a remedy, a remedy which may not only benefit him but all others in the same situation.
Entrenching a charter of rights does not mean that Parliament can then sit back and do nothing. The committee was reminded of this by Dr. Noel Kinsella, chairman of the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission. I will loosely paraphrase what Mr. Kinsella said. He said that the courts are but one institution for the protection of human rights and that there are many others. The other two major institutions are the legislatures and Parliament, and also the people through public opinion and the voluntary sector. He said that we in Canada, in terms of the enhancement of human rights, must not come to the conclusion that a bill of rights in the Constitution is the final guarantee of human rights, since the great advancements in race relations in the United Kingdom have been made following upon the race relations act, in the United States following upon the civil rights act, and in Europe following upon the European convention.
The courts, the public, the press, Parliament, the legislatures-each and every one of us has a vital role to play if we are to continue to enhance human rights in modern Canadian society and to meet the needs of a modern Canada. That is the message we heard in the committee and that is why I urge this House to adopt the resolution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The Constitution


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the government's resolution respecting the Constitution of Canada. I do so because I consider it my duty and responsibility to speak out on behalf of the more than 68,000 people that I represent in my riding, who have consistently returned me to this House for 24 years through ten federal elections.


An hon. Member:: You cannot last forever!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Don't you bank on it, my friend. I have pretty good staying power!
Since this proposal was first introduced October 15, 1980, I have received hundreds of letters from my constituents expressing their fears, anxieties and concerns for the future of Canada. I share their opinion that our Constitution should be a unifying document, one which brings joy and pride to the hearts of all Canadians. Unfortunately, this has not been the case, and many of us now realize that some of the unwise decisions made by this government in its constitutional proposals may well create a backlash which could inflict mortal wounds from which our confederation may never recover.
If Canada is strong enough to endure the blows already dealt to our national unity, we still could be confronted with constitutional provisions which, unless amended, will be permanent causes of regional alienation and dissent. We are all well aware, Mr. Speaker, of the long series of efforts to reach agreement on constitutional reform. On at least two occasions agreement was reached, but when the time came for ratification someone always lacked the energy or initiative or political will required to take the final step.
The long series of efforts and failures reached their climax at the last meeting of first ministers. However, 1 am not all that certain that meeting ever had a chance to succeed. 1 say that because of the unrealistic time constraints and objectives laid down at that time by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Both the pre-conference committee and the conference itself tried to reach agreement on much too broad a spectrum of reform, thereby opening up too many areas of disagreement. It is my opinion that if the committee and first ministers had concentrated on reaching agreement on an amending formula and patriation, I am confident it could have been reached. The way would then have been open for immediate patriation and impetus given to resolving the issues in an atmosphere of co-operation and good will.
I believe the time constraints placed on the committee and the conference were unrealistic. Negotiations of this type are, of necessity, slow and laborious; they require much patience, time and perseverance; they simply cannot be hurried. You cannot expect to plant an acorn today and sit under the shade of the oak tree tomorrow, and this seems to be one of the Prime Minsiter's problems. With the Prime Minister insisting on unrealistic deadlines, the prospects for success are practically nil.
Another cause of failure was his almost total rejection of the viewpoints and concerns of the ten provincial premiers. In his philosophical approach to what he regards as Canadian nation-

February 20, 1981
The Constitution
hood, he held that Canada is more than the sum total of its provinces, that the federal government, rather than being a partner with the provincial governments, is a power above and apart, representing national interests which transcend those of the ten provincial governments combined.
While attaching great importance to his so-called people's package, including the charter of rights, the Prime Minister was unresponsive to the equally important concerns of the provincial premiers in matters which affect not merely their regional interests but the well-being of the nation as a whole. The Prime Minister's attitude is a viewpoint that I cannot accept.
The provincial governments, Mr. Speaker, exercise on behalf of the people of those provinces the powers given to them by our present Constitution. Practically every part of this country today is adversely affected by unresolved jurisdictional disputes involving the ownership and management of natural resources, including offshore mineral rights. When the premier of my province states that he does not believe the natural resources of Nova Scotia should be wrestled from the grasp of Nova Scotians, he is only saying what the people of that province want him to say and, by virtue of the Constitution, have the right to expect him to say on their behalf. This is what he must do. If he did not take that stand he would be false to his duty and negligent in the responsibilities imposed upon him by those who elected him.
As one of the first Canadian provinces to have its own flag, Nova Scotians hold their traditions high. We are a proud people, proud of our heritage and proud of the fact that our forebears came to Nova Scotia from many lands across the sea; from Scotland, Ireland, England, France, Germany, Norway, Switzerland and Sweden, to name but a few. Some of my forebears came from the Rhenish Palatinate and some from Hanover in 1753, before Germany existed. All of these people came for one reason or another, to escape religious persecution, to establish new homes on their own lands where they could sink their roots and seek a new way of life free from harassment and persecution.
As Nova Scotians, we believe that the rights accruing to us before confederation are still ours. In fact, the British North America Act states that whatever the provinces had before confederation, such as mineral rights, they were to retain after confederation. This is spelled out in Section 109 of the BNA Act.
The first seed of ownership was planted in 1605 by the commission given to De Monts, that gallant and adventurous French explorer. It was further strengthened by the Royal Charter of 1621 given to Sir William Alexander. Then there were the treaties of Utrecht and Paris in 1713 and 1763. Our claims were expanded by the commissions of Cornwallis and other governors, as well as by the creation of the legislative assembly in 1758 and legislation passed by the government of Nova Scotia between 1758 and 1867.
From these facts it should be noted that our claims as Nova Scotians to our province and our mineral rights go back over many centuries, and I say to you, sir, that we are not about to
give them up because of a unilateral decision made to gratify the ego of one man. Our claims to offshore mineral rights are now threatened by this government, and I cite this example to indicate that the solution to our problems does not necessarily require constitutional amendments; what is required is a recognition that often the national and regional interests of the country are inseparably related.
The provincial governments must, therefore, be treated as equal partners of the federal government in the policy-making process through which solutions to these problems must be found. However, when the provincial governments made it clear that any amendments to the Constitution should guarantee their rights to the ownership of natural resources and that the priority of provincial economic policy should be reaffirmed and entrenched, the Prime Minister responded that he was not prepared to bargain, in his words, freedom for fish or fundamental rights for oil. Is it any wonder that under these circumstances the first ministers' conference ended in failure.
The proper thing to do at that point, in my opinion, would have been to temporarily set aside all issues other than patria-tion and agreement on an amending formula which even then, in all probability, could have been reached. However, this course of action did not suit the Right Hon. Prime Minister who, instead, decided to embark upon a course of unilateral action to both repatriate and amend the Constitution despite warnings from most of Canada's premiers that such action would have dire consequences for confederation.
Patriation per se is not a matter of disagreement among the Canadian people. Practically all are agreed that our Constitution should be our own statute, passed by our own Parliament and enshrined in this Parliament. 1 agree with that. It is equally true to say that patriation of our Constitution is not a matter of widespread public concern even after this Liberal government spent millions of dollars on television advertising to tell Canadians that life would be uncertain if the British North America Act did not return to Canada.


