1981-02-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
suggested retitling of legislation-motion under
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the Hazardous Products Act, the title itself, is used to prejudice potential customers against the use of cellulose fibre insulation, even though the product itself is safe, and that the act does not distinguish clearly between the danger of installation and the danger of the product itself, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in the interests of preserving fair competition in the marketplace, rename the act with a title such as the Products Safety Act, or any other title which will preserve fair competition.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY FUNCTION
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Last weekend ceremonies were held at Simon Fraser University to honour F. R. Scott, including a skit in which Michael Pitfield, Clerk of the Privy Council, was to portray the Clerk of the Celestial Council; the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was to portray the Holy Ghost; and the Chief Justice of Canada, the Right Hon. Bora Laskin, would portray the voice of God. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That this House request the Prime Minister to make a statement on motions as to whether the skit at the Scott ceremony at Simon Fraser University did in fact take place and represented a rehearsal for the real thing, in the unilateral attempt by the Prime Minister to have the Parliament of the United Kingdom pass a charter of rights for Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Last year the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) made an agreement with the Dene Tha Tribal Council in Alberta to provide some $5 million. Now he has apparently reneged on this agreement, with the result that the council is unable to pay its bills and contractors who worked on water and sewerage projects remain unpaid. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That a caveat be issued to all persons entering into contracts or agreements with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, warning them of the minister's demonstrated bad faith and the fact that he does not check with his officials as to the existence of funds before he makes all kinds of wild commitments and promises which he then does not keep.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, in view of the continuing controversy occurring in Winnipeg over the recent suspension of three girls from their respective hockey teams and subsequent threats of suspension toward their coaches for playing them anyway-and now the community clubs themselves have been so threatened-I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, to move a motion which almost had the unanimous consent of the House on last Thursday and which 1 hope will have unanimous consent today. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):

February 23, 1981
That this House encourages the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association to be more flexible and, in all fairness, to allow girls like Heather Kramble from the Pirates Community Club in Transcona, to play out the season with a view to sorting out this problem between seasons and not now at the expense of the girls and their teams.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) recently announced a $1 million emergency fund to help native communities prepare themselves for energy developments near their reserves, and whereas the minister has since withdrawn his commitment because the fund has not received Treasury Board approval, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That this House demand that the minister display greater consideration for the magnitude of his ministerial responsibilities by verifying all his press releases and statements prior to release with the senior bureaucrats of his department who are obviously controlling and running his department, so that the native people of Canada will not have to suffer any more disappointments than they already have at the hands of this flip-flop government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, the employees of Tel Air Systems of Oshawa, all of whom are women, have been on legal strike since November 24. Considering that the Canada Employment office in Oshawa is advertising for employees to break this strike, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker):
That this House instruct the minister responsible for employment and immigration to prohibit his offices in Oshawa from such advertising and thus stop this vendetta against working women on a legal strike.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSED MARKET ASSURANCE PLAN-SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE-MOTION UNDER
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since the proposed Market Assurance Plan for grain, or MAP as it is commonly known, is being promoted at this time in western Canada by the Canadian Wheat Board and members of its farmer-elected advisory committee, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That because the proposed Market Assurance Plan is new, and to adopt it without appropriate prior thought and attention could produce major changes in western agricultural policy and farming practices, a special committee be formed to investigate all aspects and implementation of the program. As a guideline, the committee could be made up of representatives of the three provincial prairie governments, western farm organizations, and members and support staff of the Canadian Wheat Board.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FORESTRY
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I am confident that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) would agree that the hybrid poplar project which is currently under way in southern Ontario is deserving of government support. In light of this fact, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin):
That the government continue to fund the hybrid poplar project for an extended period of time, once the initial five-year period is up.
I believe the five-year period ends next year, and I understand that DREE is responsible for funding the project in the amount of $2.5 million, with a similar amount to be funded by the Ontario provincial government.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?
February 23, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: No.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, today I received in a plain brown envelope-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: -a notice that the Liberal government intends to prosecute, without conviction, by imposing a $1,000 fine on anyone in the 33 metric test centres who refuses to use metric weigh scales on January 1, 1982.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Therefore, I move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie):
That this Stalinist approach to metric conversion against the will of the people of Canada be withdrawn by the government and that we follow the lead of the United States and proceed on a voluntary basis into metric conversion in the retail food sector.
It is high time the government listened to the consumers and businessmen, and not to the dictatorial regulations of the Metric Commission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Al MacBain (Niagara Falls):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of statements made this past weekend in Saskatchewan by Canada's Human Rights Commissioner, Gordon Fairweather, strongly endorsing the proposed charter of rights, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson):
That this House urge the official opposition to end its attempt to deny Canadians their basic liberties by voting to support the charter of rights in the current constitutional resolution now before this Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


PETRO-CANADA PURCHASE OF CANADIAN-BUILT JET AIRCRAFT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas PetroCan has ordered four new drilling rigs from American manufacturers, hired a Bermudan company to design its Logo, a New York company to find its office space, and a Lichtenstein company to construct an office building, and whereas PetroCan has just ordered two new Canadair challenger executive jet aircraft at a cost of $19 million, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-George-town (Mr. McDermid):
That this House congratulate PetroCan for finally buying something made in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIRPORTS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. With the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) paired, or twinned, under the Liberal buddy system with the member for Esquimalt-Saanich, and being a minister of the Crown, presumably claiming to be like his colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) in relation to Broadview-Greenwood, responsible for Esquimalt-Saanich, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That the minister acquit his alleged responsibility to that constituency by ensuring that funds earmarked for the Trident Aircraft Company by redirected toward the installation of radar at Victoria International Airport, giving him thereby greater peace of mind whenever he has cause to land there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

February 23, 1981
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I have some questions regarding the Petrofina acquisition, for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister will know that on September 3 to 10, the price of Petrofina shares increased by $16, and from September 29 to October 2 the price of Petrofina shares increased again by $11 '/2, in both instances as a result of takeover rumours. 1 wonder if the minister-and this is a very straightforward question-I wonder if the minister would state precisely when Petro-Canada made the first offer to Petrofina. What was the price of that offer, and were there any other significant terms or conditions?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I do not have the date of the first offer. It was some time last fall. There were discussions. 1 do not think there was ever a formal offer made by Petro-Canada, as a matter of fact. There were discussions, but the spread between what Petrofina was asking and what Petro-Canada considered was an appropriate price at the time was so big that nothing came out of these discussions. I do not remember exactly when-in the fall, or maybe mid-summer- but there were extensive discussions over a period of months.


DATE RESPECTING $120 PER SHARE OFFER
Charles Joseph Clark: I can
understand that the minister might not have those details at hand, and he would understand that it would be of interest to the House to have those details specifically. The fall is a long time. 1 would like to have any specific dates and any specific terms or conditions that might be at issue here, that the minister could lay before the House now.
As a supplementary, let me remind the minister that at the end of September Petrofina shares were trading at about $62'/2 a share. On October 13, 1980, the Montreal weekly Finance mentioned the specific figure of $120 as the price which Petro-Canada would make as an offer to Petrofina. Since that, in fact, was the price when the deal was announced in early February, 1 wonder if the minister can tell the House when was the first time the price of $120 a share was used in the negotiations. When did that price first arise?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, while the Leader of the Opposition is quoting the Gazette, I might quote him The Globe and Mail of November 15, 1980, when that paper was quoting an oil analyst who said that $1.4 billion was a fair value for Petrofina, and that was last November.


An hon. Member:: Now the question.


Marc Lalonde: As far as the question raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is concerned, as far as I know, this offer would have been made only late in January; but again, I will inquire at Petro-Canada and ask exactly when this figure was mentioned for the first time. I believe it would have been only in the last period of discussion that took place during the month of January. I will inquire.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL INVESTIGATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, just so that it is clear, I am interested in the last portion of the minister's answer. I am not necessarily interested in the offer. The kind of precise information we would like to have is when that price of $120 was first mentioned.
I have a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, who will know that there are inquiries being undertaken by exclusively provincial agencies into the Petrofina-Petro-Canada deal. The Prime Minister will know that there were at least three price jumps during the time of negotiations, some of which must have had to do with leaks. He would also know that there is a very significant federal involvement here. Not only are we dealing with a federal Crown corporation but significant amounts of taxpayers' money. I wonder if the Prime Minister would tell us whether this investigation is going to be left to the provinces or whether, in light of the unusual involvement of federal taxpayers' money, he will instruct the Solicitor General or some other appropriate federal minister to undertake a federal inquiry into this question?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the proper agencies to carry out this investigation are either the stock exchanges in their current operations, or the securities commissions of the provinces. These are the authorities, the agencies, that under our Constitution are provided with the responsibility for examining operations in the stock market. That is where those investigations should take place. I would argue with the right hon. member that, in addition, this ensures that there is complete independence, complete autonomy of those agencies in their investigation, and then the opposition will not be able to spread innuendos that the investigation is not going to be carried out in the proper way. It is going to be carried out by provincial agencies under their proper mandate, and we will wait for the report of those agencies.


ADVISERS INVOLVED IN NEGOTIATIONS
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The constitutional protection that the minister refers to has not stopped the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs from proposing the establishment of a federal securities commission so I do not see how he can justify
February 23, 1981

hiding behind that, in light of the investigation which the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has been seeking. Both the minister and Mr. Hopper, chairman of Petro-Canada, have referred to the role of advisers who were involved in the Petrofina negotiations. Could the minister please advise the House of the names of these advisers, what their role in the transaction has been, and when they became involved in it?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as far as the federal securities commission proposal is concerned, I am glad to know that we will have the support of the opposition if we ever come forward with such a legislative proposal. I would remind the hon. member, however, that unless and until such a body is instituted, the proper agencies to carry out those investigations are the provincial agencies that have been set up under the law to examine securities operations and securities regulations.
As far as the question raised by the hon. member is concerned, I will be very glad to inquire at Petro-Canada for that particular information but I suggest to him that this should be a question on the Order Paper rather than one put in the question period. 1 will be happy to ask for the information and provide it to him.


INSTRUCTIONS RESPECTING FUTURE ACQUISITIONS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I am not sure that the government will still be in place by the time the proposal for a national securities commission comes around if it keeps going on the way it is going now. Surely the government must realize that in this transaction, with all the leaks that have taken place and all the money that has been made, ministers were taken for patsies by the people involved in the transaction. These sorts of leaks rarely occur in transactions which incur private sector participants only. If strict precautions are not taken in the future, the minister will be taken for a patsy again. Will he state clearly to the House what instructions he has given to Petro-Canada to avoid a recurrence of the leaks which have clearly taken place and which have proven to be so costly to Canadian consumers and taxpayers?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the instructions are standing operating instructions to all Crown corporations in such a situation, and to Petro-Canada in particular. Before the Petrofina takeover, Petro-Canada had already carried out two takeovers, one of Pacific Petroleum and the other of Atlantic Richfield, which proved exceptionally good bargains for Canadians. I submit that the Petrofina acquisition will prove to be the same.
As far as the alleged leaks that the hon. member refers to are concerned, I have indicated to him that if he has evidence of any leaks taking place he should refer it either to me or to the securities commissions. I will be happy to refer it to the securities commissions for investigation.
Oral Questions
As far as leaks are concerned, I have checked this matter carefully myself, and I have no evidence at all that there could have been any leaks-


Mr. Nielsen:: What about circumstantial?


Marc Lalonde: -coming from officials of Petro-Canada. There is not a shred of evidence in that respect. As 1 said, I have examined that aspect. If there were any leaks from Petrofina officials, I am not in a position to assess them. The best way to assess this problem is to have the securities commissions carry out their normal investigations in this matter. That is the way it should be done, and that is the proper way of doing things in business. My hon. friend should know that.


COMBINES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns Thomson Newspapers Limited. This is the same company whose questionable behaviour a year ago led to the government's establishment of the Kent commission on press ownership. My question pertains directly to Thomson's announced takeover bid for Abitibi-Price, the country's largest producer of newsprint. Since such a takeover would further concentrate Thomson's already vice-like grip on the industry and reduce competition in the industry throughout the country, would the Prime Minister take the opportunity to make it very clear that the Government of Canada opposes this takeover bid?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I cannot make that clear at this point because 1 am not informed of the details of the operation, or even of its more particular aspects. But willingly I will undertake to draw the matter to the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the facts are clear, a takeover bid has been announced by Thomson-already one of the largest firms in the newspaper business in Canada-to take over the largest producer of paper. If the Prime Minister verifies these facts, which 1 am sure are the facts, would he at least guarantee to the House that he will take steps to stop this takeover bid, at least until the Kent commission itself looks into its implications and makes a recommendation on the subject matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for having guaranteed the veracity of the facts. But he, himself, has not expressed any opinion as to whether there exists any law which would permit us to prevent such a

February 23, 198 i
Oral Questions
takeover, if that is indeed what is in the works. I would have to inform myself of that particular point.
There are many things which the government would like to see done or not done, but it does not always have the legal means to achieve that end-


An hon. Member:: That never stops you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and that is what I would like to ascertain. Madam Speaker.


REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN TAX LAW
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, there are two points. Of course the government can express its opinion whether it thinks it is in the public interest or not, and that is clear. Second, it can find out whether there are certain laws, as the Prime Minister has suggested, by which it could act to stop such a takeover. However, there is one specific law in existence which I would like a commitment from the Prime Minister to change. Current tax policy permits firms, taking over other firms, to write off as a deductible expense the costs of such takeovers. Therefore, the people of Canada are financing the takeover of some firms by others, which adds nothing to the productive capacity of Canada. Since this law is regressive in its effects, will the Prime Minister take steps to get rid of that law?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the general subject of concentration, particularly in the newspaper industry, and one which the hon. member recognized, led us to set up the Kent commission. 1 presume that if it finds the laws or policies have to be changed in any particular area to ensure greater freedom of the press, it will make such recommendations to the government and the government, of course, will consider them very earnestly. That is why the Kent Commission was set up in the first place.
In so far as the particular tax law is concerned, to which the hon. member alludes, I would want to refer it to the Minister of Finance. It would seem to me, not being a tax expert as I believe the Leader of the New Democratic Party might be, that this law has its justifications in many areas since it has the effect of preventing some companies from going bankrupt, preventing workers from losing their jobs leading to an incentive to one company to help the survival of another company. There may be some exceptions, but it seems to me that the hon. member would be a bit imprudent to suggest that the law be changed, that the tax policy be changed completely if it is to lead to an increasing number of unemployed.