André Ouellet: That is not true. We did not spend millions of dollars on that. That is totally untrue.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The hon. gentleman says that is totally untrue. He is in cabinet so he would have the figures. When he makes a speech he can put the true figure on the record. Perhaps I have understated the amount and, if so, he can set the record straight.
I was saying the people are not as much concerned as we would have liked them to be. I say that to you and to the government, sir, because of the facts made known as a result of a recent Gallup poll taken among Canadians in which they answered that they regarded different matters as having urgency. Patriation would seem to have a very low priority. Canadians seem to believe that the really serious and urgent problems are inflation, unemployment, energy, balance of payments and budget deficits. I say to the government,
February 20, 1981

through you, sir, it is high time it took some action on these urgent economic problems.
Unfortunately, these problems do not seem to concern the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In my view, today he is a man on a mission, on a crusade to change if not the world, then at least Canada, in order to assist in reflecting his ideological and philosophical preferences, with never a thought for the wishes of the Canadian people. This man is on the last lap of his political career. Whether that lap takes one year or another election does not make any difference. He sees what he thinks is best for Canada and, with the single-mindedness of the true believer, is determined against all odds to achieve it. Call it what you like, disguise it as you will, what he seeks for Canada today resembles a socialist dictatorship in my view. If you do not like that term we can call it a centralized paternalistic system, where free choice is limited and where state control is excessive. He proposes that the collective should replace individualism, all in the name of the common good of the average citizen. I say to this House, that the common man's individual liberties will be the casualties.
As the Right Hon. Prime Minister points out in all his writings, his background and leanings do not favour British parliamentary democracy nor a constitutional democracy. He knows better than the average Canadian that if he succeeds in getting human rights and language rights entrenched in the Constitution in the manner he proposes, parliamentary democracy in this country is dead, as will be the monarchy.
Inevitably, Canada will become a republic with a presidential system under the Prime Minister's plan. Make no mistake, the constitutional proposal is entirely that of the Prime Minister, no one else, and he is pushing this proposal with all the force at his command.
What do we see from this side of the House? We see an uncritical group of Liberals blindly following the Pied Piper who blows the flute and leads them over the cliff to their destruction. Occasionally one will surface like Moby Dick and blow his spume into the air, then disappear below the surface, never to be seen again until he somehow reappears in his place to vote as his master dictates.
The over-all effect of this action and this resolution will be that the federal government will intrude ever deeper into our daily lives. There may be some who will claim I am being too critical of the Right Hon. Prime Minister, but I am merely stating truths as he has publicly recorded them. In fact, when Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Pelletier joined the Liberal Party in 1965, after taking a leave of absence from the NDP, they issued a prepared statement which said in part:
The undersigned are still following the same goals-they are continuing to adhere to the same political ideologies that they have for a long time set forth in "Cite Libre." We don't repudiate any of our convictions. We have only resolved to pursue elsewhere and in other ways the intellectual and social struggle which has always claimed us.
When he was justice minister he was taunted with some of his former writings and he responded by saying "everything I wrote I stand by". Three years later-and this is one of the benefits of being in this House for a long time because one can
The Constitution
remember these things-while defending a political decision he said, "I acted on the information I have been accumulating since I was three years old".
This leads me to ask what information, what ideas have formed the basis for the right hon. gentleman's actions. He has pinpointed three main sources for his ideas. In 1971 the Prime Minister said:
In my youth the people who influenced me the most were the Christian existentialists like Mounier. In his last key editorial before his death Emmanuel Mounier wrote in his review "Esprit", "The proletariat must be allowed to continue the positive work of the communist party while eliminating all the poisons which are mixed therein. Such is one of our principal tasks for tomorrow."
In 1966 Mr. Trudeau stated that he found Professor Harold Laski of the London School of Economics "the most stimulating and powerful influence" he had encountered. Laski's single most important book, "A Grammar of Politics", which the Prime Minister studied, laid out these central principles:
The necessarily federal character of society; the incompatibility of the sovereign state with that economic world order so painfully struggling to be born (communism); the antithesis between individual property rights in the essential means of production and the fulfilment of the democratic idea; the thesis that liberty is a concept devoid of real meaning except in the context of equality, there cannot, in a word, be democracy unless there is socialism.
In 1976 Prime Minister Trudeau said:
In terms of economics, you know, I spent two years studying with Schumpeter and two years studying with Leontief, and if you want to know who is formenting my economic thinking you'd do better to think in terms of Leontief and Schumpeter.
I found that Schumpeter was Prime Minister Trudeau's Harvard professor. As his major work the professor wrote "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy" in which he said:
I have tried to show that a socialist form of society will inevitably emerge from an equally inevitable decomposition of capitalist society.
So it may reasonably be said that the Prime Minister's ideas drawn from the writings of Schumpeter, Laski and Mounier have remained basically the same for the past 30 years.
Let us now look at some of the Prime Minister's writings and compare them with his more recent statements and actions to see how they affect Canadians and will affect Canadians in the immediate future. In 1961 he said:
I should like to see socialists feeling free to espouse whatever political trends or to use whatever constitutional tools happen to fit each particular problem at each particular time.
Is that not exactly what the Prime Minister is doing today, using whatever tools suit him and suit this particular problem? What did Mr. Trudeau say in 1961 before he was Prime Minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) on a point of order.


Mr. Cousineau:: Mr. Speaker, last week I pointed out to the House that the hon. member was sinning against Citation 319 of Beauchesne's fifth edition. I realize now it was no accident. He did so deliberately in a well-orchestrated way of mentioning the name of our Prime Minister.

February 20, 1981
The Constitution
Mr. Speaker, I believe he chooses to ignore the practice of this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has called attention to the rules of the House whereby we should refer to hon. members by their constituencies, members of cabinet by their departments and the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister and not by their personal names.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time the hon. member has taken the opportunity to do this. 1 should suggest to him if he wants to make a speech, he should rise and do so.


Mr. Blais:: It is a legitimate point of order, and the Speaker has ruled on it.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: When I was quoting, I was quoting what Mr. Trudeau said in 1961. He was not then the Prime Minister nor a member of this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I invite the hon. member to observe the custom of referring to people who are currently members of the House or members of the cabinet according to the custom, as I understand it, which usually prevails in this House.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I will follow the custom, Mr. Speaker, as recommended by you.


An hon. Member:: Don't brag about it.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The hon. gentleman likes to interrupt. He does not seem to know what the debate is all about. I cannot recall him making much of a contribution. If he will bear with me while 1 read into the record the writings of the Right Hon. Prime Minister, maybe he will learn a little bit about the man who is blindly leading him over the cliff to his own destruction. I will go on with what the Right Hon. Prime Minister said in 1961 when he was not prime minister.


Walter David Baker: When he was Mr. Trudeau.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Yes, when he was Mr. Trudeau.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In 1961, the present Prime Minister said:
The nationalization of the instruments of production is now being considered less as an end than as a means, and one that might in many cases be replaced by more flexible processes of economic control and redistribution. The erroneous, liberal idea of property helped to emancipate the bourgeosie but is now hampering the march toward economic democracy.
In 1975, on national television, the Prime Minister stated:
We haven't been able to make it work, the free market system-the government is going to have to take a larger role in running institutions. It means there is going to be not less authority in our lives but perhaps more.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Quote your own books.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I am quoting the Prime Minister's own writings and I am quoting from his speeches. If the truth hurts, sir, you better stand up and defend your own group. Do not try to interrupt when I am trying to put the truth to what the Right Hon. Prime Minister has said to the Canadian people.


An hon. Member:: You will have a heart attack.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I won't have a heart attack. I am enjoying every minute of it.
In 1976 the Right Hon. Prime Minister said-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I must be hitting hard core pains over there. Listen to them squawk. Never before have I heard such grunting and growling out of those who are being led over the cliff. Never before when I have made a speech has this happened. Somewhere I must be hitting the truth.


Mr. Simmons:: You are warping it.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In 1976 the Prime Minister stated:
We haven't been able to make even a modified free market system work in Canada to prevent the kinds of problems we are now experiencing.
There are many more quotes, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you could keep a little order and keep the rabble over there down a little bit. 1 do not interrupt, sir, when they are making their speeches and I ask them to have the courtesy not to interrupt me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: Is there a doctor in the House?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: There are many more quotes of the Prime Minister I could place on the record, but surely I have given this House enough to make all members realize the Prime Minister is a leader who is as arrogant as he is intelligent. Since he considers the free market system is no longer working, he and his henchmen have already started on their process of industrial nationalization with the purchase of Petrofina. We hear such things as: "never mind the price. Canadians will pay whatever we feel they can handle," and "let the taxpayers pay." The government has no worry over the large-scale loans to automobile companies. If they are not repaid, I expect this government will take over Chrysler so that Canadians can have their own cars. They may not be called Chryslers, they may simply be called Canadians, with a six under the hood, a four on the floor, with the government in your pocket, you will be driving along with your tongue in your cheek wondering what will come next.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The Italian government owns Fiat.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: They are doing a good job with Fiat.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) has us on the road toward owning Chrysler.
February 20, 1981