COMPENSATION PAYMENTS TO FARMERS FOR EMBARGO ON SHIPMENTS TO RUSSIA
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. A year ago the Prime Minister made a commitment to western grain farmers that they would be paid compensation because of the embargo on the sale of grain to the Soviet Union. When will that payment be made by the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 undertook then, as I believe the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition had, to the extent that damages could be ascertained and ascribed to the boycott, that damages would be paid. That is our commitment. I understand that officials of the various departments involved, in co-operation with the farm groups, are establishing those damages and will be finishing their work very soon. The matter is not one of paying compensation. That is agreed. The matter is one of determining how much compensation should be paid. That, of course, is related to the amount of damage suffered by the farmers as a direct result of the boycott policy of the previous government and of this government.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: On December 9, 1980, the Minister of Agriculture stated in this House as reported at page 5549 of Hansard:
The final report has yet to be submitted, and I hope this will take place within a few days.
Will the Prime Minister direct the Minister of Agriculture to give this priority attention? Also, will he undertake to have the Minister of Agriculture either make a statement in the House giving the basis upon which this compensation is to be paid, or appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture so that the computation can be examined by members of Parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker. It would be important when compensation is paid to the farm community that indeed all members of this House be in a position to know on what basis the amount was established.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In the past, his government has always refused to submit its constitutional proposal to the courts, under the pretext that this was not a case to be decided by Canadian courts but rather by the British political authorities. Can the minister tell us if his
February 23, 1981

755!
position with regard to the courts remains unchanged? Can he also tell us why he greeted the Manitoba Court of Appeals judgment with such optimism? Finally, would he repeat in the House what he told the committee, and I quote:
The only obstacle in his way was a possible negative judgment by the court.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I have on several occasions answered such questions in committee, and since the matter is before the House I do not think it would be appropriate to go over the committee's work.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, my supplementary concerns section 2 of his resolution which deals with freedom of conscience. Does the minister think that the courts could use this section to invalidate the laws which prohibit businesses from staying open Sundays and on Christmas Day? If not, could the minister provide us with a legal explanation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member had bothered to come to the committee hearings, he would have had an answer to this question. He can always read the minutes of the committee. I do not intend to use question period to go over the work done in committee.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In a recent interview in Halifax the minister said that the armed forces re-equipment program now has top priority within his department. His chief of defence staff indicated that personnel costs are being given a top priority. He said:
Instead of having the capital grow at 12 per cent real growth, we are now having it grow at 10 per cent real growth, because we know that in the personnel, operating and maintenance area there is a need for real growth.
Which of these conflicting programs has top priority?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, there is no conflicting statement. The National Defence re-equipment program has been going very well for the past two years. I mentioned previously that after the re-equipment program we will be giving top priority to the question of personnel. As far as the increase in capital expenditure or real growth is concerned, 1 believe the defence estimates will be tabled on Wednesday. The hon. member will then be able to see if we stand by our commitment that in the next few years the real growth of defence will be increased 3 per cent.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, according to the CBC the minister was also asked while in Halifax what he intends to do about Canada's noticeable lack of a minesweeping capability. The minister replied that he would discuss the problem at a
Oral Questions
NATO meeting. Would the minister tell the House what he intends to ask our NATO allies in this regard, and would he also tell the House what has happened to the follow-on ship study commissioned by the previous government which he has now had in his hands for eight months. Will he now table it?


Mr. Lamontagne:: In reply to the hon. member's question, my answer with regard to minesweeping was very clear. I said at the time that our NATO allies, including the United States, were concerned about the question of minesweeping and that for Canada it was a question of priorities. As 1 just mentioned, re-equipment of our forces is a priority and personnel is a priority. We will see in the future if our financial resources are sufficient to get into something like minesweeping. However, at the moment there are other priorities.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. In light of recent reports that the office of native employment has reported failure to convince government departments to hire native people despite a Treasury Board directive to do so, what new initiatives is the minister going to announce to ensure that government departments comply with Treasury Board directives?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: I thank the hon. member for that question, Madam Speaker. The matter of native people's representation is of great concern to Treasury Board and to the government. As the hon. member knows, an affirmative action program was launched last summer to correct this problem, not only with respect to native people but also with respect to women and handicapped people. That project is proceeding on schedule with three departments, my own, the Department of Secretary of State, and Employment and Immigration. I am very disappointed with the results of the report of the joint council to which reference was made in this morning's Globe and Mail. I expect the report will be presented to Treasury Board ministers for review within the next few days.
I might add there are some good things happening, particularly in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which is one of the departments principally involved with this program. In that department there has been an increase in native representation from 24 per cent to 27 per cent. The hon. member might be interested in listening to this answer because I am sure he will be pleased to note that two thirds of this increase is in the officer category. I am by no means whitewashing the performance across government, because it has been poor, but I want to point out that we are working actively and we share the concerns expressed by the hon. member.

February 23, 1981
Oral Questions


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, 1 expected the minister would be ready to answer the charges in this morning's Globe and Mail. I also expected he would say they have programs within three government departments. However, I checked with Treasury Board officials to see how many people are involved in the affirmative action program. I found out that in the Department of the Secretary of State, only six people have been hired to look at that. In Treasury Board there are only four, and in the Department of Employment and Immigration, the department of the minister responsible for the status of women, there are only four people to look after the affirmative action program within the public service. 1 ask the minister a straight question. Does he think that is good enough to provide equality for women, native people and the handicapped in this country?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I would point out that we already have equal opportunity programs with respect to these three categories across government. The affirmative action program was designed as a pilot project to be applied to three departments in three phases. We will be nearing the completion of the first phase in the near future. It is to get at systematic discrimination against these groups in the public service. For that purpose we have launched pilot projects with competent personnel. We are on schedule, and when those results are known I hope we will then launch a governmentwide effort. However, we are not about to bloat the person-years of the government on a program not yet properly defined and fine tuned.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
In recent years certain regions of Canada have experienced problems because large multinational companies have had to close down. This was the case on the North Shore at Sept-Iles, Port-Cartier and Schefferville, and ten years ago Gulf Pulp had shut down at Clarke City. I would like to know whether he intends to review the legislation concerning the closing of those multinationals and to see whether it might be advisable to tighten up the regulations governing plant shutdowns.
Madam Speaker, I would also like to know if he would agree to have the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Labour set up a study group which would report to the House on the possible closings of those multinationals so as to make sure that the workers and the regional economies are truly respected?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the House is aware that the Government of Canada has taken the lead when it comes to establishing behaviour guidelines for multinationals in the various countries where they operate, and Canadian expertise in that field is well known.
However, the hon. member is right when he points out that it is sometimes in the application of those guidelines that there is still progress to be made. In January three ministers of this government announced measures to be taken and funds to be spent to assist workers laid off as a result of such closings or such curtailed operations, and the hon. member will recall that the government is always prepared to protect workers against such operations. I am simply assuring the hon. member that the North Shore cases he has brought to my attention will be examined by the ministers and that we will do our utmost to make sure that the workers are fully respected.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. When asked how many natives worked for his service Mr. Paul Croft, spokesman for the correctional service, said giving out that information would violate human rights, but when asked how many people or natives were in prison, he said 841 inmates, or almost 9 per cent of the federal prison population, are natives. I ask the minister what will he do about this obvious and blatant hypocrisy on the part of this man under his charge?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I suggest that question should be properly put to the Solicitor General. I have not read the statement, but the Treasury Board is not responsible for all statements made by all public officials simply because they are in a particular employment group.



REQUEST FOR REPORT

Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. I wonder if the Prime Minister sees the incongruence in those two statements made by a public official. Would he take this under advisement, look into it, and see what he can do about this obvious hypocritical statement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to ask for a report on the incongruity of those statements.
February 23, 1981



REQUEST FOR EXAMINATION OF AIR QUALITY IN CHAMBER

Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, 1 had planned to put my question either to the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of the Environment, but in their absence I shall put it to the President of the Privy Council.
For a number of months I have been sitting here watching the Manitoba Tyndall stone up above the galleries opposite us getting blacker and blacker around each of the vents. I do not know whether they are heating vents or fresh air vents. I have checked, and some of this is taking place on this side of the chamber as well.
In view of concern about the environment, and in view of concern about some of the ideas which are expressed in this House, perhaps an examination of the air we are breathing should be made. If whatever is coming through those vents is blackening the Manitoba Tyndall stone, what is it doing to some of us?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I point out that the worst of it is on the government side. Will the government House leader have either the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Public Works look into this matter? Perhaps he might do it himself, in view of his responsibility to the members of this House.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the President of the Privy Council for that favourable and positive answer. I should like to put a supplementary question to him.
Will he consult with the Chair as to the possibility of permitting the television cameras or the still photographers to take pictures of this blackness so that the public will know what it is we are concerned about?


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Madam Speaker.



REGULATION CONCERNING IMPORTATION OF COFFEE

Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, now that we have taken care of the important issues, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Just about a month ago Canada signed an agreement with the International Coffee Organization to monitor the import into and distribution of coffee within Canada. The minister's department notified customs brokers on January 29 that, effective February 1, a new form called a certificate of re-export issued by the United States government would be required for importation of coffee into Canada.
Oral Questions
I would like to ask the minister how he can expect importers to comply with that regulation, which requires the U.S. government to supply the forms, when he notifies the brokers three days before those forms are required. Can he assure the House that members of his department are not stating government policy when they say that they will withhold imports into Canada until those forms have been used?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend has raised an interesting point. I will look into it and get back to him as soon as possible.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, it is bad enough that the brokers were notified only three days in advance that they had to comply on February 1, but members of the Department of National Revenue customs division were notified February 11 that those forms would be required. Can the minister get in touch with the Minister of National Revenue to get the government's house in order? In view of the fact that one of the American suppliers is threatening a boycott of imports into Canada if this mess is not cleaned up, will the minister make certain that the government departments are functioning as they ought to, so that the brokers and the importers do not suffer injury as a result of the bungling of the government?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, in looking into the matter 1 will take steps to see that there is proper co-ordination between the various departments and the importing community.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about the damage caused to the environment by acid rain. They are therefore asking the federal and provincial governments to take action before the point of no return is reached. Since 50 per cent of the acid rain comes from the United States, will this question be one of the main issues to be discussed during the visit of President Reagan in Ottawa on March 10 and 11 ?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I must admit to the hon. member that the agenda has not yet been finalized, but I can assure him that I shall see to it that this subject is discussed. As the hon. member will know, at the Venice meeting held last June, Canada underlined its environmental concerns and insisted that protection against acid rain be considered in the preparation of the final communique, which referred to the increased use of coal. At that time, Canada stressed the care which must be taken in the area mentioned by the hon. member. I can assure him that I

February 23, 198!
Oral Questions
shall once again emphasize this concern of Canadians to President Reagan during his visit to Canada.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, my question is somewhat supplementary. It is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The visit of President Reagan provides an important milestone in the history of Canada-U.S. relations and should be used not only to examine current bilateral problems such as acid rain, the fishing treaty and the Garrison dam, but also to look ahead to new ways of manifesting the joint interests of Canada and the United States. Is the minister's department proposing any new measures to deepen the co-operation between Canada and the United States? Will these new measures go into the fields of international development and space research?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, at this time I think we will not propose to the American administration any specific measures for the future, but indeed we will propose to them general co-operation on matters which will benefit both our countries and the world.


Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, if we are not going into future expansion of our long history of co-operation, then I should like to ask the minister a very pressing question. Will the government impress upon President Reagan the importance of his agreeing to attend the North-South Summit in Mexico and of his lending the great weight of the American government in a positive way to help break the current North-South deadlock?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, certainly we feel very strongly that the United States should exercise leadership in the world by participating in this very important summit. I have already conveyed that message to Secretary Haig. I cannot speak directly for the Prime Minister-he can do that for himself-but I am sure this message will also be given to President Reagan during his visit.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs. Due to double digit Grit inflation, has the minister given any consideration to preparing a new and
specialized index on which pension increases would be based on an index more in line with actual expenditures made by veterans or widows, rather than the consumer price index currently being used?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, all the aspects of the program aimed at improving the lot of veterans are considered, especially as concerns inflation. As everyone is well aware, both for pensions and allowances, we ensure that benefits are indexed yearly in some cases and quarterly in others. We are always concerned about the income of our veterans and especially that of their widows being eroded by inflation, and we shall look into this matter as carefully as possible.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, I have a brief supplementary question. The government energy pricing policy and the budget have hit particularly hard at recipients of veterans pensions. Would the minister consider an energy supplement to pension payments?


Maurice Lamontagne: This will be taken into consideration, Madam Speaker.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It follows on the question asked earlier as to what the agenda will be with respect to the meeting between the Right Hon. Prime Minister and the President of the United States. Will the Skagit River issue also be placed on that agenda?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member those assurances now for the same reason I gave the hon. member for Gaspe, that the agenda is presently being negotiated. In the case of the Skagit River, I can be less definite than I was in the case of other cross-border pollution problems because successive provincial governments of British Columbia have been deeply involved in this matter. As the hon. member knows, they signed a contract with the city of Seattle and took money from that city over a period of years, which makes the federal government position a little less easy to define.