I say to all Canadians that unless they want to give up all their freedoms and be subservient to one-party rule in Ottawa, wake up before it is too late. That is what I am saying to that group over there. I have them awake now, at least I have their attention. They have been asleep, they say, for the last 16 years. It is time they woke up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: On a Friday afternoon, we can all have a little fun.
I just stated the Prime Minister's views on property ownership. Having heard his views, hon. members now know why the Right Hon. Prime Minister does not intend to have the right to own property included in his constitution. During discussions at committee stage, the Progressive Conservatives moved an amendment to the resolution requesting that property rights be included in the charter of rights.
Property rights were agreed to by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) who gave a solemn commitment to the committee, in the absence of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). However, this commitment did not meet with the approval of the Prime Minister or the other socialists in the House who travel under the NDP banner. As a result of the deals made behind the scenes, the government broke its promise to protect this important right that millions of Canadians feel and firmly believe should be included in the Constitution. Every person who understands common law has looked upon his home as his castle. I ask the government through you, sir, why not entrench property rights in the Constitution? Thousands of immigrants, including my ancestors, came to this country for one thing, namely, the right to own land and to be free, because they could no longer do so in their own country, or because their land had been taken from them.
The charter proposed includes a series of rights, many of which fall under provincial jurisdiction. Many of the rights included in Mr. Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights are also included in the Prime Minister's, but one important right is missing; that is, the right to own property, property which cannot be taken from you except by lawful means following a fair hearing.
What are the implications of this act upon the average Canadian? It does not mean that our homes, businesses or farms will necessarily be taken away from us, but it does mean they will go without protection under the new Constitution. Yet, I say to you, sir, with all the sincerity at my command that property ownership is the fundamental basis for freedom in any democracy, and that is the point.
The loss of guaranteed property rights strikes fear in the hearts of many Canadians. Fear, like hate and love is a very positive moving force. It was fear that caused many seamen to refuse to sail with Columbus. It was not that they feared the sea because I presume they were good seamen. It was not that they feared the ships; although they were small, they were seaworthy, but they feared setting sail with a captain who refused to tell them where they were going, the length of the voyage, its cost or their ultimate destination.
The Constitution


An hon. Member:: What a trip.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Yes, and what a trip you fellows are going on. If only you could wake up and realize what a trip you are taking.
I say to the government, through you, Mr. Speaker, and to government supporters, this is similar to the situation we have in Canada today. The Right Hon. Prime Minister's policies have already changed the composition and the direction of Canada. Look at how our traditions have been violated, undermined, ridiculed and obliterated. We will never be the same, and only one man, the Prime Minister, has done it. He is still doing it. This constitutional package, which is taking up so much time of this House and of the country, is really only the tip of his iceberg. In my opinion, our present Prime Minister is the most determined prime minister Canada has ever had. He is also the most unprincipled in his efforts to achieve the ends he sees as desirable.
Having read much of his writings, it is obvious he has borrowed and copied many of his ideas from Machiavelli, Marx, Richelieu and Lenin.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Hon. members over there are laughing. I hope some of these men on the other side can read. If they can read, they would note that what I have said was quoted from their own leader and I have cited the books he said he found most interesting and desirable.
It is obvious he has borrowed much of his beliefs from the men I have mentioned. He embodies a doctrinaire elitism which seeks to bring the people to a certain level of understanding or acceptance which he thinks is best. He is a zealot, perhaps even a fanatic and terribly dangerous, just as any fanatic is dangerous.
This is unfortunate for Canada at this time for he has a belief, a single-minded conviction that he and only he is right. Let us face it, the only ones who can now stop the Prime Minister in his madness are in the Liberal Party and that party is now, unfortunately, composed on people who only obey orders, even if those orders will ultimately destroy this nation.
The government in placing this resolution before this House insists in incorporating in it a referendum proposal which would give the central government unilateral power to change our Constitution without any reference to the elected representatives or elected governments of any province.
This is the proposal, and on that premise this government, after denying our provincial governments their right to prior consultation, has the unmitigated gall to ask Great Britain to vote on Canadian basic rights and freedoms. I say this is an insult to every provincial government and to every Canadian. It is a surrender of Canadian sovereignty by the present government which seeks to justify its actions on the grounds that we could never reach agreement on these important questions in Canada. To strengthen their argument, we are

February 20, 198!
The Constitution
told by many speakers that Canadian federalism is a 54-year record of failure. I do not accept that allegation.
Prior to the advent of this present Liberal government in 1968, Canada and Canadians were not doing all that badly. We have not been debating the Constitution for 54 years. The record will show that since 1927 this matter has come up in federal-provincial discussions on 48 different dates, which is something like one day per year. This should indicate to everyone concerned that there is something difficult within the problem and, therefore, it is not something to be solved by some fancy words or by one man's desire to impose his views on the whole country.
The Canadian federal system run by reasonable governments has produced agreements on many topics, namely medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, equalization payments and hospital insurance, to name but a few. All of these agreements were reached through a process of negotiation and consensus but now this will no longer happen and, in future, changes will be made unilaterally by one government in Ottawa.
By tearing up our federal traditions, we risk tearing apart our entire country. I say to this government, through you, sir, that charters of rights, amending formulae and referenda are not symbols but are the practical tools by which our nation will be governed in the future. All laws and especially fundamental constitutional laws are not worth the paper they are written on unless they represent a consensus arrived at by discussion and debate. You cannot force this bill down the throats of Canadians unilaterally without creating anarchy and rebellion. We are close to that now with eight provincial premiers, as of this morning, raising as loudly as they can their objections to this legislation, this resolution, this proposal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for South Shore has the floor.


André Ouellet: He is abusing it.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I never knew the truth could hurt so much. I do not believe there is any provision in this constitutional proposal which is more objectionable than the permanent enshrinement of a referendum to change Canada's Constitution. This is not just any referendum. It is a power to be given to the federal government to break a so-called deadlock, a deadlock that would be solely and totally determined by the federal government. It is a referendum which could be used to bypass the people's elected representatives and the provincial legislatures. It is a referendum which could be used by a majority to override the rights of minorities, the very people which the proposal purports to protect.
For reasons I have mentioned, 1 intend to vote against this resolution. I believe if it is passed by a majority vote that it will be the beginning of the end of our nation as we presently know and love it. I hope I will always be able to say I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think
right, free to oppose what I believe wrong and free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It seems my right to do just that is being questioned here this afternoon. It is the thin edge of the wedge when you cannot make a speech freely expressing your own views, opposing that which you believe wrong without the herd's uncontrolled yapping, trying to prevent me from putting forth those views in which 1 strongly believe. That is the very essence of my speech. Already our rights are being eroded. Those words I stated are the final words in the Bill of Rights as established by the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. I say in closing that they are as true today as they were when they were first passed by the Parliament of Canada.


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 congratulate the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) on a wonderful speech. We on this side appreciate what he has to say. I also want to comment on speeches made in this House by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) and the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean).
I congratulate all my colleagues on both sides of the House who sat on the constitutional committee. They did an admirable job and are to be commended. In particular, I congratulate my colleague for Provencher (Mr. Epp) who led the official opposition in the Constitution committee. He did a tremendous job.
The people of Canada are facing the most serious constitutional crisis since confederation. As the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) has often stated, the crisis has come about as a result of years of negligence and indifference on the part of the Liberal party.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has adopted an intransigent attitude on the question of constitutional change. All of the provinces have been made to feel they are simply fifth wheels on Ottawa's chariot. The provinces are realistic in demanding consultation in order to determine the shape and style of a new Canada.
Canada's future must be decided by the provinces and the federal government in council together. Let me say this, the future of Canada will not and cannot be decided by one man, Pierre Trudeau-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: -to suit his own private view of confederation. Canada's BN A Act was put together in 1867 by the provinces sitting around a table.


Jean-Jacques Blais: It was put together by Sir John A. Macdonald, if you want to know.


Steve Eugene Paproski: If it must be rewritten at this late date; let it be done in the same way as the original act was framed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister and I know, we were there.
February 20, 1981

The Constitution


Steve Eugene Paproski: 1 know Stanley Knowles was there. All you have to do is look at the pictures and you can see him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should be referred to as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Well, Steve, at least you are funny.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I do not intend to be funny. I think this is a very serious and pertinent topic, and I do not consider it to be funny. The minister says I am trying to be amusing. It is Friday afternoon; I think we can inject a little bit of humour, but this is a serious matter and I wish he would take my remarks as a serious speech.
I personally feel that the Constitution should be patriated unchanged, except for an amending formula and that amendments should be made in Canada by agreement with the provinces. I say with some confidence that the provinces would all be ready to settle for less power if they could be assured of more consideration by and consultation with the federal government. Let me say that one more time. I say with some confidence that the provinces would all be ready to settle for less power if they could be assured of more consideration by and consultation with the federal government.


Mr. Rossi:: You know they will never agree to that.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You would be surprised.
The requirements on what a workable constitution for a federal state must do for its people are indeed stiff. First of all, any constitution, and particularly a federal one like ours, is the general directing plan for the common life of its people. It is the supervisor of the life of the society. But the people who share in a federal system take different views of life and opportunity. Those views are ingrained in them by history, experience, occupation and inherited attitudes. Our greatest mistake in a federal system is to be unhappy because we cannot live in close unity like a loving family. If we were like that, we would not be struggling to live under a federal system.
1 believe this struggle arises largely out of excessive centralization of power in Ottawa. The malfunctioning of the party system in Canada is one of the results of this excessive centralization.
The policies of the Liberal Party have produced an acute polarization of votes in this country. There was originally- and this is still unresolved-a conflict between the Francophone and Anglophone communities.
[ Translation]
A conflict due to a large extent to the personality of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). And I quote in this regard journalist Jacques Poisson who wrote in the newspaper Le Devoir dated February 9:
Mr. Trudeau is, at one and the same time and to various degrees, the spoilt brat, the constitutional despot . .. the poisoner of the Canadian political climate.


Steve Eugene Paproski: My colleague, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) read something about Canada in the New York Times of February 8. 1 appreciated the hon. member's remarks, but why did he not read the article in Le Devoir of February 9? I do not wish to comment on some of the beautiful adjectives Monsieur Poisson used with respect to our Prime Minister, but let me just read a few things.
All told, Mr. Trudeau's public personality embraces, in varying degrees, a tyrannical brat, constitutional despot. . . crazed manipulator of human marionettes, demon of paradox-
I do not even know some of these words.
-expert. . . intimidator, master of contempt, poisoner of Canada's political climate, a narcissist searching for a cosmic mirror in which to reflect his ego.
Constitution, c'est MOl; democracy, c'est MOI; reason, c'est MOI; common sense, c'est MOI.


Roger Simmons: Who wrote that?


Steve Eugene Paproski: This is a great article by Jacques Poisson in Le Devoir on February 9. I noticed that Pravda has also endorsed the Prime Minister and what he is doing here in Canada. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Today there is an emerging conflict between east and west. Canada is a land of diversity. Our Constitution must therefore contain enough flexibility in its terms to enable us to come to compromises that will let us flourish in our diversity.
My father brought his family here from Poland and the Ukraine in 1929. Veen priyeekhav do Kanadi: that means "He came to Canada". My father did not come just to one town, he did not come just to one province. He came to Canada.


Roger Simmons: Hear, hear! Come on over, Steve.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He came to the Canada as seen through the eyes of our Fathers of Confederation which, despite those strained economic times, still offered freedom, opportunity and prosperity.
In this debate on the Constitution what we are really doing is acknowledging the uncomforting reality that the vision and hopes of men like my father and of generations before him may never more prevail in Canada.
The Liberal government has presented a resolution which contains a Canadian charter of rights and freedoms which makes no reference to the affirmation that "the Canadian nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God" as it is stated in the Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960 brought in by the Progressive Conservative government of that day. The opportunity and prosperity which is sought by all those coming to Canadian shores, in addition to cherished freedom, is also being undermined by this government.
The amendment presented by my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) reiterated a right which had been given to Canadians by the

February 20, 1981
The Constitution
aforementioned bill of rights, and that was "the right of the individual to enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law". This right now is being threatened.
The vision of a country which offered opportunity to pursue goals and aspirations in freedom has for many years attracted peoples from different lands to our country. Canada is people, and it is this very distinctive characteristic of our different peoples within Canada that distinguishes us from our southern neighbour and other anglophone countries in the world.
It is this embracing of the diversities of English-speaking Canada and the distinctiveness of French-speaking Canada that truly reflects the Canadian identity. It is the multicultural character of our country, profound in history and rich in traditions, which must be fostered and protected if we are truly to respect individual and collective freedoms.
I must say that I telephoned the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Fleming) this afternoon-or my office did-to say I would be speaking. I hoped the minister would be in the House. I know he is busy, but as a former minister of multiculturalism I wanted him to hear some of the things I have to say this afternoon.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Your heart is in the right place.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Liberal government has done nothing to promote a sincere and significant contribution to the development of multiculturalism in Canada. The so-called permanent policy on multiculturalism and its present minister are a shame. Just what is Canada without the recognition of its diverse cultural origins or without the official acknowledgement that over one-third of our population is neither of French nor English origin?
Multiculturalism goes beyond the entertainment novelty of song and dance. It is a history, a language and a way of life contributing to the Canadian social environment. It is certainly not something to be drummed out at election time or when the government needs to improve its public relations image.
The present minister in the Liberal government is a perfect example of what I have just said. That is why I said I telephoned his office. I wanted him to be aware of what I am saying to him today. One wonders about his priorities. Is he really promoting the multicultural nature of this country or is he concentrating on selling the Liberal government?


An hon. Member:: The former.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He is the minister of propaganda, the Goeb-bels of the Liberal Party.
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada recognizes the multicultural reality of the Canadian society and is committed to developing this premise. We should not simply accept or tolerate Canada's multicultural nature. We must celebrate it as a formidable guarantee of our uniqueness as a nation and our continued diversity and freedom as a people.
In keeping with this premise, the cabinet of the Leader of the Opposition has reflected this diversity of backgrounds- and I must mention in this context the Hnatyshyns, the Mazankowskis and the Paproskis, that great Irish team! No other cabinet in all of Canada's 112 or 113 years of history has had such a wide representation of talent and expertise. This cabinet was moving toward the enhancement of the multicultural program by proposing an upgrading of the status of this program within the structure of the Department of the Secretary of State.
In keeping with this commitment, the Leader of the Official Opposition last year established a new program within his office and appointed Michel Lamoureux as his special assistant for multiculturalism; he not only speaks French but also Italian, Spanish and other languages, and before I am finished it will include Ukrainian and Polish. Most Canadians, however, are really unaware of a multiculturalism policy in Canada, and those who are aware of such a policy perceive it only in the context of allowing immigrants to maintain their customs and folk traditions.
In one united and independent Canada, Canadians should enjoy effective equality in political and socioeconomic rights, irrespective of their ethnic origin, religion or mother tongue. All ethnocultural communities, from the Anglo-Celtic and French to the smallest ones, contribute to the Canadian cultural mosaic, and their cultural activities should be given moral and material support by the state in proportion to the groups' willingness to survive.
Section 27 in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this constitutional resolution refers to multicultural heritage. The section reads as follows:
27. This charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
These three lines are an insult to the non-English and non-French citizens of our country. This section is one of interpretation, not one of recognition that over one-third of Canada's population is neither of English nor of French descent.
I do hope that the Prime Minister of Canada and the Minister of State for Multiculturalism will seriously reconsider section 27 of the resolution and will enshrine in the Canadian Constitution the recognition that is due to the members of Canada's ethnocultural communities.
Hon. members opposite may think this is not a serious matter, and I hope the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) is not laughing at what I have had to say today. I have a lot of respect for francophones across this country as well as for anglophones, and I would like to see the same respect accorded to one third of our people who are neither Anglophone nor Francophone. I hope we will keep this in mind and consider it very seriously.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that at this time of the day my remarks will have to be split into two parts, so I will take the opportunity in my opening remarks to comment in a general way on some of
February 20, 1981