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, as the Right Hon. Prime Minister knows, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs the Government of Canada filed briefs with the International Joint Commission defending and taking a position in favour of the province and of those Canadians who do not want this Canadian valley flooded. In view of the fact the Government of Canada is taking this position at the Interna-
February 23, 1981

tional Joint Commission, would the right hon. gentleman please give this some consideration? It would be of very great help if the matter were raised in direct conversations with the President of the United States.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, certainly I can accept the hon. member's suggestion and give it very serious consideration. The Government of Canada, as the member says, supported the application or the appeal by British Columbia before the IJC. The IJC remains a quasi-judicial body unique in character, since it is composed equally of members from both countries. But I repeat that this case is different than, for instance, the Garrison project, where our representations have been clear, continued and, I would say, effective, at least during the period President Carter was in office. In the case of the Skagit, the position I have taken over many years with successive premiers of British Columbia is that they signed a contract with the city of Seattle, they received money from the city of Seattle to compensate them for flooding, and the best course would have been to negotiate out of that agreement by paying compensation to the city of Seattle. The governments of British Columbia have always refused to heed my advice in that regard, and I cannot say that they had no right to do so. I just say that now they have chosen the appeal route to the IJC, the best we can do is to support them.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Recognizing that the prolonged British Columbia Telephone strike is in fact not only of interest of British Columbia but also of national interest, in that a benchmark settlement may well be established, and in that the strike is now impeding the rapid real growth the province has been experiencing, and in that the disruption to business and to the service industry has reached a point that a settlement is now becoming highly essential, does the minister intend to take further action to bring the parties together in order to achieve a settlement?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, the question of a settlement in the British Columbia Telephone dispute certainly is a very important one, particularly in the British Columbia area, but in general as well. It appears that the area of settlement would not establish a benchmark at all, in view of other settlements in other disputes in the British Columbia area at the present time and the quantum of the settlements involved.
We are in the very strange position that last week the parties agreed on all elements of settlement but, as the hon. member knows, the company put forward in a rather bizarre and unprecedented preamble that it would only be willing to put those settlement figures into effect at such a time as the CRTC approved a further increase in rates. In view of the
Committee Reports
editorials by at least two leading newspapers in the Vancouver area and the overwhelming attitude of the public, including the business public, I think that such a preamble or condition is totally unreasonable and that the appropriate way for the matter to be settled now is for B.C. Tel to forget the preamble and agree to the terms negotiated by my very able mediator, Mr. William Kelly.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, I think it is appropriate for the minister to make a strong statement against the actions of the telephone company, but in fact it threw it somewhat back into the ball court of the federal authority. I do not think it is good enough just to say that is it.
Is the minister saying that there is no potential for assistance from his department or no possibility of the minister assisting in pulling the parties together now that this action has been recognized as unsuitable? Is it not time, or does the minister not see a time in the very near future that he will have to step in and take some action in the public interest which is now being damaged severely in British Columbia?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, certainly 1 appreciate the genuine concern of the hon. member for the problem, particularly for third parties who are having difficulty in achieving installations in order to take possession of new space, and for new buildings to open, and other problems. Now of course, with the general strike, a great inconvenience may develop for the public as a whole, but as the hon. member is fully aware, the powers of my department are those of persuasion and of mediation.
Having had our most able mediator involved, and having brought the parties together, I am not sure what more could be done at this time which would not interfere with the free collective bargaining system. I presume the hon. member is not suggesting that we force a settlement on the parties. In the absence of that measure, it seems to me that the best weapon for the moment is public pressure on the parties, and particularly on the company, to realize how unreasonable the condition is that they added to what would otherwise be a settlement.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Alexandre Cyr: that the third report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, tabled in the House on Friday, February 13, 1981, be concurred in. Motion agreed to.

February 23, 1981
Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,535, 1,620, 1,731, 1,786, 1,819, 1,892, 1,995, 2,050, 2,066, 2,077 and 2,084.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What is the forecast level of subsidy which the government will have to pay VIA Rail Canada for (a) 1980-81 (b) 1981-82 (c) 1982-83 (d) 1983-84 (e) 1984-85?
2.	What steps will be taken, if any, to improve VIA's financial viability and reduce its burden on the taxpayer?
3.	For distances (a) of less than 200 miles (b) 200 to 500 miles (c) over 500 miles, what is the ranking of the various modes of passenger transportation in terms of fuel efficiency per passenger mile?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1.	(a) The forecast level of government subsidy payment for VIA Rail Canada Inc. for the fiscal year 1980/ 81 (in 1980 dollars) is approximately $324 million. See list below for a detailed explanation of this figure. In addition to operating subsidy payments, the government is providing funds in support of a major capital improvement program being undertaken by VIA. For the fiscal year 1980/81 (in 1980 dollars), capital payments are expected to equal $117.5 million.
(b), (c), (d), (e) The subsidy funding levels for the fiscal years 1981/82 to 1984/85 have not yet been approved and therefore are not available at this time.
2.	The following action has or will be taken to improve VIA's financial viability and reduce its burden on the taxpayer. In accordance with the transportation policy statements made by the government in 1975 and 1976, periodic reviews of rail passenger services are conducted to determine or guide policy decisions on its future direction. Selective review and restructuring of the rail passenger system to best suit public need is beii.g carried out through rationalization plans developed in the past by the Canadian Transport Commission and formulated now by VIA. The plans are implemented subject to the results of public hearings conducted by the CTC to ensure system changes are not contrary to the public interest. Transport Canada provides operating subsidies to VIA under a contractually based financial system which is designed to offer incentives to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of VIA's over-all operation. Capital is provided to VIA to improve the operating efficiency and marketing attractiveness of the fleet. In this respect, VIA has undertaken a program of capital investment in LRC (Light, Rapid, Comfortable) trains and in the improvement of existing equipment. Reservia, a computerized reservation and ticket printing system, was introduced in the spring of 1980 to provide more efficient service to the public. Linkage of the system with Air Canada's Reservac system is planned to further improve VIA's customer service. An aggressive marketing strategy has been adopted by VIA which has resulted in traffic gains at a current rate of about 10 per cent annually. VIA expects to buy or lease those passenger train stations currently owned by CN or CP which VIA requires to operate its services. Conversion of certain of these stations to multimodal (i.e. housing bus operations as well as rail) stations is being considered to allow more cost-effective use of the facilities and convenient modal transfer. Studies designed to test or assess technical and economical improvements in service are part of the government's and VIA's ongoing activities.
3.	(a), (b), (c)
Based on current average modal load factors,-bus, rail, automobile, and air in this order-are increasingly less energy efficient at any distance above 100 miles, the minimum distance measured, taking into account only 'direct' energy expenditure. Direct energy being that which is used to propel a vehicle. If 'indirect' energy consumption (i.e. the energy used to produce the fuels used to manufacture and maintain vehicles and to construct, maintain and operate the associated infrastructure) is included as well, the auto is more efficient than rail at distances of less than approximately 150 miles. Otherwise the ranking is unchanged.
1980/81 Estimates Payments to VIA Rail Canada Inc.
Original Operating Contract Minus x budget cut
$301.8 million
3.5
* plus Supplementary Estimate (1980) plus Labour Assistance
$298.3 million $ 20.6 million 5.0
Approved Operating Subsidy
$323.9 million
Approved Capital
117.5
Total Payments	$441.4 million
* The $20.6 million is part of a supplementary estimate for $36.3 million for revised operating costs charged to VIA by CN. Of this total, $10 million was approved to cover charges for 1979 (calendar year), $20.6 million for 1980 (calendar year), and approval of the remainder was deferred pending the disposition of the cabinet document on the rail passenger program. The difference between the figures of $454.9 million appearing in the government Estimates Book and the figure of $441.4 million is the $10 million of the
February 23, 1981

supplementary estimates applied to 1979 and the $3.5 million budget cut.


Mr. Cossitt: Does an organization known as "I Am" or the Institute of Applied Metaphysics, or any subsidiary etc. connected therewith, have a Department of National Revenue number making donations deductible for income tax and, if so (a) on what date was this granted and for what reason (b) is or will an investigation be made as to whether it should be rescinded and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Claude Tessier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: (a)	I Am-Institute of Applied Metaphysics was granted the status of a registered charity effective January 24, 1972, and is therefore enabled to issue official receipts for income tax purposes to its donors. Its registration was granted in accordance with the Income Tax Act because, on the basis of information available, it met the requirements of the Income Tax Act for registration as a charity.
(b)	As is the case with any taxpayer, a registered charity may be audited at any time for taxation purposes and every year selected charities are included among taxpayers audited by the department. The confidentiality provisions of the act do not permit disclosure of whether an audit of this taxpayer has been, or will be, undertaken.


Mr. Stewart: 1.	Since the inception of the Language Training Program, what was the total cost of administration for (a) the Public Service (b) Crown corporations (c) RCMP (d) the Canadian Armed Forces?
2.	How many (a) public servants (b) employees of Crown corporations (c) RCMP personnel (d) CAF personnel have had instruction in (i) French (ii) English?
3.	What percentage of candidates on completion of training were then deemed to be functionally bilingual having as a mother tongue (a) French (b) English?
4.	Since the inception of the bilingual bonus, what was the total amount paid to public servants and others who qualified for the incentive?
5.	How many (a) public servants (b) employees of Crown corporations (c) RCMP personnel (d) CAF personnel received language instruction in (i) Ottawa (ii) other areas of Canada (iii) outside Canada?
6.	How many (a) public servants (b) Crown corporation employees (c) RCMP personnel (d) CAF personnel were brought to Ottawa from other points in Canada to undergo language training?
7.	What is the average (a) length of a language training course (b) cost per pupil?
8.	How many (a) public servants (b) Crown corporation employeees (c) RCMP personnel (d) CAF personnel were required to repeat language training because of an unsuccessful first course?


Donald James Johnston: 1. Data is available centrally from two sources only: The Public Service Commission with respect to employees trained at PSC's centres (this includes some of the personnel of the RCMP, Crown Corporations and National Defence) and departments and agencies (Schedules A, B and C of the
Order Paper Questions
Financial Administration Act-including the National Defence) that, since 1976, have been providing Treasury Board with information on their own internal training program. The above-mentioned expenses include language training activities, testing, orientation, research, specialized assistance and also the 1980-81 main estimates.
Responsible for
Language Training	Fiscal Years	Administrative Costs
a)	Public Service
Commission (PSC)	1964-1980	$292	millionb)	Armed Forces	1968-1980	$178	millionc)	Departments/Agencies	1975-1980	$ 23	million
2. French and English language training is mostly administered by the PSC and the Armed Forces personnel. As far as in-house training administered by departments and agencies is concerned, there are no centralized records available.
No. of Employees
Responsible for Fiscal	French	EnglishLanguage Training Years	Clientele	Course	Coursea) PSC 1966 to 1980	Public Servants Crown	38,286	10,511Corporations	6,386	1.325RCMP	1.303	325Armed Forces	1,419	80b) Armed Forces 1966 to 1980	Members	31.016	25,9923.	The Public Service Commission has at its disposal since 1973 only standardized methods for testing the language proficiency of an employee in terms of the level of the language requirement of the occupied position. The PSC indicates in its 1977 and 1978 annual reports the number of students on continuous language training and having passed the Language Knowledge Examinations (LKE). When converted into percentages, these numbers read as follows:a)	from 1973 to 1977, 75.4 per cent succeeded in the French language course and 76.1 per cent in the English language course;b)	from 1974 to 1978, 80.4 per cent succeeded in the French language course and 80.6 per cent in the English language course.
Those who did not take or succeed the LKE represent:
a)	employees who withdrew from training for pedagogical reasons;
b)	students who withdrew voluntarily;
c)	those who were recalled by their departments;
d)	students who failed.
In other respects, the PSC 1979 Annual Report indicates the rate of success in the LKE for the same year:
a)	96.2 per cent for the French language course;
b)	99.8 per cent for the English language course.
As for the Armed Forces, it is estimated that most of the students on training were capable of working in the second

February 23, 1981
Order Paper Questions
language at the level of proficiency required by their profession or classification at the end of the course.
4.	Since the inception of the bilingualism bonus plan, we have established that close to $164 million will have been paid by March 31, 1981.
5.	There are no centralized records available for in-house training administered by departments and agencies. The number of employees having received training is broken down as follows:
Number of Employees on Language Training 1966-1980
Responsible for			
Language Training	Ottawa	Regions	Outside Canada
a) PSC			
Public Servants	24,631	24,166	Crown Corporations	2,839	4,872	-RCMP	530	1,098	-Armed Forces	677	822	b) Armed Forces	6,712	48,548	1,7486.	Subject to the same limitations as specified in question 5, data is as follows:Number of Regional Employees on Language Training in Ottawa1966-1980Public Servants	5,416Crown Corporations	341RCMP	57Armed Forces	5627.	Data shows actual and historical information, as provided by the PSC and the Armed Forces. Because of the evolution and diversity of programs since 1966, the average lengths and the unit costs were derived from a simple mathematical calculation and should be interpreted carefully.Responsible for Training	Period	Average Duration of course	Cost per StudentActual	Public Service Commission	1979-80	*849 hours **487 hours	$5,390 $3,092Cumulative	Armed Forces	1966-80	***379 hours	$3,128Average duration required in 1979-80 for a graduate. Average duration required in 1979-80 for a non-graduate.  Derived from all courses and total training hours, total number of students and total costs since 1966.	8. As indicated in question No. 3,	from 1973 to	1978, less
than a quarter of students enrolled in the PSC's continuous language training, did not succeed the LKE or withdrew. In 1979, we observed a moderate failure rate of 2.9 per cent in
the LKE. Among those who failed the LKE, very few were able to retake the exam given the time-frame to satisfy the language requirements of bilingual positions and also clauses protecting entitlements. In addition, the official languages policies revised in 1977, state that an employee cannot undergo language training at government expense to attain the same or a lower level. Furthermore, the official languages policies do not oblige an employee to repeat language training. The few employees who might have repeated a course did so on their own initiative.


Mr. Stevens: For the current fiscal year, what are the estimated expenditures of Telcsat Canada for (a) advertising (b) free or subsidized publications (c) other information conveyed to the public?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Telesat Canada is neither a Crown corporation nor an agent of Her Majesty. It is an independent, shareholder-owned company in which the federal government is a substantial, but not a majority, shareholder. Telesat reports to government on a number of areas which are clearly identified in the Telesat Canada Act. While the information requested in this instance does not fall within this area of government responsibility, I am informed that the president of Telesat Canada has written to the hon. member and has offered to respond to any inquiries he may have regarding the normal commercial operations of the company.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the total budget allocated to the CEIC Labour Market Development Task Force?
2.	What is the anticipated cost for professional advice, assistance and special studies commissioned by the task force?
3.	Have contracts been awarded for professional advice, assistance and special studies commissioned by the task force and, if so (a) to whom (b) what remuneration is anticipated for each contract?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. $825,750.
2.	$600,250.
3.	See list below.
(a) Contractor's Name	(b) Amount
Orley Ashenfelter	7,000.00
Carliss Baldwin	12,500.00
Yvon Chenier	1.800.00
Donald M. Caskie	10,425.00
Leah Cohen	5,500.00
Computational Methods Ltd.	3.000.00
Ruth Crow	12,500.00
Dalcor Group	1 2,000.00
Ann E. Daley	7.600.00
Michael Decter	14,250.00
Dept. Political Economy-University of Toronto	13,440.00
Econanalysis Incorporated	27,500.00
Econanalysis Incorporated	31,000.00
February 23, 1981

Emjay Associates	16,056.00
Generic Skills Consulting Services	3,400.00
Gillian Godfrey	10,500.00
William Halton	3,600.00
Arnold C. Harberger	14,000.00
Timothy J. Hazcldine	13,580.00
I P. Sharp & Associates Ltd.	16,775.20
Informetrica Ltd.	40,000.00
Institute for Urban Studies-University of Winnipeg	6,541.00
Institute for Research on Public Policy	5,000.00
Peter Kemball	13,950.00
Donald R. Lessard	12,500.00
Lizan Management Ltd.	8,300.00
Brian Maracle	1,000.00
Brian Maracle	2,408.00
Scott Mason	12,500.00
Dr. N. Meltz	4,000.00
Suzanne Moreau	7,600.00
David Newhouse	8,900.00
Michael Rivard	3,600.00
R.J. Clifford Associates	19,000.00
R.J. Clifford Associates	76,900.00
Harvey Schwartz	3,000.00
Selective Placement	8,381.10
Sem-Eng Ltd.	25,000.00
Robert W. Sexty	6,300.00
Siar Incorporated	5,000.00
Square One Management Ltd.	6,000.00
Peat, Marwick and Partners	25,000.00
Christopher Taylor	6,700.00
Alan Thomas	2,800.00
Betty Weinstein	10,500.00
Fred Wien	850.00
Stacey Personnel	2,469.00
Glen Hodgson	900.00 561,525.30


Mr. Herbert: Can an individual, who is assessed interest on an unpaid tax balance, deduct the amount of the interest from interest earned in the same year when compiling a tax return and, if not, for what reason?