the highlights of this debate which has taken place so far. I have deliberately, as I did in the second reading debate, watched each of the speakers, listened carefully to what they have said and tried to put it into perspective.
I think the highlight of this debate, which is equivalent to the third reading of an ordinary bill, took place outside the House when the young hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) who, having been named the spokesman of his party on constitutional matters and having led the debate on behalf of his party in committee with distinction, moderation and sincerity on national television which covered that committee, went before the television cameras this week, along with three other members of his party, and told the people of Canada that he and the others could not vote for this resolution. It was a difficult thing for those four men to do. I respect that type of courage, not only because it was demonstrated by a member of a party which is different from my own but because it represents to me something that is very important.
This demonstrates that in every party there must always be someone who, on a tremendously important issue like this, will put the principles of his country first before party loyalty. I include in these remarks the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) in our party who, after a great deal of struggle and strain within himself and after talking it over with the caucus, announced that he will vote for the resolution, and he gave his reasons publicly. To my knowledge, not one Conservative member denied him that right. Now we see four members of the NDP saying publicly something which was said by the leader of our party on October 2. I will quote the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville from the press release of his statement, a very simple statement, which reads as follows:
Since I feel so strongly that this resolution ignores federalism-ignores the Canadian way-and will further divide the country, I have informed my leader, Mr. Broadbent, and my caucus that I will oppose this resolution when it comes to a vote in the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: Surprise, surprise.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have heard members of the House attack the party for being divided, and I heard a Conservative member, who disagreed very strongly with the NDP, come to their defence yesterday. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville went on to say in his statement:
-my basic opposition rests on the wrongness of the process.
This is the heart and soul of this entire debate. One cannot build a foundation or a house, let alone a constitution of a nation, unless there is purity of thought and purpose. One can build what only looks like a foundation or a house, but it is not a house unless it receives the time, care and attention it deserves.
1 would think Canadians are now somewhat more proud of Parliament than they were two or three weeks ago. They have heard a member of this party declare his sincere convictions which were different from those of the rest of us; he is one among a hundred. Also they have heard four members of the NDP stand up and declare their sincere convictions. They
The Constitution
know they can put more trust in a party which allows independence of mind on fundamental principles than they can when there is solid voting.
Among the 150 Liberals who sit opposite, I am sure there must be some who are concerned that they are destroying, by their stand in this House, the sincere position of Mr. Claude Ryan, the leader of the Liberal party in Quebec. Also they are destroying-and perhaps they want to-the position of the head of the government of Quebec, the Honourable Rene Levesque. These men are Canadians. The latter honestly confessed that he does not like the Anglos, particularly if they live in the city of Montreal or in London, England, but that he does not have anything against the rest of us.


An hon. Member:: Who says?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In 1961 he stood up in Ottawa as a member of the Lesage government, when he accepted the presidency of the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers, and stated that the only way the federal system would be saved was by co-operation.


An hon. Member:: He was a Liberal then.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, he was a Liberal then.


An hon. Member:: Today he is a separatist.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: He believed that there was good in Canada, if we worked together and co-operated.


An hon. Member:: What is he today?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If one asks him today why he left the Liberal Party-


An hon. Member:: It was because he was a separatist.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -he will say publicly and honestly, as he has done many times, that when he became a minister in the Lesage government he had no trouble getting co-operation from the government of the day from 1960 to 1963, but that he was faced with a new type of co-operative federalism in 1963.
During the Diefenbaker period more agreements were signed by the federal government with the provincial governments than at any other time in the history of confederation. These agreements dealt with matters mostly under provincial jurisdiction, but in the interests of developing a stronger Canada agreements were made with the provinces to carry these things forward.
We have heard in this debate that we would never have had a hospitalization plan or a medicare plan under this type of resolution. But in a constitution, in respect of which one thinks of working together, with sovereign rights held by provinces in certain fields and others held by the federal government, but both agreeing in advance that they will never break apart, one

February 20, 1981
Criminal Code
could always get agreement if there was a willingness to co-operate.
I was personally able to make agreements with Premier Duplessis. Surely he was a nationalist. My colleague at that time, the minister of labour, Mike Starr, made agreements with Duplessis concerning education, roads, forestry and power. If we could make agreements with strong nationalists in the province of Quebec who were yielding to no one in their awareness of their distinct culture, then why can other governments not do it?
Unfortunately in 1963 we inherited a prime minister who thought co-operative federalism meant calling the provinces in, sitting them down ten across the desk, listening to the civil servants behind them, and telling those provinces what they were to do. Unfortunately, for this late prime minister, he was up against six or seven of the toughest provincial premiers. It was like murderer's row across from him. There was Stanfield, Smallwood, Lesage, Robarts, Duff Roblin, Manning and Bennett. Who would want to take on those ten fellows and try to tell them what they were going to do? Everyone knows that Premier Lesage ran prime minister Pearson off the field of battle in no time. Pearson had to sacrifice his own ministry to bring peace between the federal government and the provinces.
In the last number of years the Canadian way of doing things by consensus has been steadily destroyed. Today we are debating a way of life in Canada. It has been put best by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) when he said that it was really a question of consensus or confrontation. The same comment was made by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and other people. The Canadian way and the only way a federal system will work is when everyone is treated as an equal, regardless of which level of government is concerned, until it comes time to pay, and then there is a little bit of argument. This issue of consensus versus confrontation as a technique was used successfully by governments of all political stripes for over 100 years, but within the last ten years they have experienced failure.
May I call it four o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that all motions preceding No. 38 shall stand, by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


CRIMINAL CODE
Walter David Baker: that Bill C-238, to amend the Criminal Code (invasion of privacy), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I must confess to the House that I am not the original draftsman of this piece of legislation. Nor is it the first time it has been before the House of Commons. This bill was first introduced in an earlier session of Parliament and spoken to on March 3, 1978, by Mr. Eldon Woolliams, Q.C., who everyone knows who has been here for a while, sat in this House from 1957 until 1980, latterly for the constituency of Calgary North.
There are many members of the House who did not know Mr. Woolliams. On the other, there are many who did know him. I think all of us who knew him, regardless of what side of the House we might sit on, felt him to be a truly estimable Member of Parliament, who, by his background and learning, brought a very finely tuned sense of justice and equity to the work in the House of Commons. If one reviews his background it is interesting to note that he was a practising lawyer, and still is, of great distinction in the province of Alberta. But not many of us know that he was a teacher before he became a lawyer. He distinguished himself as a trial lawyer and as a parliamentarian. He maintained his interest in the law. He was our party's critic with regard to justice and legal affairs. He appeared in that role on many occasions with respect to amendments to the criminal law and other things. He was a special delegate and lecturer for Canada to the United Nations seminar on human and civil rights held in Mexico City in 1961. He was a justice delegate for the Canadian Congress on Peace through Law in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in 1971. He carried himself in the House as an avid political partisan, to be sure, but also as an avid partisan of equity and justice, and reviewer of the law to ensure that the law evolved. He did so to ensure that the individual was not forgotten. It was because of his concern at that time that he brought forward this bill. It was a private bill with respect to certain amendments to the Criminal Code respecting the invasion of privacy.
As the House will remember, we have had some spirited debate in this House on the question of wiretapping and on the question of the necessity for the administration of justice to keep up with technological change while others not so interested in the preservation of order in society were doing so. He was very concerned, while these procedures were being carried out, that we become watchdogs of the rights of individuals in terms of the administration of justice. Mr. Woolliams' finely tuned sense of justice caused him concern about some changes in the criminal law which were made in favour of the individual during the minority Parliament of 1972-74 but which were changed in the Parliament that met later in 1974.
February 20, 1981