Claude Tessier: Interest payable in respect of three different types of obligations is deductible from a taxpayer's income. A taxpayer may deduct interest: (1) on borrowed money used for the purpose of earning income from a business or property; (2) on an amount payable for property acquired for the purpose of gaining or producing income from the property or business, and (3) on amounts paid to a taxpayer under an Appropriation Act for the purpose of advancing or sustaining a manufacturing industry, or for prospecting, drilling and exploring for minerals.
It should be noted that in cases (1) and (2) above, the interest is not deductible if the income from property involved is exempt, or is property that is an interest in a life insurance policy.
The interest payable under subsection 161(1) of the Income Tax Act does not constitute interest payable on money borrowed from the Receiver General for any of the above purposes, but rather is an imposition under law to pay interest on tax arrears. Therefore, any interest assessed on an unpaid tax
Order Paper Questions
balance would not be deductible against interest income nor would it be considered an allowable business expense.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Since the inception of the Excise Tax program on gasoline to date, what amount was refunded to farmers in (a) Quebec (b) Ontario?
2.	For each province, what percentage of farmers file for a refund and what is the average value per claim?


Claude Tessier: 1. Since the inception of the Excise Tax program on gasoline to January 13, 1981, $6,084,789 has been refunded to farmers in Quebec and $21,733,765 has been refunded to farmers in Ontario.
2.	The most recent figures available from Statistics Canada indicate there are 51,587 farmers in Quebec and 88,801 farmers in Ontario. Excise gasoline tax records indicate 21,298 farmers in Quebec and 57,375 farmers in Ontario have been reimbursed for the refund. Therefore, 41.3 per cent of farmers from Quebec have received a refund and 64.6 per cent of farmers from Ontario have received a refund. The average value per claim in Quebec is $89.88 and in Ontario is $107.34.


Mr. Herbert: Is a person aged 65, who delays an application for Old Age Security pension payments so as to receive the entitlement retroactively in the succeeding calendar year, assessed personal income tax on a sum in the year that the person reaches age 65 which would include a pension entitlement that had not been received?


Claude Tessier: No.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many persons visited the historical site at Coteau-du-Lac in 1980?
2.	Between what dates in 1981 will the site be open?
3.	Is any new construction work contemplated and, if so, what is its purpose and estimated cost?
4.	What is the amount of the budget for the operation of the site in 1981, not including any possible construction work, and how many persons will be employed?
5.	What is the amount of the advertising budget for the park and is there any advertising in the United States?


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: 1. 26,200 visitors.
2. From May 18, 1981 to October 18, 1981. School year: from May 19 to June 19, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays, 10 a.m. to 5.30 p.m., weekends. Regular season: from June 20 to September 7, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., 7 days a week. Fall: from September 8 to October 18, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. from Wednesday to Sunday.

February 23, 1981
Order Paper Questions
3.	Yes. The construction of an interpretation and visitors center in 1983-84; $366,000. Canal improvements stabilizing the remains of existing walls; stabilizing the wall and the gabion wall along the St. Lawrence River, 1981-84; $207,700. Refitting the interior of the blockhouse, 1982-83; $66,000.
4.	$87,525; 2.51 person-years or five employees.
5.	Advertising, none; advertising in the United States, none.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was the construction of a swimming pool at the Prime Minister's official residence, 24 Sussex Drive, paid for by gifts to the Crown?
2.	Do records exist of such gifts and, if so, on what dates were the gifts made and what were the amounts?


Yvon Pinard: See
replies to questions Nos.:
1,233, answered October 28, 1975, Hansard page 8611;
1,294, answered July 14, 1975, Hansard page 7529;
1,442, answered October 28, 1975, Hansard page 8612;
1,705, answered February 3, 1981, Hansard page 6827;
2,211, answered May 20, 1975, Hansard page 5919;
3.461,	answered November 7, 1975, Hansard page 8960;
3.462,	answered November 7, 1975, Hansard page 8960.


Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence purchase $22,935 worth of fishing equipment from Federal Safe Air Supply Co. and, if so, for what purpose?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The Department of Supply and Services purchased from the Federal Safe Air Supply Co., on behalf of the Department of National Defence, an emergency fishing and sewing kit supplied in a metal container. The kit is one of the components used in survival packs issued by the Department of National Defence to operational personnel.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 1,476 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 1,476 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Agreed and tabled forthwith.


Mr. Deans: 1.	From 1965 to June 1980, how many orders in council were issued affecting Livingston Industries operating in Canada and what was the actual wording of each order in council?
2.	What amount of customs duty was remitted for each order submitted concerning Livingston Industries?
3.	What were the commitments from Livingston Industries in exchange for remitting each customs duty?
4.	Did Livingston Industries meet each commitment?
Return tabled.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, 1 ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed.


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.
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, when I finished my speech on Friday afternoon I was in the process of complimenting those members of the New Democratic Party who had left their party on this issue on a matter of principle. I also complimented the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) for having done the same thing as a member of the Conservative Party. 1 suggested that among the Liberals I trusted there would be equal thought and that many of them, on principle, would disagree with what is being done here in the House. 1 suggested that they, too, would match the democratic pattern of the two parties on this side of the House. I am positive that in any group of people there must be some concern over what is happening here and, therefore, that there be a difference of opinion. We have won a lot of credit for this Parliament because individual members have taken a stand based on their conscience and their judgment.
One of the things which I had intended to mention, which I will pass with a single statement, is that I do not think
February 23, 1981

anything has shocked the Canadian people more during the discussions in the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution and the debate in the House than the fact that these representatives of all parties did not willingly, gladly and enthusiastically accept the principles of the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights and the preamble thereto. The preamble of the Bill of Rights mentions the supremacy of God. What Liberal is opposed to that? What NDPer is opposed to that? I do not know. They will have to answer for having turned that down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The Diefenbaker Bill of Rights was the first bill of rights in the world which gave high priority to the family. At a time in this country when the family is being heavily attacked, and all countries in the western world, I do not understand why the Liberals and the NDP should turn that down. But they must answer for it. One way in which they can answer for it is with their votes with respect to this particular resolution.
The third point I wanted to mention was the right to enjoy property, which is the first item in the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights. Why any Liberal or any NDPer would deliberately, in full public glare of television, radio and newspaper, stand up and declare that they did not want this entrenched in the Constitution is beyond me. Anyone who knows the history of the new world. South America, North America, Australia and New Zealand knows why people came to these lands. They came to enjoy the ownership of land. To the working man, that means his home.
I would like to say a few words about the first day of the debate with respect to the first section of the bill. I think the country of Canada was well served by the quality of speeches given by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), the spokesman for the Conservative Party, the hon. member for Pro-' vencher (Mr. Epp), and by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). Those were three able speeches given by three able parliamentarians. The country should be glad that they heard a different point of view from each. I leave it to the people of the country to decide which one they support.
I know where I stand, but I leave it to the people who saw and heard those three speakers. It was a good opportunity to view Parliament at its best.
1 like to think the tendency held by some to put down people who break away from their parties on such important issues should be subdued. I think when a member speaks quietly and clearly, without provocation, he should be listened to. That is all I intend to say on that point.
The issue that came out of the first day of debate was very obvious. That issue is with respect to whether Canada's way of life between the two levels of government is one of consensus or one of confrontation. There is no halfway point. With respect to this issue we must ask the people of Canada to decide what the Canadian way is. Is it confrontation between governments through the use of press and radio publicity to beat another government into submission, or is it consultation?
The Constitution
In the main, for 110 years we have succeeded with the consultation technique. Certainly there were hard trade-offs. In the early days per capita grants were traded with the provinces. In the old days a certain number of Senate seats were used as a trade-off. In recent years amounts of money granted under various deals have been traded off. There must be compensation when this type of trading is being done and when you get down to the dollars and cents part of it.
Generally speaking, our federal nation and every other federal nation which has done well in the past hundred years has used the principle of consensus, not force and certainly not confrontation. It looks as if we will turn our backs on that concept now. By saying that this measure must be taken immediately smacks to me of something which I call the new-style fascism. It is not fascism of the type we had insidious and more dangerous. This is the fascism of people who like to call themselves the elite, the ones that know better. This elitism has taken over not only the socialist countries of the world, but also our type of democracies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We cal) it by various names, a dictatorship or a bureaucracy, but it all adds up to the same thing: the small people of each country think that they have more knowledge and judgment than the mass of the people, and they want to insist on giving every bit of control to this small group, whether it be in the provinces or the federal government.
This feeling is in the provinces. It has to be fought. It is also in the federal government-and has been here for 30-odd years-and it has to be fought. It was not too pleasant to hear put forward in the House, by politicians who should be the defenders of the people against this elitism, or this new type of fascism, that even though the thing is wrong, even though it will divide the country, let us ram it through because that shows we are for change; and then 100 years from now maybe they will forget it. This does not sound right in this type of chamber.
I have a number of other comments, but with the time going on I will be brief. I would like to repeat in all seriousness: regardless of party or regional affiliation or anything else, rightly or wrongly, we are deciding something very important for the people of Canada over the next 100 years, not just for the next two or three. We should know a great deal about the set of rules which we are proposing to talk about before we rush ahead and start to make changes, not because I am a Conservative who believes that the fastest progress is made by going slowly and carefully, but because my common sense and instincts tell me that you do not rush forward into something that is very important unless you are absolutely sure that it is the best you have.
I do not accept that the present charter of rights is the best that we can do, any more than I accepted the Bill of Rights under John Diefenbaker as the best we could do. We in the

February 23, 1981
The Constitution
Diefenbaker government spent three long years trying to make it as good as we could, and we put forward something that we were very careful to say did not infringe on provincial rights and we hoped would set a pattern for the provinces to follow. It was not perfect. Some of the proposals I liked; but some of the others I am not too sure about. I am simply saying that it is beyond the capacity of human beings ever to write a law that meets all the needs of all the people. All you can do is strive to do the best you can.
In these discussions on the Constitution that we have had in Canada over the last decade, several facts have been discussed a little bit, and some have not been discussed at all. I think it fair to say that if you are going to amend the Constitution to help fit these facts, we have done a pretty good job in the last ten years in discussing the French fact. Canada should be proud of the fact that, in the main, the great mass of the people across the country, in spite of all their ancient bias, have tried their level best to reach a conclusion which was acceptable and fair on this question of language. It is not perfect, but it has been discussed very thoroughly and the movement forward has been tremendous. I think the Liberals accept that position or they would not be bringing in this type of charter. Therefore, on that type of fact, I think there have been good marks. The various leaders across the country and the masses of the people, in talking and thinking about it, have come down on a pretty fair play.
We are proud that the people of Quebec voted for that point of view in the referendum. We know they are not all happy, but we are proud that simply a majority of them are happy, and we hope that they will be happy, as the years roll on.
The six facts which must be discussed are all economic facts. You cannot build a rule to run this country or any country unless the political rules fit the economics of the nation. The first fact to be discussed may surprise you, and I think the basis of it is important. It is education.
In 1867, education was something that the provinces fought for, believed in, and had to have if they were to be partners in this new nation. They wanted to control and be able to help protect the culture in their area. This fact of the Constitution of 1867 has been honoured pretty well. However, it was certainly clear many, many decades ago that with the federal government coming in and taking responsibility for economic matters in the country, and since education has been one of the main arms in the arsenals to give us better use of our economic and human resources, obviously the federal government had to come in on the side of education. Without going into detail, suffice it to say that the federal government is now involved to the extent of $3 billion worth a year, but there is nothing in the rules that gives us this right.
Therefore, in a new constitution we should be discussing what types of rules we can put in that would legitimize the necessity for the federal government to be involved in education. Obviously, I am talking about education from the economic point of view, not only schools for the trained technical people, but the post-secondary and all economic sectors of university. Because this is where the cutting edge of education
makes its impact on the economics of the country: on the technical side, on the economic side.
I believe I have made it clear, and that most people will agree, that this has not been discussed candidly. In order for the provinces and the federal government to discuss a subject like this candidly, there must be tremendous amounts of good will on all sides, because education is one of the great, fundamental, vital powers of the provinces.
The third fact, which has been mentioned only once in the last year, is the urban fact. Whether we like it or not, in the next 100 years I would suspect that at least 80 per cent of our people are going to live in built-up or urban areas. Yet under the present Constitution, the people who live in these built-up areas are considered to be creatures of the provinces. How long will it be before the people of the cities of Halifax, St. John's, Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto, London, all the great cities of the provinces-yes, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Victoria-realize that with all the responsibilities they have under our present way of life in Canada, which will be with us for the next 100 years, and forever, possibly, they must be given some authority to carry out these functions which goes beyond their present powers as creatures of the provincial governments?
We can all understand why the politicians do not want to mention the urban fact. It frightens the daylights out of the provincial premiers, and that terrifies the federal government. That does not mean we should not be discussing it. With 80 per cent of our people living in cities and regional government areas, there must be a place in the sun for them. It is my belief that this can be done in a manner which strengthens both the provinces and the federal government at the same time; but we will leave that to another debate.
The fourth fact that I want to mention has been discussed to some extent but not precisely, and that is that Canada is a regional type of country. I would calculate that there are 17 to 19 economic divisions in Canada. The people of Quebec and Ontario know what I am talking about. Quebec is not just one region but four or five distinct regions economically and they cannot all be run by one rule. Ontario is made up of at least five regions and those who live in those regions know what I am talking about. They talk the same way as westerners. Twenty-five years ago I defined Canada as being composed of two parts-Toronto and the rest of us. The same thing that I heard in Saskatchewan, I heard in Lac-Saint-Jean in Quebec; in the Gaspe I heard the same thing that I heard in northern Ontario. The advertising signs used in business are the same. For instance, small loans are called petits prets. It amounts to the same thing-that we are all in hock to the money lenders!
Until we as politicians grasp the fact that there are not just two or three regions in Canada but 17 to 19 regions, we will have the same old difficulties. No one can tell me that all of British Columbia is one region. All you have to do is go ten miles outside the city of Vancouver and this will be evident. Go 300 miles from Vancouver and you will find the same thing as
February 23, 1981