This bill raises a number of concerns which were important then, and which I suggest to the House are important now. They are important because of what has happened and what is happening to our society. There seems to be a willingness for society to accept the fact that it is now becoming a society of groups rather than a society of individuals. We have large corporations and large unions. We have advocates of law and order, and I happen to be one of them. But in some cases we have advocates of law and order who tend to downplay the importance of groups and talk about the importance of individuals. We talk about groups and people in terms of statistics. We are always talking about the percentage of unemployed, the percentage of disadvantaged, the percentage of senior citizens and the percentage of our population who are veterans. This is a reflection of a society which has turned inward and forgotten that inside those groups, which compete from time to time, there are individuals who count as well.
The history of criminal law has been in the direction of protecting society. It is an important direction but it ought not be the only direction of criminal law. Mr. Woolliams was concerned that the wiretapping legislation and the ability to govern electronic bugging had moved in this direction too far. What he did was propose a bill which would have preserved a number of things and, hopefully, moved the law back a shade from the direction it had taken. This bill is a simple one. First of all, if enacted it would protect the important right of privacy between the solicitor and his client. This would enable the solicitor and client to discuss openly the case with which they are concerned, in the tradition of the common law, without the fear of electronic bugging. As Mr. Woolliams said, one had to consult with one's client in the middle of a field in order to be sure that your conversation was not being electronically bugged.
This bill would also protect the right of privacy of candidates for political office, enabling them to freely discuss matters with their supporters, friends or with others who were involved after the writ was issued. This bill would guard against the admissibility in a court of law of evidence gained through electronic bugging. This bill which I have proposed today, which is really Mr. Woolliams' bill, would limit the use of evidence in a court of law which had been taken illegally. As hon. members in the House know, the Supreme Court of Canada has gone far beyond this basic principle.
The bill would also provide for the ultimate destruction of evidence obtained through the use of electronic devices two years after the completion of the matter for which it was obtained, the trial or the appeal. In this way, the electronically-obtained evidence would not be left lying around to be dredged up and used inappropriately at some other time.
The most important, and perhaps the most controversial aspect of this bill, is that if enacted it would reinstate the 90-day notification clause to ensure that the person against whom the electronic surveillance was being used, if it was not intended to continue, would have the benefit of knowing that. Under the law he would be notified that it had occurred.
Criminal Code
The purport of all these matters was to bring the law back a wee bit to ensure that the law would not be used against an individual in an improper way. I realize that is a very delicate balance; to balance the rights of society against the rights of the individual, but it is something which we must all guard against.
Those things which had occurred in the evolution of the law offended the finely-tuned sense of justice of the then member for Calgary North. But there is another reason why this bill is timely and why I want the government to consider either allowing this bill to go forward or, failing that, allowing it to go to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Privacy has become important in another way. All members of the House know that the government of which I was a member was working on privacy legislation which would have been introduced. They also know that the government in office has brought forward privacy legislation and coupled it with freedom of information legislation in Bill C-43. That bill is now before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. It was such an important piece of legislation that all of us agreed, notwithstanding the fact there were differences, the bill ought to go forward in one day, and in fact second reading debate on that bill took place in one day.
The whole issue of privacy from the point of view of the individual is there, and I think if we are to consider the question of privacy, then all matters of privacy, including the criminal law aspects, ought to be before that committee so we will know how they impact, criminal and civil one upon the other, and we can judge the evolution of the law in terms of the individual.
As I said earlier, we have become a society of groups. We have forgotten to a great degree the importance of individuals and that one of the most fundamentally important rights of a citizen in a free society is that of privacy. That is, privacy of his files, of personal information, privacy of his personal affairs and the important right of privacy from inappropriate snooping by police and authorities, however well intentioned. They are there to protect society but we must ensure that the zealousness of their pursuit does not override the rights of individuals to a free, unfettered and undisturbed life.
The electronic age is upon us and, as technology grows, the potential for that kind of interference grows as well. And I would ask the House, if it cannot see fit to approve the bill, to at least allow the committee now seized with the review of privacy legislation as part of Bill C-43, to also review it as it applies to criminal law. I daresay if the committee does this, they will find relationships and principles that apply in both fields and we will be doing justice to the subject of criminal law in great measure. But more than that, we will have an opportunity to review the operation of a very significant change in the criminal law of Canada, and in that sense this bill can provide the vehicle for that sort of review.
I do not intend to take up any more time of the House with respect to that. One could speak about how that electronic
7540

February 20, 1981
Criminal Code
surveillance provision in the Criminal Code came about; Hansard is full of that. 1 think the duty of Parliament is to look at new departures in the law from time to time; not to close the book on what has gone before, but to always be vigilant in ensuring that criminal law is applied fairly, that it is not wanting in some way or that individual rights are not damaged. To the extent that individual rights are not promoted, society itself is damaged. That delicate balance is something we should have under constant review and this bill provides the opportunity to do so.
The parliamentary secretary is here and 1 ask him to consider that request at least with respect to sending the subject matter of this important legislation, relating as it does to privacy, to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs so we can consider the civil and criminal aspects in respect of the law of privacy.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Trade)):: Mr. Speaker, I only want to say a few words. It is ironic to think that in this House we always learn at the last moment that the subjects which most interest us are going to be discussed. I had the opportunity to work with the member who originally moved this motion, Mr. Eldon Woolliams, with whom I also had the opportunity, in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, to discuss the admissibility in a court of law of evidence directly or indirectly obtained through illegal bugging.
Following this long debate in committee, we had introduced through the minister an amendment to Section 178.16 to make it again possible for the judge to refuse this evidence when it might tarnish the image of justice. I am, of course, aware of the debate to which the hon. member referred and which is now going on, especially in the United States, concerning the merit of the American rule of total exclusion. I do not want to give my own opinion on this issue at the present time as I know that other members want to take part in this debate, but even in the United States there is no unanimity among the judges or the members of the legal profession, who opt for one side of the argument or the other according to their approach to all the problems caused by the total exclusion rule, since there is no irrefutable evidence in the United States that this rule has prevented the police from acting within the limits normally allowed by law, as the sponsor emphasized earlier. The data on this issue is still very incomplete and it still remains to be shown that the exemplary nature of the total exclusion rule has had the expected results and that the law enforcement bodies have reacted in the way that the hon. member hopes that our own police forces would react to total exclusion.
On the other hand, the virtually total admissibility rule of English common law has caused other types of problems, since it encourages in fact certain action on the part of those who present this evidence without giving to the judge the possibility of maintaining the normal dignity of our courts. Such a
provision as Section 178.16(2), which has not yet been seriously tested by the courts, would tarnish the image of justice. I hope that it will be tested eventually and that, for once, our courts will show some legal initiative in this regard, and what I anticipate and wish is that this issue will finally be tested against Scottish common law, which does not follow the rule of total exclusion, but still stands out against the virtually total admissibility rule of English common law, by providing a series of criteria which the judge presiding at the hearing can use to exclude evidence according to the seriousness of the offence and the seriousness of the penalty which could be imposed on the accused if found guilty. So, Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that at last this provision would be applied, that at last it would be tested before Canadian courts, and as a result of the discussions we had in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs I was hoping that Canadian courts would imitate or try to imitate the jurisprudential trend which prevails in Scottish common law.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, I took the floor unprepared. I have a lot of documentation on this subject which fascinates me. I would have liked to be able to speak longer in the House but I am only trying to clarify a few points and to explain my own position on the subject. In this respect I would urge our Canadian courts to be more active and I also hope that lawyers and attorneys general will take the issue of Subsection 178.16(2) before the courts so they will be able to rule on it.