in Ontario. That is what it is like out there. If we are going to develop a set of rules, then for heaven's sake let us realize that they must be based on the economic opportunities for people in all the regions if they are to work.
It is evident that we are moving toward new forms of industrial complexes, not just along the St. Lawrence but also in northern Ontario, northern Quebec, the Atlantic provinces, Alberta, British Columbia; even Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories will have big industrial complexes some day.
The thinkers of this country are now asking what Canada will be like in 100 years. They point out that as wealth grows and is distributed throughout the country, the divisions will be organized on the basis of cultural centres. One hundred years from now there will still be a place for Toronto as a cultural centre. Today it is the centre of the cultural activities of most of Canada. To listen to the CBC you would think Toronto was a nation on its own. It has a right to retain its place in the sun if we can see ahead that far. Like New York, it will survive- the industrial community of New York has moved to New Jersey, of course-but it will survive because it is a sound cultural centre and that is good economics. I could discuss this at some length, Mr. Speaker, but I will pass on.
The fifth fact is national development. When I came to this House I was full of beans and vigour and had ideas about how the country could be developed. I remember the great conference on forestry in 1906 under the Laurier government. I remember the great conference held in the United States about the same time under the early Roosevelt. I remember the Gordon Royal Commission report of 1956 and I played a part in the Resources for Tomorrow Conference of 1961 in which we tried to find out what the economics of the country were. For the previous 68 years we had known what the wealth was and now, 20 years after 1961, I say that we need a renewal of that Resources for Tomorrow Conference in order to find out where the wealth will be for the next 100 years and draw up appropriate rules.
I want to know not only about renewable resources but about non-renewable resources. In 1961 that information was not available but it is available now. Above all, I want to know about human resources. This is the greatest waste in our nation and most of it takes place in our cities. Human resources are not being utilized because we have not developed the necessary framework. Before we sit down to discuss all these things, we must have the right attitude. They cannot be discussed in one or two years; it would more likely take from three to ten years.
I will list my final fact now and then go on to my proposal, Mr. Speaker. The sixth fact is welfare. In the last 60 years the world has moved into the social revolution. As we can see from the deficits experienced in all countries, this has required tremendous readjustment. In this country the burden lies most heavily on the provinces. Until we ask, with good will, how we can best harmonize this social revolution with the provinces, there will be no peace in Canada on this front. This social revolution will be with us for another 100 years. It is happen-
The Constitution
ing all over the world but we have just become aware of it in the last 40 or 50 years.
I have rushed over quite a bit of material in a short time, Mr. Speaker. The time-frame for what I have talked about is three to ten years. A positive attitude must be taken by all levels of government, by all people and all parties. But Canada is worth it. Let us think about these things in a positive way and not try to ram them through.
I suggest that this bill be split. We should repatriate the British North America Act, have an amending formula, get it back here and settle down to the job that we have to do over the next three to ten years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Another six or eight months' work on the charter of rights would not hurt. After that, the conferences should start. We have never used the experts because they do not get along well with politicians so we could separate them and let each have its own conference. The experts could tell us in which areas the human resources and the non-renewable resources could be developed in the best interests of the nation. They could tell us the best way to use the renewable resources. We have a great deal of knowledge already but a tremendous amount of new knowledge has evolved in the last 20 years. The experts should do what they do best-give us the facts; then the politicians at every level of government could play their part.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, after this process has taken place it might be necessary to reconsider the idea of a constitutional convention. That decision is five or ten years ahead, however, so we will not worry about it now.
I think if we approach this with the right attitude and take time to make these decisions, we will serve our people well for the next 100 years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for the member for Montreal-Mercier to take part today in the debate preceding the adoption by the House of Commons and the Senate of one of the most significant joint resolutions addressed to Her Majesty the Queen with a view to amending the Constitution of Canada. I must point out that as a woman, as a Quebecer and as a member of the national government I fully endorse the principles contained in the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to sit in the House now that the time has come for Canada to achieve full independence in its domestic and external affairs. I realize that I did not waste my time during the referendum campaign. Now I would like to examine why a charter of human rights must be included immediately in the Constitution of Canada. The first premise rests on one of the wishes expressed by United Nations Secretary General Kurt Waldheim, and I quote:

February 23, 1981
The Constitution

The high goals set in the international bill of human rights can only be achieved when its principles and standards are fully recognized in law and observed in practice.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, that is why I think that the charter of rights will become part of the first law of the land, namely, the Canadian Constitution. An outstanding personality, Andrei D. Sakharov, who was awarded the Nobel peace prize in 1975 thought that it was important to include the charter of rights in all the laws of each country. I quote:
The defence of human rights is not political in nature. It arises from moral principles and their link to peace. Therefore, all people of good will, whether their political opinions are "rightist" or "leftist", can and should participate in the defence of human rights.
[ Translation]
And Sakharov has stated in several of his works that the charter of rights should be part of the Constitution of a country, that is, the first law of the land.
Why must we adopt a Charter of Rights? Mr. Speaker, I believe that any Canadian who is aware of the efforts made to this date through federal as well as provincial legislation, realizes that all Canadians do not in fact enjoy the same rights in this country. Indeed, we have to recognize that the ten provincial governments and the national government each have laws recognizing rights that differ from one province to the other. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I feel it is imperative for minimum identical basic rights to be recognized for all Canadians, that those rights be recognized definitely in such a way that parliaments or assemblies, whether national or provincial, cannot change them overnight through the will of the majority.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I feel the charter of rights should above all protect the minorities. As the majority is represented in Parliament, I feel the first law of the land must be the one that recognizes the rights of the minorities.
I should now like to look back briefly on our history, and in so doing perhaps refute the opinions expressed by our colleagues of the opposition who claim that the charter of rights does not exist in parliamentary systems especially in England where in fact the history of the charter of rights was made, through the non-written tradition of court decisions. Over time, a tradition of a charter of rights was in fact established which has always been observed with regard to British citizens.
That history finds its origin with the Magna Carta of 1215 and King John Lackland. Most of the other kings who followed him in England continued to respect that charter. In 1628, King Charles I accepted the Petition and King William, in 1689, accepted the Bill of Rights.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, a charter of rights does exist in the motherland, entrenched in the British Constitution which is based upon a different system from ours. At present, the same charter of rights is not included in our own Constitution.
I should like to quote from a recognized authority, namely Encyclopedia Americana, in which Mr. Cromwell Young refers to the deficiencies of the Canadian Bill of Rights. And I quote from page 744 of Encyclopedia Americana:

The Canadian Bill of Rights is a legislative act rather than a formal amendment to the written Canadian Constitution. It became law in I960, during the period when John G. Diefenbaker's Conservative government was in power.
I am very glad, Mr. Speaker, to remind my hon. friend that it was recognized under a Conservative government that this country needed a charter of rights.
At page 744 of the Encyclopedia Americana, the explanation of the Canadian Bill of Rights continues:
In the years since its passage the bill has proved less effective than many had hoped, and its application has been limited. Because it is federal statutory legislation and not part of the Constitution, its provisions extend only to matters coming within the legislative authority of the Canadian Parliament; matters coming under provincial jurisdiction are outside its scope. In addition, although Section 2 of Part I provides that other laws of Canada are to be construed and applied so as not to infringe any of the declared rights and freedoms, courts have been reluctant to accept the bill as an instrument for overriding other federal statutes.
We can conclude by this authority that the Bill of Rights has its limitations even though it was regarded as a very good bill when it was entrenched. Probably that is why the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker in his memoirs "One Canada", published in 1976, said:
My experience with the provincial governments indicated that they were too jealous of their jurisdiction over property and civil rights to support any amendment applicable to themselves. I have little hope that their attitude will be altered in the years ahead. To have made provincial agreement a condition for enacting a Canadian Bill of Rights would have meant a complete failure to achieve this important objective.
I must remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. John G. Diefenbaker-


Mr. Epp:: The Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker.


Céline Hervieux-Payette: -was considering the adoption of a Bill of Rights in 1960 as the first step toward entrenching a future Bill of Rights in the Constitution. In his memoirs, Mr. Diefenbaker continued:
Under my philosophy, the Bill of Rights was based upon the belief that certain rights and liberties of the citizen are so fundamental to our way of life that no law and no force should be allowed to encroach on them.

Mr. Speaker, 1 think that in light of these authorities we must recognize that the charter of rights we now have in Canada and which applies to the federal government has many limitations, and I believe that my colleagues will fully agree on this point. On the other hand, 1 think that in our own history we find, as the Canadian Council of Churches pointed out, that Canada already has in its Constitution a nucleus of a bill of rights, but that the Canadian government and Parliament
February 23, 1981

should go further and include in that bill of rights the fundamental rights, albeit very limited, that are already recognized, according to the Canadian Council of Churches, while adding to them other fundamental rights. 1 quote their brief to the 1950 Senate Committee on a Charter of Rights which says: [English]
Without ignoring or minimizing the constitutional problem which the introduction of a Bill of Rights would present, we venture to suggest that to the extent that our Constitution now provides for the English and French languages, the separate school system, and periodic elections and sessions of Parliament and the provincial legislatures, Canada already has the nucleus of a bill of rights. Therefore, in view of these facts, is it too much to ask that the Constitution be extended to take in the following suggested human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The list included most of the rights recognized in this motion.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, as a woman member, I should like to remind the House briefly of the virtually unanimous support given by all women's groups who appeared before the Committee on the Constitution. First of all, 1 am very proud to note that the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women made a great contribution to the debate and that these women submitted a remarkably good brief to the committee. I should like to quote from their recommendations to Parliament:
We wish first of all to underline that we are in favour of entrenching the protection of our basic freedoms and rights in the Constitution. First, the charter will serve as a symbol and a guide to the legislatures. It is highly desirable to ensure that certain freedoms and certain basic rights will not suffer from any legislative interference likely to restrict them. We women are only too well aware of the inequities created by the legislation. We are only too well aware that the present Bill of Rights cannot put an end to discrimination when it becomes law.
1 believe that this submission truly shows the need to include a charter of rights in the constitutional resolution. Again I refer to the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. [English]
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women concluded, "Notably, it was agreed that we support entrenchment of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in principle."
That group made a wonderful contribution in presenting various amendments and I am sure the minister has answered most of their concerns and preoccupations.

Mr. Speaker, another group, the Canadian Congress for the Promotion of Educational Opportunities for Women, has reacted quite favourably. It has stated, and I quote:
The Canadian Congress for the Promotion of Educational Opportunities for Women is in favour of entrenching into the proposed Canada Act the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Therefore, 1 think and will continue to think, with a few other groups, that most groups of Canadian women are in favour of the principle of enshrining a charter of rights. And there is one group in particular which, I feel, has done a very good job with limited resources and which I had the pleasure to meet at the committee. This group has joined its voice to the
The Constitution
voices of nearly all the other women including those who have been discriminated against from time immemorial. I am referring to the Indian rights for Indian Women. These women sent the following message to Parliament, and I quote:
Our general response to the Canada Act is, in two important respects, favourable. First, like most Canadians, we favour patriation. Enough ink has been spilt on this matter that we do not feel obligated to add our two cents worth. Second, we believe that a new, patriated constitution should contain a charter of rights, provided that, as is the case in the present proposal, affirmative action programs are not proscribed. Those who appeal to a British heritage of legislative supremacy and tolerance of diversity for protecting rights should look to the current condition of British citizens of black and East Indian ancestry. In these important respects, we support the government.
This group has suffered a lot of discrimination in this country. I suppose it will be the first to re-establish its rights according to the new constitutional motion.
On top of that, the National Association of Women and the Law has also agreed to the entrenchment of a charter of rights. I quote:
We recognize a number of advantages fall from entrenchment of a charter of rights and freedoms into our constitution. Firstly, it is symbolic and educational as a statement of the value placed on human dignity and integrity in our society. Secondly, an entrenched charter would bind both the provincial and federal governments to a uniform standard . . .
Thirdly, by requiring adjudication by the courts, it would provide Canadians with an alternative forum to the elected legislatures for enforcement of their basic freedom and rights.
I believe this group made a very valuable contribution when they talked about the law. I presume they must know something about it.
The last group was the Native Women's Association of Canada. It did not specifically mention the charter of rights but went into the rights themselves, asking this Parliament to recognize some rights. One of the rights they wanted to promote was, and I quote:
That the rights of aboriginal people must be recognized to extend to all individuals of aboriginal descent no matter where they live in Canada.
That native women have equal access to and participation in decision making processes, and that they be protected in law against discrimination based on sex or marital status.
I believe this group has suffered enough and wish to see the Constitution patriated with the charter of rights.
To conclude on the charter of women's rights, I want to express my thanks to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) for the amendments he agreed to make after the presentations of the various groups.
One of the first amendments was with regard to the title which reads "equality rights" to emphasize the goal of this clause. Second, the general proposition of equality of individuals would be stated in the following terms: "Every individual is equal before and under the law." I believe the minister was very attentive to the presentations made to him by the various groups and that he responded in a very positive way.
The third amendment accepted by the minister was that there would be the particular statement of "the right of the

February 23, 198!
The Constitution
equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination." This is a very positive change which will prevent some problems in the future with regard to the interpretation of the charter of rights.
The fourth change that was made was with regard to clause 15(2). It has been made to relate affirmative action to non-discrimination rights. This was a very good contribution by the women's groups which permitted the minister to make these amendments. Fifth, and final, the list of specified groups was expanded to include "mental or physical disability". In this country, one can be affected by various problems in terms of discrimination, and be the subject of discrimination in addition to many other issues.

1 want to say. Madam Speaker, that following the meeting with the group of ad hoc committees arising out of the Conference on Canadian Women and the Constitution held February 14 and 15 last, I met with representatives of that group and we discussed extensively the recommendations made to the government. I do hope that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) will in fact move the amendments recommended by that group since she contributed to the adoption of all those amendments. Besides, I note that in its second resolution the Conference adopted the following:
That it be resolved that the women attending this Conference support the patriation of the Constitution with an amendment formula-
And further on they expressed the wish that a charter of rights be also included. I think we should clarify in Clause 31 that three-year period provision, namely, whether the charter shall have effect the day after it comes into force or not until three years after that date.
1 pointed out to the spokesman for that group that there could be a danger of the rights being limited since the courts which right after the adoption of the Charter would have to decide upon the various statutes containing discriminatory clauses, could choose the lowest common denominator with regard to each piece of legislation thereby depriving in fact some of those groups of the rights they already have rather than extending those already in the legislation. I think that the three year moratorium is a good idea since, in any case, Canadian Parliaments will have to amend all their statutes, which is not as easy a task as it may seem and since it may take a very long time for the Supreme Court to bring in such amendments.
Madam Speaker, I would like to conclude by reminding this House of my special interest in Section 38 of the motion. 1 am indeed very pleased with the amendment introduced by the minister, and I quote:
Notwithstanding Section 40. an amendment to the Constitution of Canada
(a) adding a province as a province named in Subsection 16(2). may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of
Commons and the legislative assembly of the province to which the amendment applies.
And I will revert to section 16(2) which makes French and English the two official languages of the legislatures and the governments of these provinces. However, I hope that, as Quebecers, we have not been misled during the referendum campaign by the Right Hon. Premier of Ontario who, campaigning alongside Quebec members, pledged to respect the French minorities of Ontario.
In this regard, Madam Speaker, I would like to read into the record, if I may, the statement we made in Toronto last January:

We . . . want to express to all of the citizens of Ontario, through their premier, the Hon. William Davis, our appreciation for the support which Ontarians have given to our government's constitutional proposals. We would like to underline the fellowship of interest which unites us, as Canadians, with the people of our neighbouring province.
Now that we are about to fulfil the promises which we made to Quebecers during the referendum campaign, we look to the people of Ontario, through their premier, for their support. We ask that the rights guaranteed to members of the English-speaking minority of Quebec by Article 133 of the BN A Act be extended to Ontarians whose mother tongue is French.
Wo believe that the extension of Article 133 to Ontario would only confirm, in our new Constitution, rights which the Government of Ontario already recognizes in practice: the right to appear in court and the right to pass laws in the two official languages of Canada.
I am repeating that request to the Premier of Ontario, perhaps through his friends on the opposite side, so that in the future French people in Ontario will enjoy exactly the same rights English-speaking people enjoy in Quebec. I remind my hon. friends that it was never under a Liberal government that rights which were granted were removed from the Englishspeaking minority in Quebec. Those people enjoy full status as citizens of Quebec with regard to the language issue.
I am very proud to say that fine institutions in this country such as McGill and Concordia and many other services are available to the English minority, and I just express the wish that in the future the French minority will enjoy exactly the same rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -I am pleased to rise to take part in this debate on the amendment to the resolution before us. I would like to begin my remarks by joining in the tribute which has been paid by all members of this House to those who served on the joint committee, including the two co-chairmen, and particularly those members from all sides of the House who served long hours under very difficult circumstances to ensure that there was as full a hearing as possible.
February 23, 1981

I think the House will understand if 1 pay particular tribute to my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), who has moved the amendment I want to address today. I think many of us in the country and many of us in this party in Parliament knew of the qualities of the hon. member for Provencher, but one thing that has occurred with the televising of the committee hearings is that his commitment to his country and his immense competence are now known and celebrated across the land. As his leader I wanted to take this opportunity to pay public tribute to him for the work he has done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Part of the purpose of parliamentary debate is to draw public attention to alternative views of our country and of its challenges. I think we all know that Ottawa is a very easy place for conventional wisdom to develop. We also know that Parliament provides the one forum in which that conventional wisdom can be challenged and alternate views expressed. That has happened in this debate.
1 am proud of the role my party played in the change of opinion in the country. But there is still a long distance to go because there are still several Canadians who have accepted in all sincerity false premises about our country. They have accepted them because they have been the official views expressed by the government too long in power in this city and in this country. Generally they have been views which have been apprehensive about nationalism, particularly in Quebec, and views expressing skepticism about the ability of different provinces and interests to agree.
1 came here nine years ago as a private Member of Parliament with the suspicion that that view was wrong. Now, nine years after that first election, having had the honour of serving the country as its Prime Minister, I have the conviction that that view is wrong. It is not simply mistaken as a simple error would be but fundamentally wrong in a way which can literally rend and break our nation if it prevails.
I am entering this debate at this stage to deal essentially with two false assumptions. The first is the assumption that the Canadian federal system has failed, and I will deal with that in a moment. The second assumption is that what is proposed here to replace federalism is something that is only a little unorthodox but is otherwise within the Canadian tradition. That is utterly false. We are dealing here with a proposal for a radical change in the way Canada works, a change that abandons the best about what we have learned as a nation. If accepted, it could tear us apart as a country.
I ask the House to contrast this proposal with Canadian tradition in three important ways. First, with respect to the principle of equality among provinces, our Canadian tradition has treated every province as an equal in the federal partnership. This proposal creates different classes of provinces. Two of those provinces would have a permanent veto over constitutional change. Eight others would have much less power. It changes a system of equals into a class system, and that breaks and abandons the Canadian tradition.
The Constitution
Second, with respect to the federal idea itself, our Canadian tradition is that we are a nation too large and too diverse for one government alone to decide our destiny. So, we have given important powers to two levels of government, Ottawa and the provinces. This proposal allows Ottawa to ignore the provinces absolutely and to change the most basic law we have, our Canadian Constitution, and it thereby opens the door for the provinces to be ignored on other questions too. That again breaks and abandons the Canadian tradition of partnership.
Finally, I ask that this proposal be contrasted with the tradition of respect for Canadian sovereignty. Our Canadian tradition is to make our decisions ourselves. This proposal could not be accepted in Canada. The government itself argues that provincial legislatures would take longer in approving the charter of rights. Everyone knows that the Canadian process would not allow the creation of second-class provinces and that the Canadian process would certainly not allow a referendum which could wipe out absolutely the power of the provinces in constitutional change.
The Canadian process would not let that happen, but the British process might. It is for that reason that this government is trying to use Britain to do something it knows it could not do here in Canada. On the most important law we have this government is trying to use our colonial status to force changes that a fully sovereign Canada would not accept.
Those are not minor changes on the margins of things; they are basic changes. They are changes in our federal system, changes in our sovereignty and changes in our sense of being equals in the Canadian family. Their fault is not that they are radical; their fault is that they are wrong, deeply and dangerously wrong, for our country.

It is not necessary to demonstrate in detail the danger inherent to the creation of different classes of provinces and it is certain that everyone rejects the Liberal Party's proposal to have the British take decisions on issues which concern Canadians. Let us speak of the dangers which threaten federalism. If today the central government does not take into account the opinions of the provinces on constitutional changes, tomorrow it will show no respect either for their opinion on other important matters. Its centralizing appetite will continue to grow. It might decide to extend its jurisdiction over communications. It might be tempted to invade the educational field. It might come under pressure to undermine the guarantees offered to the minorities. And it might do that by using the referendum mechanism, a referendum for which it will draft the question and decide the timing. Those are the new and very real dangers which threaten us if the proposed resolution is adopted.
The concept of federalism is threatened in a more subtle way. Part of the strength of the provinces today is to know that they are equal to the central government in their fields of competence. The provision on the referendum destroys that element of security. The provinces would be inferior since they

February 23, 1981
The Constitution
would always be under the constant menace that the central government might manipulate public opinion and take certain powers away from them, and thus the Canadian concept of the federative pact would disappear for ever. In a country as wide and as diversified as ours, each province is justified in preventing the federal system from being turned into a unitary regime. But the province of Quebec, the most distinct of our provinces, is the one which can benefit most from the federal system and the one which stands to lose most in an overly centralized regime. The other parties here, the NDP and the Liberal Party, are prepared to drop the federal system which has ensured the protection of the rights of Quebec and those of the other provinces. Only the Progressive Conservative Party has fought to defend those rights.
Madam Speaker, we have done that for two reasons. First because we acknowledge that the great majority of Quebecers who voted no as well as those who voted yes in the May referendum all voted in favour of a renewal which would extend the powers of their province, and not in favour of what the Liberals are doing now to restrict those powers. The other more serious reason is that we belong to a country where a strong and proud culture ought to be encouraged to open out, and that growth is possible only within the structure of an equitable federal system. Our aim is not only to defeat a bad resolution but above all to protect the great and noble principle of Canadian federalism and thus promote the simultaneous growth of distinct cultures.
Let me now deal with the accusation that the federal system does not work. When the hon. member for Provencher was speaking the other day about the success story of Canadian federalism, I noticed the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) smiled as though he did not believe it, as I believe he does not believe that we have had a success story. But I want to deal with the idea that since 1927 we have had 54 years of failure in the country. That is simply an absurd accusation.
Of course, there have been times when the federal system has stopped one man from getting his way; that is among its virtues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Through the last five decades our Canadian federal system has allowed a number of positive Canadian things to be done in a way-and 1 want to emphasize the importance of the way-which won them not only a place in our laws but also acceptance as being legitimate products of Canadian agreement.
The fact is that our federal system works whenever reasonable governments and leaders allow it to work. This system which works in the country has produced hospital insurance and medicare, the Canada Pension Plan and equalization, agreements on energy, highways, education and welfare, and a range of other agreements. The genius of federalism in a
country like ours is precisely that it does work when its member governments want it to work.
If 1 might digress for a moment into light statistics, 1 should like to consider the substance of the allegation of 54 years of failure. When the Prime Minister talks about 54 years of failure, he is really referring to the fact that in 1927 we began discussion at federal-provincial conferences of a way to bring our Constitution home. But he makes it sound as though we did nothing else during those 54 years but discuss our Constitution and grow frustrated when we could not bring it home; that is the implication he leaves.
Well, a few other things happened during those five decades-a world war, the depression, births, deaths, the CBC was created, as was the Wheat Board and the Bank of Canada, the Seaway was built, the north was opened, we "joined" Newfoundland, oil was discovered, the quiet revolution occurred; there were all those little diversions from the 54 years of failure about which the Prime Minister likes to talk.
What was happening to the Constitution during that time? It was discussed, but not quite for 54 years. In fact, if one consults the record of federal-provincial discussion on the Constitution or on related measures, one will find that in the 54 years since 1927 the Constitution has been discussed for exactly 48 days; less than a day a year. Most Canadians spend more time discussing the weather than we in this Parliament or federal-provincial conferences have spent discussing the Constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The other point to make is that on the eve of this declaration of failure, agreement was at hand. The Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien) does not like to talk about the Vancouver amending formula now, but I have the record of the discussions in the committee proceedings for November 13 at which time he admitted that the Prime Minister was prepared to accept that consensus as a basis for bringing our Constitution home. He knows, as the House knows, that others were prepared to accept that agreement as a basis by which we could amend and patriate our Constitution. He knows that, and that is the case.
I hear the ministers muttering about the correspondence from Mr. Wells. The correspondence from Mr. Wells points out that that was the case. That consensus was there, that possibility was there. A prime minister who wanted agreement could have got agreement at that time.
Of course, various provinces attached conditions, as did the Prime Minister, but the conditions the provinces attached were conditions which could have been negotiated away. He raises his head and questions whether they could be. Of course they could. I say to the Prime Minister: I could have negotiated them away; any prime minister who wanted agreement on an amending formula could have negotiated that discord away because the conditions were not major ones. The conditions were ones which the provinces were prepared to put aside. The Vancouver formula is a formula which can be the basis of bringing our Constitution home and changing it here in
February 23, 1981

Canada, if there were a federal government which really wanted to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Flear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That is important to understand, because a failure to understand it would allow the Prime Minister to blame one more failure on federalism. It was not federalism that was at fault here; it was the incumbent prime minister of the day who was at fault here. The federal system would have yielded an agreement on an amending formula; the prime minister in place on the day refused that agreement. That is not the fault of federalism.
[ Translation]
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have stated in the House and to Canadians outside Quebec that they are speaking on behalf of that province and that they respond to the aspirations and dreams of Quebecers. The Minister of Justice even quoted Laurier, Henri Bourassa and Andre Lau-rendeau in support of his arguments. The newspaper La Presse has justifiably denounced, and 1 quote:
The brazen association of someone like Andre Laurendeau to an operation which will make him turn in his grave if it succeeds.
And all those who know the unequalled concern of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Henri Bourassa for the survival of French Canada will be aware that both these men always maintained that French Canada had survived because under the federal system the rights of the provinces are respected. Which of these three men and what other Quebec leader before the present Prime Minister would have dared to impose an amending formula against the wishes of eight provinces and all the political parties in their own province? What group of Quebec members would have allowed such a thing in the past?
The Minister of Justice has told us that he and his leader promised during the referendum campaign exactly what they are offering us today.
To my knowledge, no journalist has reported any such thing.
-writes Marcel Adam of La Presse. Adam added that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have asked the rest of Canada, and I quote:
-to accept constitutional changes. This dramatic appeal could only be accepted by Quebecers as a pressing invitation to allow their claims.
And what were these claims? All those who have followed objectively the events of the last 20 years in Quebec would reply-Quebec's self-development. To suggest that this unilateral resolution, which ignores the wishes of their government and their legislature and which is rejected by their political parties, will give to Quebecers what they requested in the May referendum, amounts, like Adam said, and I quote:
-to taking people for idiots.
The Constitution
Let me deal, if I might, with the question of legitimacy. As this House knows, having dealt with law and tried to make law effective the question of legitimacy has as much to do with justice as it has with simple law. For its own reasons the government limited quite severely the number of expert witnesses who would appear before the joint committee. By that limitation it limited the public debate on the legality of Parliament acting alone in defiance of both the other partners, and in defiance of public opinion, by using a party vote at one level of the federal system to change the basic law of the federation.
The arguments about legality will be made elsewhere. As the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision revealed, opinion is divided as to whether this proposal before us is legal. The question 1 ask Canadians to consider is whether this procedure is legitimate. Is it just to have one part of the partnership use trickery to change the rules of the whole partnership against the wishes of the others?
That question is important for reasons other than morality, because if the procedure is not legitimate it will not work. We will have a system brought in place which might have a place in the laws of the land but has no place in the faith of the people, no place in the hearts or the minds of the people. You cannot simply change behaviour by passing laws. Indeed, what you can very often do by passing bad laws is to create the kind of negative reactions which will achieve results opposite to those which you had hoped to achieve.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: There is a tendency among the supporters of the government, whether in the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party or elsewhere in the country, to pretend that the controversy this measure creates will quickly pass away. In pretending that, they ignore both the history and the current reality of our country.
To cite history for just a moment, there have been times in the Canadian past when the government sought to act without proper agreement and sought to impose the views of one side on questions which were fundamentally divisive. That happened with the North West rebellion. It happened with conscription. In both cases the country suffered permanently because the grievance of discrimination was added to the other grievances of the minority whose views were ignored. No one who travels in the west today could ignore the sense of grievance there, or the degree to which that sense of grievance will be aggravated if those provinces are given second-class status under our Constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 23, 198!
The Constitution