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). In most cases I find myself either agreeing or partially agreeing with what he says on various subjects from day to day as we seem to be on the same wave length. Today I can say that I do not agree with anything he has said on this particular bill. It does not seem that we are talking about the same thing.
This bill does not really talk about the rights of individuals; it gives lawyers and candidates for federal office more rights than the average individual and more rights when they are actually breaking the law. We are not talking about solicitor-client relationships but about lawyers using the telephones, or lawyers' partners or members of their households using telephones in order to break the law.
Talk about the right of the individual sounds very well in this House of Commons. I do not think the right of the lawyer was mentioned once by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. In Sault Ste. Marie several years ago a lawyer was actively engaged in a conspiracy to traffic in narcotics and the police were having difficulty finding the telephone he used. It turned out to be the barrister's telephone in the courthouse. That makes sense; if you are going to do something illegal, then use the telephone the police are least likely to tap. The police finally got an order to wiretap the barrister's telephone in the
February 20, 1981

courthouse and the evidence was used in a public trial to convict him.
There was a great deal of discussion amongst members of the bar in Sault Ste. Marie at that time about whether this was done in the spirit of the law. I think we came to the conclusion that as lawyers we were officers of the courts and should not be above the law; that at the very least we should be furthering the law and that to have more rights when breaking the law would be unacceptable. But that is exactly what would be proposed by the hon. member opposite, and it surprises me, Mr. Speaker.
We are looking for a delicate balance between the right of the individual and the right of the community as a whole to be protected. In this search for balance, which has been debated many times in this House of Commons, I do not think lawyers and Members of Parliament should have any more rights than the man in the street they are either protecting or representing. In effect, the bill would prohibit the wiretapping of any phone commonly used by a lawyer, and any communication of a candidate seeking election to the House of Commons during the currency of an election campaign. Why stop there? Why not extend this to municipal politicians or provincial politicians who break the law? After we have protected all these people while they break the law using the telephone by assuring that they cannot be wiretapped, then let us extend this to priests, ministers, psychiatrists and anyone who has a confidential relationship with another. While they are breaking the law, let us give them that protection.
It must be kept in mind that a wiretap authorization may be granted only if a judge-it has to be a judge to whom the application is made-is satisfied that it would be in the best interests of the administration of justice to grant the authorization, that other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed-these are all criteria-that other investigation procedures are unlikely to succeed or that the urgency of the matter is such it would be impractical to carry out the investigation of the offence using other investigative procedures only. These are all criteria the judge to whom the application is made can apply. The application is not made to a policeman or a desk sergeant or a duty officer, but to a judge, and it is he who must be satisfied that the criteria are met.
I suggest to the hon. member opposite that the principle that no person is above the law is firmly entrenched in the concept of the rule of law and not men.
There is a very serious case to which 1 should like to refer, Mr. Speaker, and probably most hon. members who have been round the House or involved with Quebec are familiar with it. The case was Roncarelli v. Duplessis. Mr. Duplessis was the premier and attorney general of the province of Quebec. Mr. Roncarelli sued Premier Duplessis, the right honourable, personally for damages arising out of the cancellation of his licence issued by the Quebec Liquor Commission. Mr. Roncarelli was not a professional bailsman-he owned a restaurant-but he provided bail for Jehovah Witnesses who were distributing pamplets in contravention of a Montreal bylaw of
Criminal Code
the day. This bylaw was ultimately struck off the books. At the trial Mr. Roncarelli won his case. He lost at the court of appeal. Finally, at the Supreme Court of Canada, he was successful.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who was his counsel?


Ron Irwin: I don't know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was Frank Scott.


Ron Irwin: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has alluded to a very well-known and famous civil libertarian who acted as counsel for Mr. Roncarelli. I think that only adds to the importance of the case because Mr. Scott's ventures into the courts were few and far between, and they were always on very important issues.
This was a landmark decision because it held, in effect, that no man, not even the premier of a province and an attorney general at that, is above the law or can act arbitrarily in disregard of the law.
The hon. member opposite is dealing with lawyers and then political candidates. In the Roncarelli v. Duplessis case the decision of the Supreme Court would suggest that this should not be so but that such persons should be subject to just as much scrutiny, be they the attorney general, a lawyer or a political candidate, if involved in criminal activity, as any ordinary citizen. That is the whole point, Mr. Speaker.
We go further than this, however. In 1977 this Parliament passed the Criminal Law Amendment Act which amended section 178.13(1.1) of the Criminal Code to read:
No authorization may be given to intercept a private communication at the office or residence of a solicitor, or at any other place ordinarily used by a solicitor and by other solicitors for the purpose of consultation with clients, unless the judge to whom the application is made is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the solicitor, any other solicitor practising with him, any person employed by him or any other such solicitor or a member of the solicitor's household has been or is about to become a party to an offence.
It is not a case of the client having committed a crime but of the persons indicated above being or about to become, a party to an offence. Parliament thereby recognized that the communications of a solicitor or, more properly stated, a client seeking legal advice from a solicitor, has a unique status in common law jurisdictions.
There is protection in the Criminal Code and there is protection-and I will get to this-given to clients but not to their solicitors who are committing crimes.
However, Parliament also decided that this privilege was not absolute and that where the solicitor or another solicitor practising with him or one of their employees or members of their households has been or is about to become a party to an offence as defined by Section 178.1, of the Criminal Code- they are not simple offences, in fact, they are very serious, including murder, treason, robbery, kidnapping, importing or

February 20, 1981
Criminal Code
exporting narcotics, etc.-a judge could authorize the interception of a private communication by electronic surveillance.
As a safeguard. Section 178.13 (1.2) was enacted which reads:
Where an authorization is given in relation to the interception of private communications at a place described in Subsection (1.1). the judge by whom the authorization is given shall include therein such terms and conditions as he considers advisable to protect privileged communications between solicitors and clients.
In other words, it is not a holus-bolus right to wiretap. The judge can make it mandatory and set out specific terms and conditions which must be adhered to by the police. For instance, monitoring might not be automatic, which is often the case. The tap is put on and the tape is let go for 24 hours before being checked. It could be directed to specific targets. It could be directed to specific individuals with whom the solicitor is dealing, and so on. There is no definitive description given in the section. It is a right, it is a mandatory obligation, and the judge must adhere to it in his examination of the request. The scope is minimized. Further, it is not the normal run-of-the-mill holus-bolus affidavit which usually emanates from the police in situations like this. The affidavit required in these specific circumstances must be quite clear, much more definitive and much more directed to the specific individual and the specific circumstances.
Section 178.12 formerly required that an affidavit filed in support of the authorization set out the names and addresses, if known, of all persons, the interception of whose private communications there are reasonable grounds to believe may assist the investigation of the offence and, if not known, a general description of the place at which the communications are proposed to be intercepted or, if a general description of that place cannot be given, a general description of the manner of interception proposed to be used.
The difficulty with that former provision was that the information required was disjunctive, not cumulative and did not give the judge enough background information.
Recognizing that more information was required for the judge before he could be satisfied that what he was doing was proper and just in the circumstances. Section 178.12 was amended to acquire further information.
I see the logic of my argument is driving the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton out of the House.
Section 178.12 is further amended to require that the names, addresses and occupations, if known, of all persons, the interceptions of whose private communications there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe may assist in the investigation of the offence, a general description of the nature and location of the place, if known, at which the private communications are proposed to be intercepted and a general description of the manner of interception proposed to be used. As well, the affidavit requires the number of instances, if any, on which an application has been previously made in relation to an offence of a person named in the affidavit and on which the application was drawn or no authorization was given, and so forth.
It is a very broad requirement. It is not like walking into your friendly candy store and obtaining permission to wiretap. It is carefully gone over. Affidavits are required and there are safeguards. Once these safeguards are adhered to and a decision is made by a judge, the lawyer who is engaging in criminal activity, the MP or intended MP who is engaged in criminal activity has no further right than any other individual has in Canada.
If you are talking about confidentiality of clients, these safeguards are in the Criminal Code already. The solicitor-client relationship and solicitor-client conversations are protected under the Criminal Code, and rightly so. We are not talking about clients who may be charged with a crime, we are talking about the lawyer who is engaged in a crime. There should be that freedom between clients and their lawyers.
As my allotted time is drawing to a close, I would say that in my opinion the private members' bill, and I say this respectfully, has absolutely no merit and should not be supported. Its dangerous consequences would be to put lawyers and their close associates above the law. If anything, lawyers should be in the vanguard promoting respect for and compliance with law. The hon. member opposite referred to his background. I am a lawyer. I have been a defence counsel, president of a law association and I have been a commissioner of police for a short time. I think I am looking at this problem with some sort of balance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have you ever had to go to a lawyer?


Ron Irwin: I could never afford a lawyer, that is why 1 had to become one.
As well as this extra right given to lawyers, the hon. member is saying it should also go to Members of Parliament. I think this is wrong. Necessary safeguards are in the Criminal Code. The wiretap is the last resort. It requires the authorization of a judge who must be satisfied that the wiretap is necessary and the conditions for it are met. Surely lawyers and potential parliamentarians should be subject to criminal investigation by wiretapping if they are involved in serious crimes. Surely they should have no more rights than the average individual on the street.
1 would implore hon. members not to support this bill. If hon. members want to look at wiretapping in general, and if there is a desire for more protection and more safeguards, that is one thing, but if hon. members say the safeguards are sufficient but, let us just give lawyers more, I say that is wrong.