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, no one who has been in Quebec with their ears and eyes open during the last decade could ignore the importance of provincial rights to the people of that province. When all of the parties, governments of the west and all of the provincial parties of Quebec, stand together against a measure with the determination that we have seen in their stand here, then only the blind would believe that the anger will pass away.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I find it instructive that the defenders of this unilateral and divisive resolution no longer deny that it is divisive. They know they would not be believed. They know it is divisive. Some find it exhilarating. Instead, they claim that the division will pass away as soon as the resolution becomes law, as they say happened after the flag debate. Neither a vote to approve this resolution nor colonial action in Britain will end the divisions which are growing in Canada and which are being fed by the actions of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: If this measure is successful, the aftermath of it will not have us gazing upward at a symbol as it snaps in the breeze and learning how to honour that symbol. The aftermath of the adoption of this resolution will have us looking around at the breaking of our federation and, perhaps, at the breaking of our nation itself.
Why do the Prime Minister and his supporters in the Liberal and New Democratic parties think that elected legislatures and governments of the provinces will simply accept being totally by-passed in the amendment of our Constitution? What makes anyone think that will be acceptable? Of course it will not be. Why did the Prime Minister and his supporters think that regions and provinces this resolution discriminates against will cease to feel the victims of discrimination? They will not cease to feel that. They will be reminded of it every time there is the possibility of the law being invoked.
We are not discussing here a symbol to be seen. We are discussing here a constitution to be used. And when that constitution institutionalizes inequality among provinces, when that constitution authorizes means to break the federal partnership, then that constitution makes divisions permanent. That is what this project will do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: There is an even more dangerous dimension to be considered. When that constitution is imposed-let me call the attention of the chamber to the process we have seen here-after advertising campaigns designed to manipulate public opinion, imposed after admitted attemps to manipulate the provinces, imposed after the Prime Minister himself has stood in this House and admitted that he was "less than candid to use his words, in telling the truth to the people and the Parliament of Canada about what the British said about our Constitution, then the manner of the imposition itself becomes
a grievance which could become a permanent grievance in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is time to face facts, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister and his supporters have profoundly divided Canadians of good will who could have worked together and who wanted to work together. They have disappointed Canadians of good faith who thought that Constitution-making, to be valid at all, had to be a process of consensus, not the imposition of the will of one government or of one man. Those sincere and hopeful Canadians who see a charter of rights and freedoms that should be the expression of the dreams of all our people are being held hostage to a terribly divisive process. Obviously, the Prime Minister should free the charter voluntarily from that process. He should let us complete our work upon it with a few more improvements here in this House. He should let us agree unanimously in this House, for the sake of Canada, to recommend that charter go not to a foreign country but to the provinces of Canada, to the other partners in our confederation, so that together we can work on the rights, the liberties and the freedoms of the people we together serve.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Lyon!


Charles Joseph Clark: The courageous Minister of Justice shouts across the House "Mr. Lyon." There is one premier, and perhaps there are others, who has been outspoken in saying that he is against a particular proposal. What is the reaction of the Minister of Justice? Does he try to persuade him? Does he try to create public opinion which will change the opinion of that premier? No. He runs away to Britain and abandons the federal principle of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I share the commitment of many in this House and in this country to a very strong charter of rights-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -just as I understood the commitment of other members of this House and other citizens of this country in earlier times to a universal system of medicare or to the principle of equalization.
The commitment to those issues, and to others, was as intense as the commitment to a charter of rights. The cause, arguably, was as important but in those cases the Canadian federal process was followed. The Canadian way was respected. Why not now? If it was good enough for medicare, why is it not good enough for the charter of rights? If it was good enough for equalization, why is it not good enough for the charter of rights? Why should this one measure, this one obsession of the man who happens to be Prime Minister, allow
February 23, 1981

us to break away from the federal system with consequences which none of us can contemplate except to know that they will be bad?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, there are many in this chamber and in this country who remember the deep debates about medicare in Canada. They occurred in every political party and in every region of Canada. The result was that we followed the process of Canadian federalism and we obtained agreement. We now have a national medicare program in this country because we followed the Canadian federal way of getting agreement, of persuading people, of changing opinion, not simply running away to Britain when we ran into somebody who seemed to take a position different from our own. We followed the Canadian way on medicare. We can follow the Canadian way on the charter of rights.


An hon. Member:: Spending power.


Charles Joseph Clark: In this country we could have had, not simply on a matter of-I am being shouted at from the other side, and I say that is fine.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Tell the truth. It was imposed by spending power. The provinces complained at that time.


Charles Joseph Clark: I want to get the Minister of Justice on the record. He is saying that it was imposed by the use of the spending power, and that many people were concerned about that.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That's all.


Charles Joseph Clark: But it was done within the context of the Canadian federal system. That is the distinction between this case and that. That is the distinction there. They find it funny that we should abuse the Canadian federal system here. What I find funny, but not humorous, is that this government, simply because it is committed to a particular charter of rights, is prepared to abandon and damage the federal system and the Canadian way of doing things. Instead of using the patience, the time and the perseverance that it takes to get anything that is worthy done in this country, they run away to Britain. That is what I find absolutely unacceptable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me pursue this for just a moment, because there is no question that there are sincere, dedicated people in the country who do not share the view of this Prime Minister and of many people in the House regarding a charter of rights. That is abundantly clear. But it is also abundantly clear that those are people who would be prepared to engage in argument and discussion in this country. If they are premiers and members of legislatures, they are people who would take account of informed public opinion when the time came to cast their vote in the legislature of Manitoba, Ontario or Quebec. If public opinion wanted a charter of rights as strongly as this
The Constitution
government says it does, then public opinion would make itself felt upon the legislators and provincial legislatures across the country, and we would have this system in a Canadian way. Not simply would we have it in Canadian law; we would have it accepted in Canadian practice as being a legitimate way to get change in a country like Canada. This charter of rights, unhappily for the people it is supposed to protect, will never have that kind of legitimacy because it will always bear the heavy odour of imposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me ask the House to look at this question in another- way. If we begin by imposing the Prime Minister's obsession and build in a referendum which allows the Constitution to be changed without the provinces being consulted, what obsessions will follow? What will be the next program forced by the centre upon the parts? What will happen to the federation when its more independent members, such as those in Quebec or in the west, say, "We have had enough of this; we have had enough of these obsessions being forced by running away to Britain or by the use of a referendum that ignores the provinces and undercuts the federal system"? What will they say then? They shake their heads because they do not have the answer. I have the answer. We will have a country in very deep trouble, trouble which is not necessary but trouble caused by the way in which this government is pushing through an obsession of its own with no regard for the consequences for this country and regard for the Canadian way of doing things.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Throughout this debate we have proposed better ways to proceed on this matter: asking Britain simply to send our Constitution home with the Vancouver formula, proposing a system of incentives to obtain final agreement on that formula in Canada, splitting the package in two so that Canadians can deal with our rights in our country. Again, we now propose deleting the offensive anti-federalist referendum proposal. What animates us in all of this is the absolute certainty that there is a better way to bring our Constitution home and a better way to bring it up to date.
Of course there have been problems in the past. I am prepared to say that some of those problems might be less acute now simply because we have had the process of discussion, particularly televised discussion before the joint committee. I think that public opinion is more informed and that some of the people who have taken hard positions on some of these questions would take more flexible positions now.
The point is that our system can be made to work in this country. But two motives dominate us in what we do with the proposals, the alternatives we bring forward. First, we must respect the Canadian-federal system, because it does work, and nothing else will work in a nation like ours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
7572

February 23, 1981
The Constitution


Charles Joseph Clark: The second motive is to have our Constitutionmaking become a source of agreement and pride in the country rather than a source of conflict and anger. The great irony is that the government is using a constitutional process which drives Canadians apart at the very time when, in other aspects of our lives, Canadians are coming together.
Over the last decade in particular there have been great and positive changes in two regions in this country, Quebec and western Canada, changes most of all in self-confidence. In both those regions, people feel equal to Canadians from other regions. They want to play a major role in building a great country. This feeling is there but it has not always been there.
1 can remember times, growing up in western Canada, when the sense of having to suffer some kind of inequality was simply something to be borne. There was the sense that western Canadians could compete as equals. I am sure that if Quebecers spoke from their hearts in this House, they would tell us there have been times when their sense of subordination to the English was profound. Well, that sense is not now in Quebec, nor is it in western Canada. What is there instead is a sense of pride and confidence and a determination to get on with building a great country.
The tragic irony is that at a time when there was that sense of Canadians wanting to build together and when regions which had felt inferior began to feel equal, instead of using that great emotion and that great sense of Canada to build common Canadian purposes, this government brought in a measure which drives Canadians apart. Our Constitution could be a source of Canadian pride and unity. Our Constitution has been made a source of Canadian shame and division. That is the result to which we object most absolutely here, and it is for that reason that we intend to use every device which is available to us to change public opinion, to change this resolution, and to stop this government from bringing through a constitutional package that would be bad and divisive for our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, the constitutional resolution before us is simple and compelling. It will give us our own Constitution with an amending formula and with a charter of fundamental rights and freedoms. It recognizes the rights of Canada's Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples. It ensures that children may be educated, where numbers warrant, in either of our two official languages. It recognizes the rich heritage that people from so many different ethnic backgrounds and cultures have brought to Canada. It enshrines the principle of equalization, recognizing that in sharing our immeasurable resources and in working together to meet new and unforeseen challenges we will continue to be one of the most fortunate nations in the world.
Last May, during the vote on separation, all parties in this House and all provincial premiers made a commitment to constitutional reform and to renewed federalism. We are now honouring that commitment. Our commitment and our Constitution will enable us to get on with the task of building, through negotiation, a new and better way of sharing powers and responsibilities with the provinces. This is the base on which we will build a modern Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised when I listened to the speech of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). He stated that the Progressive Conservative Party was the only one to support Quebec's position on the constitutional issue. I would like to ask him a few questions. Can he explain to Quebecers what the Vancouver formula will do to help Quebec share its basic rights as a province, which rights differ from those of the other provinces? I would also like to ask him what this government has done in support of the linguistic rights of Quebecers.
I suggest that we have done a great deal to demonstrate that Quebec is important for Canada, and I would like to tell the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that when he speaks of the divisions which have been created in this country, I have not seen any at this time, but he can expect the greatest division not to be in our country. This division will be among those who are blind. Most Canadians, or at least 85 per cent of the population, support the entrenchment of a charter of basic rights in our own Canadian Constitution.

I should like to say that at the heart of the resolution before us is the relationship it seeks to establish between individuals and the state. The state will not be able to deny fundamental freedoms such as freedom of speech or freedom to worship in one's own religion. Governments will not be able to erect barriers against Canadians moving freely from coast to coast or seeking work in any province. Every individual will be protected against discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability. And finally, the Constitution guarantees important legal rights. I wish to focus my comments on some of these legal rights, Mr. Speaker, and on why they must be entrenched.
I speak of security against unreasonable search and seizure; the right on being arrested to retain counsel and as well to be informed of the right to have counsel; the right to habeas corpus; to trial within a reasonable time; to reasonable bail; to trial by jury for serious offences; protection against cruel and unusual punishment and, most important, specific remedies are made available where any such legal rights or any of the rights or freedoms guaranteed in the charter have been infringed or denied.
If there were to be an improper search or seizure, for example, the official involved could be subject to a fine or perhaps even to suspension. If excessive force were used, the victim could be awarded damages by a court. If a municipality were to deny a religious group a licence for a gathering, a court could overrule that and order, by mandamus, that a permit be issued. It could award damages. If a school board
February 23, 1981

were to deny second language education, it could be compelled to supply it if numbers warrant.
An important right and one which I think demonstrates the essence of what we are achieving in terms of human rights is provided in the case where evidence is obtained illegally. The constitutional resolution amends our present law. It states that where constitutional rights have been broken in gathering evidence, the court can grant a number of remedies, including such evidence being declared inadmissible. This will occur only in circumstances where the court can determine that its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. [Translation]
That is one way the charter could balance the protection of the individual against arbitrary or excessive use of government authority and the protection of society against crime. We have not adopted the American rule which prohibits the production of evidence, however relevant, as proof of guilt if such evidence is obtained illegally. If such a rule were implemented in Canada it would generate a feeling of frustration among law enforcement officers and also among citizens since the rule itself or a simple violation of the rules could lead automatically to acquittal.
The charter would seem to improve upon the existing legislation which, in most cases, allows the production of illegally obtained evidence. Therefore, this new provision strikes a balance between the individual's rights and the collective need for an effective enforcement of the law and for an equitable judicial system. Consequently, a piece of evidence which is considered relevant, even though it may have been obtained illegally, will be allowed unless its production might bring discredit upon the administration of justice.