Mr. A1 Mac Bain (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention this afternoon concerns Bill C-238 introduced by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), for whom 1 have the utmost respect. It was typical of the hon. member to mention that the bill was formed and prepared under the direction of a previous member of this House. Before coming to this House I knew about the professional reputation of the hon. gentleman. I am well aware of the standards he upholds in this House and before the Bar of Ontario. I, for one, as a
February 20, 1981

member of the other side of the House have always appreciated his quiet effective manner. He is always a gentleman and he always presents his arguments to this House in a like manner. It is therefore with some regret that I find 1 cannot support this Bill C-238.
Bill C-238 is an act to amend the Criminal Code, the invasion of privacy provisions, to safeguard lawyers and candidates of this House previous to an election. The bill upsets what the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton said. It upsets the delicate balance between the invasion of privacy of the individual and the protection of society against crime. It upsets the right of individuals and the responsibilities of our society to protect its members and citizens.
Bill C-238 would prohibit wiretapping of a telephone, commonly used by a lawyer or a candidate seeking election to the House of Commons during the campaign period. This bill would make lawyers and members of the House of Commons a special class of citizens. I spent 30 years in the practice of law and have just completed one year as the Member of Parliament for Niagara Falls. For neither of those designations would 1 claim a special privilege not granted to ministers, priests or any other member of society who deals with individuals in a very special way, including those concerned with crime.
I appreciate the underlying consideration, that this bill gives protection to the clients of lawyers and constituents of Members of Parliament. I suggest this special status is not required by lawyers or for those they represent. Wiretap orders are not given out lightly by our judiciary. In each and every case the judge balances the rights of the individual against the rights of society, to which I referred a moment ago.
Will we put certain people in our society above the law? We believe in the principle that no person is above the law. That principle ought not to be lightly turned aside. That point was made by the previous speaker, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Irwin). To suggest that a political candidate for this House, even if he may be involved in a crime, should have a special privilege denied to others, I cannot accept.
Before a wiretap order is given for a lawyer's telephone, the judge must be persuaded by affidavit evidence that the lawyer is or is about to become a party to an offence. That is a very special and significant provision. The order is not otherwise available to the police.
Except for special cases, a lawyer's telephone cannot be tapped. There is a built-in protection which, in my opinion, is sufficient for the lawyer and client relationship and to protect that principle which we all accept. In my opinion, the same necessity does not arise for a member of this House.
Should the principle in Bill C-238 be extended to make crime a safer business for anyone, even for lawyers? That should not be the case. When a judge grants a wiretap order where a lawyer is involved, the Criminal Code requires that in order to safeguard privileged communications between a lawyer and a client, in accordance with the normal relationship of solicitor and client, other conditions can be inserted by the
Criminal Code
judge if he deems them advisable. In most cases there would be special provisions.
If the premises of this bill are sound, why are MLAs and members of municipal councils not given the same protection?
I have been unable to make a distinction. I accept that the bill was introduced by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton in good faith and with great sincerity. I regret, as I said before, that I cannot accept the bill as having any merit. I do so with great respect for the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, of whom I spoke very highly only a few moments ago.
The bill would be totally unacceptable in the constituency of Niagara Falls. There is no way I can go home tonight, and I hope to be able to after spending two weeks in this wonderful city, the home of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, and have this bill accepted by the residents of Niagara Falls. It just would not be accepted. The people I represent do not wish to put lawyers or candidates for the House of Commons in a special class. We do not want, need or ask for this special privilege and this House ought not to grant it.
Lawyers have a special responsibility to society. 1 firmly believe that. In my early youth at Dalhousie law school in Halifax, Nova Scotia, which I had the honour to attend, we spent a lot of time discussing this fact. Lawyers, not just in Canada but all over the world, have a special responsibility and special duty to society. As the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie said, we are officials of the court. We have special responsibilities. I suggest we need no special privileges.
As lawyers we know that society is a thin veneer. We know that society is a delicate fabric. We know this from our study of the law and of what has happened to societies when the law has not been given the care and attention it has deserved. The place of law in modern society is well known to lawyers. We have a duty to uphold it. Every citizen has a duty to uphold the law, but 1 think most lawyers throughout the world would accept the principle that lawyers have a special duty to uphold the law. They ought not to seek any exemption from it.
If lawyers or candidates for election to this honourable House are involved in crimes and they fall into the net of the wiretap, I say, so be it. It will happen obviously, from time to time; no profession is completely free from the criminal element. I would be wrong to suggest that the profession of law, of which I, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton and the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie are members, is free from the criminal element, but we strive for that freedom. From the very day we enter law school that is drummed into us. It is drummed into us long before we learn about the rule of Rylands and Fletcher that lawyers have a special duty. Never in my years in law at Dalhousie-and I am sure this is true of the honourable institution attended by the two previous speakers-was there any suggestion that as lawyers we should be given any special privileges or any special exemptions from the law of the land or from the rule of law. I think we ought not to ask for that.

February 20, 1981
Criminal Code
As lawyers, like many others in our society today, we are concerned about organized crime in this country. It is a genuine concern. We are concerned that genuine police work is being hampered. I say genuine because lawyers also have a duty to ensure that the police do their duty within the law. When they do not do so, they must answer to the law.
We are concerned that organized crime is finding ways to get around the good laws of this country which are laid down to protect our society. Organized crime is finding ways to enter legitimate business and legitimate industry. This is of grave concern to lawyers, to politicians and to businessmen. There are many in our society who are concerned about this trend in our country and concerned that our neighbour to the south is experiencing a difficulty at this time. If history goes on the way it usually does, when there is a problem in our great neighbour to the south, that problem at a later time is usually found in Canada. This is a great concern to us.
1 ask this honourable House not to support Bill C-238.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, since four o'clock we have been listening to lawyers stating both sides of the case. Perhaps a non-lawyer might try to give the verdict.
I may say that whenever any measure having to do with wiretapping comes into this House, we are interested because our basic disposition is to be against it. However, since the time is limited, I had better get to what 1 have to say.
I say quite frankly to my friend, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), that I think those on the other side have made a pretty good case against the proposition in this bill that special consideration should be given to lawyers and candidates in a federal election, but I point out to those on the opposite side that there are five clauses in the bill. They have spent all their time on the one they could easily knock down. I wish they had given some time to clause 1, which has something to do with making it impossible to get an order for continuing authorization at the same time as one gets the original authorization.
I wish they had had something to say about Clause 2, which tries to strengthen the law so that wiretap evidence can be introduced in court only if it has been obtained legally. I think that is a pretty important matter to consider.
Then there is another clause which would reinstate the application of that part of the law, that used to be there, which makes it necessary for persons who have been subject to wiretapping to be notified within 90 days thereafter. Then
there is an interesting clause which suggests that certain materials which have been obtained by a wiretapping should be destroyed after a certain length of time. 1 am not surprised that my friends opposite did not attack these other points because they seem to have some merit.
One thing the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Irwin) said was well put. He said, "If you want to have a look at the whole question of wiretapping, fine; just don't concentrate on the business of a special privilege for lawyers and candidates." I agree with him with respect to the latter, but I think the other matters having to do with wiretapping are such that it would not hurt to have the whole question reviewed by the appropriate committee.
There is still time if hon. members opposite would like to bring forward a motion that the bill not be read a second time but that the subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for study.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the last participant in this debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), has brought his usual wisdom to the subject, for which we thank him. He gave us a number of insights which I believe should be pursued. He did the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and all of us a favour by pointing out what is the main weakness in this particular bill.
1 believe there is nobody in this House who feels very happy about the subject of wiretapping. It is an unpalatable subject in some respects or, to put it more correctly, it has some unpalatable connotations. Anything that can be done to make conditions for permission for wiretapping more stringent is a step in the right direction. The people on this side who have spoken before me have very rightly devoted their time to what would be, if this bill were accepted by this House, a monumental error on our part.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the other four clauses?


Roger Simmons: I was coming to that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.

It being 5 p.m. this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m., pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, February 23, 1981