Our courts, under the legal rights provision, will be able to decide, for example, whether a search was conducted in a reasonable manner. They will be able to determine whether it was reasonable that a 15-year-old girl who was arrested for jaywalking, or a pregnant woman who was arrested for not having paid a speeding ticket, should be subjected to the humiliation of a strip search. They will be able to determine whether, in the case of raids, the police have acted within reasonable strengths and within reasonable bounds or whether activities now under study by the McDonald Royal Commission were reasonable in the circumstances. If the court should determine that they were not, then the victims will have a remedy available to them.
The charter entrenches another most important right, namely, a person's right not only to obtain and instruct counsel but also to be informed of the right to have counsel. This is a progressive step which recognizes that rights should not only be available but they must be made known.
Another such right which I am proud to see in this constitution is that trials must be held within a reasonable time. Every individual who is accused and arrested should have the oppor-
The Constitution
tunity to have his or her guilt or innocence determined quickly. This is not only fair but, when you consider that it costs about $30,000 a year to keep a person in detention, it also makes good economic sense.
Some have said that we need not entrench these and other basic legal rights in a constitution, that it is sufficient for us to leave them to our federal and provincial law makers and to the common law. Let us, therefore, examine this proposition together. First, we do have a Bill of Rights that mentions some, but not all, of the rights contained in the constitutional resolution. How strong are these rights and how good a job do they do? Look at the Lavell case. Mrs. Lavell, an Indian, married a non-Indian. Under the Indian Act, she lost her status rights even though the same would not have happened had she been a man. At that time the Bill of Rights precluded discrimination based on sex. The Supreme Court held that it could not overrule the Indian Act; it was just another act along with the Bill of Rights. In similar circumstances, Sandra Lovelace has had to appeal to the United Nations because no appeal was available in Canada. When freedom from discrimination based on sex, or on any other ground, is set down in our Constitution, it will take precedence over every other law, federal, provincial or municipal. That is why we need entrenchment.
Second, we need entrenchment because even the long and prestigious history of the common law of Great Britain has indicated that it may not, in itself, prove capable of protecting important freedoms. For example, last October 21,000 U.K. prison guards went on strike. They were not available to escort accused persons to court hearings under habeas corpus. The response of the Home Secretary was to introduce a bill in Parliament authorizing the suspension of habeas corpus. So much for rights which are not entrenched in a Constitution.
Third, it is true, as many members opposite have said, that Canada is enriched by its diversity. We respect that diversity. We respect the diversity of its peoples, its geography, its customs and its traditions. The fact that we respect this diversity and are enriched by it does not mean our basic minimum rights and freedoms should be diverse, different and disparate. On the contrary, is it not fair and just that Canadians from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island, from our southern border to our far north, should enjoy the same basic minimum human rights? There should be no second-class citizens. Provinces should not have the right, as hon. members of the opposition advocate, to opt out of guaranteeing basic, minimum human rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Let me cite some facts which illustrate the nature of this problem. At present, we have 11 different bills of rights in Canada, one federal and ten provincial. Seven provinces provide no protection for the physically handicapped. No province protects the mentally disabled. Three provinces provide no or only limited rights for women. Five provinces do not protect the aged in their charters. Furthermore, it is desirable that basic legal rights, such as the right to a speedy

February 23, 198!
The Constitution
trial and reasonable bail, should be available, not only for federal criminal offences but for the numerous provincial offences, such as highway traffic, liquor and environmental laws.
A major argument against entrenchment is that it will leave questions of interpretation, and thus the application of rights and freedoms in specific cases, to the determination of our courts. Some say this will deny the supremacy of Parliament. To this argument, our only response can be: "So be it." The courts now determine which of our powers are federal and which are provincial. Every day, the courts are called upon to dispense justice and to interpret the rights of individuals. It is merely a logical progression to give them additional authority to interpret our fundamental rights and freedoms as individuals.
1 would rather see the courts charged with this responsibility than leave a free hand to legislators, legislators who have in the past shown themselves capable of enacting laws which disenfranchised Chinese Canadians, which abolished the use of French in Manitoba, which denationalized the citizenship of Japanese Canadians, which suppressed freedom of religion and speech in provinces, which restrained public assemblies and which limited the use of English in the province of Quebec. Life has changed considerably since the nineteenth century when doctrines such as Parliamentary supremacy were adumbrated. We no longer fear the power of a monarch. What does concern us is the incredible multiplicity of regulations, rules, orders and directives that are not debated in Parliament and which can infringe basic rights. These regulations emanate from the numerous bureaucracies and regulatory agencies created at the federal level, the ten provincial levels and at thousands of municipal levels.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: While the task force on regulatory reform made many recommendations that would open up the regulatory process to public scrutiny and to accountability of legislators, we believe entrenching the fundamental rights contained in this constitution bill will help to avoid abuses of the rights of individuals when they arise.
In 1976, with the agreement of all provinces, Canada ratified the universal declaration that has now become the international bill of rights. In both drafting and amending our charter, the international bill served as a touchstone. It would bother me were we not prepared to take every step here in Canada to implement, foster and protect those rights which we have agreed to by international treaty.
To summarize, entrenching a charter is a declaration to Canadians and others that we believe first in protecting human rights and freedoms. We believe these rights and freedoms should not be brushed aside by a transient majority in any legislative body.
I wish to quote the words of a former prime minister, Lester B. Pearson, who said:
In short, freedom and welfare must be kept in a healthy balance or there will be trouble. This essential balance can be achieved by applying, to every proposal for further intervention by the state, the question: will it truly benefit the individual; will it enlarge or restrict his opportunity for self-expression and development?
Governments are elected to serve the needs of all people, not their own. Their highest calling is to protect individual rights and freedoms. Those who would deny Canadians this Constitution that we propose because we have not obtained the unanimous support of the provinces are closing their eyes to the present and turning their backs on the future.


An hon. Member:: Why haven't they supported it?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The hon. members asks why the provinces have not supported this resolution. I am happy to trace the course of history in recent times. We have seen one province seeking to bargain rights for higher oil prices, one province seeking to bargain rights for offshore oil resources. We see one province whose leader is dedicated to separation and is committed to ensuring that federalism in Canada does not work.
We are not using the wrong process to break a deadlock. We are using the only process to obtain our own Constitution with an entrenched charter of rights, something which is sought by 85 per cent of the Canadian people. We are at a crossroads and it is time to act. History will record this measure as an act of statesmanship and national building of the highest order. I am proud to support it.


Mr. Otto Jelinek (Hatton):: Mr. Speaker, I know the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is going to leave now because he does not want to hear the blame he is going to receive from me.


An hon. Member:: He does not want to hear the truth.


Otto John Jelinek: He never wants to hear the truth. That is why he is not going to the people on the Constitution.
1 have followed this debate with great interest over the past weeks and, indeed, months. There have been some good speeches, some emotional speeches. The last speech by the backbench Liberal member of Parliament certainly was not a good or emotional speech. When commenting on good and emotional speeches, I must refer to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), who led off the debate for this party a couple of days ago, and the speech made earlier this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). Listening to speeches like that makes you proud to be a Canadian.
I have always been proud to be a Canadian. I am even more proud when I hear members responding to the wishes of Canadians. If anything has been missing in the context of a general debate on the Constitution, it is the fact that there has not been enough input from apolitical Canadians, those not affiliated with a political party. That is an important sector of our system as well. I refer to the individual Canadian who does not have the time to get involved. When I found out I would be taking part in this debate, I made it a point to hold public forums. These were held not only in the various areas of Halton in the last week or ten days, but, like the experience of most members, across Canada.
February 23, 1981

Today I do not intend to emphasize the technical analysis dealt with by previous speakers in a very proper and direct fashion. I want to bring to the floor of the House what I have been told by my constituents. I find that to be of great importance because a Member of Parliament is elected to abide by the wishes of the majority of his constituents. I have always felt that way. That is my feeling on this issue as on previous issues.
I know my speech will be cut at five o'clock for private members' hour. Before that time arrives, I wish to stress that opposition to the Liberal constitutional package is from the Canadian people, not just the interested groups, the eight provincial premiers and a number of New Democratic Party Members of Parliament. The opposition is from the majority of Canadians. Every poll, householder and other source shows that to be the fact.
Responses to a questionnaire in my constituency indicate that 83.1 per cent support patriation of the Constitution as it now is in Westminster. Only 18 per cent of those feel the provinces should be excluded. In other words, only 18 per cent support the Liberal motion. A Gallup poll in January showed that 64 per cent of Canadians opposed the Trudeau proposition and 22 per cent supported it. That was in January. We are now near the end of February. As hon. members know, the longer this debate goes on, the more support Canadians show toward the position of this party on patriation of the Constitution. The Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses asked their membership of 55,000 whether they were in favour or against. These are businessmen from across the country, including Quebec, the maritimes, the west Ontario. Seventy-five per cent opposed the Liberal position.
Canadians want the Constitution returned to Canada, but not in the way the Liberals are proposing. I have before me something which has been read into the record on a number of occasions; I think I have time to read it one more time. On October 22, the Leader of the Opposition moved the following motion:
That this House supports the immediate patriation of the Constitution of Canada, incorporating only the generally agreed upon amending formula known as the Vancouver consensus, so that all other constitutional changes shall be made in Canada by Canadians.
Canadians support that motion. Why cannot we, the elected representatives, Liberal, New Democratic or Conservative, act in this House of Commons on behalf of the majority of Canadians?
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker);: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn)-Canada Savings Bonds-Request for increase in interest rate; the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid)-Environment-Pollution of Niagara River-Representations to United States authorities; the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr.	Manly)-Native
rights-Agreement with Committee for Original Peoples Entitlement-Government position.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Benno Friesen: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of reorganizing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by dividing its present responsibilities to provide for the establishment of two separate and distinct Crown corporations, one which will deal with all programming and distribution aspects and another which will be responsible for production.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion deals with the subject of the Crown corporation known as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Whenever this topic comes before any general audience, it tends to raise the level of interest of CBC-philes and CBC-phobes. There are extremities of view on this particular subject. There are those who think there is very little wrong with the CBC and therefore only fine tuning-if I can use that metaphor in this context-is necessary to improve that corporation. Then there are those who are absolutely opposed to anything the CBC does and would like to see it sold or disbanded-anything just to get it off the corporate landscape of Canada.
I have been interested in the work of the CBC for quite some time, partly because of my background. My academic training is in the arts. I have an inherent interest in the arts. I am very concerned about the value structure in our society, and television and radio are the great communicators of values in our country.
February 23, 1981

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Let me say parenthetically that I have been critical of the CBC many times. I am sure that often my criticism has been interpreted as CBC bashing when it was not intended to be that at all. I want hon. members to understand now that the motion before us is not to be used for CBC bashing. It is to be used so that we can look at the corporate structure for which we in Parliament are accountable. We can analyse it, hopefully somewhat dispassionately, and see if there are not perhaps better ways of dealing with these matters.
In March, 1980, an article entitled "Focus" was published in a magazine called Report. The article was written by Pierre Lortie. Mr. Lortie is the executive vice president and partner of the Montreal organized research firm SECOR Incorporated. He is a widely read author on economic matters. He received his bachelor's degree at Laval University and studied as well at Louvain, Belgium. He was executive assistant to the Quebec minister of finance from 1970 to 1972. He has also advised the government on urban transit and taught at Laval University. I would say that this man has fairly good credentials. I think he has all the right credentials to make some commentary on government organization and government corporations.
He argues that we ought to sell the CBC, presumably to the private sector, perhaps dismember it in some way or other and allow other communications industries to buy up those segments of CBC after it has been dismembered. That is not my argument. I underscore that that is not my argument, but Mr. Lortie makes the point that it ought to be sold for a very important reason, and that is that its original mandate is no longer necessary. He says that the CBC was founded by an act of Parliament in 1932 to establish and consolidate an infant communications industry in Canada. I will quote from Mr. Lortie's article as follows:
A cursory overview of the rapidly-expanding technology in telecommunications leaves the curious feeling that the CBC has outlived its usefulness. One can no longer seriously argue the case for development of an "infant industry" where the radio and television broadcasting industries are concerned: both are mature.
Foreign ownership is not a problem. Some might complain about the proportion of foreign programming. But we know from experience that public ownership and millions of dollars in subsidies to a Crown corporation do not solve this problem. The CRTC reported in 1977 that "to maintain a commercial presence and keep a share of the audience, CBC offers a high percentage of U.S. entertainment programming during prime time." More precisely, according to the report, 64 per cent of prime time fare consists of U.S.-made programs. Here it looks as though it is easier to preach about virtue than live with its predicaments.
Then he goes on to say that the prime industries are no longer radio and television but are industries such as pay-television, STV, fibre optics and satellite-to-cable television. Those are the infant industries today, not television as we know it.
Second, he says the function of the CBC was to establish the industry in all communities of Canada to bring that medium to all communities of Canada. I think all members of the House know that that has not happened, in spite of such programs as the accelerated coverage program. Mr. Lortie goes on to say:
We have seen that the major impetus for establishing the CBC or enlarging its mandate was the need to develop a Canadian broadcasting system while the
"industry" was still in its infancy. Furthermore, it was asserted that a public broadcasting corporation is required to provide service to small communities and remote areas. On the face of it, the last argument is compelling. Yet, if you hail from a small community in Quebec, your personal experience should leave you wondering. For example, the TV stations in Chicoutimi, Rimouski, Sherbrooke and Rouyn-Noranda are owned by private investors, often local citizens, not by the CBC. However, the CBC does own powerful TV stations in Montreal and Quebec City. In view of its fundamental mission, the network established by the CBC warrants a general examination.
The point is, of course, that the CBC has been great in establishing itself in major centres, but it has taken a long time to move out into the perimeter areas of Canada. I think particularly hon. members from Quebec know how factual that statement is.
However, regardless of what Mr. Lortie says in his article and regardless of how persuasive his argument is, that is not my point today. My argument is that we ought to split the CBC down the middle into two corporations. One should deal with programming and distribution, and the other one should deal with production. The issue is not whether we ought to have a public corporation. The issue is how efficient that particular corporation is.
I might add that my argument for splitting it already has some precedents because I think hon. members know that the original act which created the CBC and subsequent acts included another mandate which is not the CBC's today, and that is the mandate to be the regulatory agency for the communications industry in Canada. It used to be what we now call the CRTC. That was part of its job, but Parliament and the industry realized that that was no longer relevant to its job and that there was a massive conflict of interest in that respect. Therefore, Parliament cut off that particular responsibility. I am sorry to say an aspect of it still exists in the present act whereby the CBC is charged to advise the CRTC on matters of the industry. But the issue is one of efficiency.
I should like to refer to the Lambert commission report which was published approximately two years ago. It examined efficiency in government spending and indicated the following:
-accountability is the fundamental prerequisite for preventing the abuse of delegated power and for ensuring, instead, that power is directed toward the achievement of broadly accepted national goals with the greatest possible degree of efficiency, effectiveness, probity and prudence.
That is the job. Hon. members will know that the operating budget of the CBC today is about $1.5 million per day, or over $500 million a year in tax dollars. There is at least one reason for the tremendous cost of operating the CBC.
I put a question on the order paper which was answered on June 3 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. Stollery). One of the questions in question No. 1,025 was:
How many individuals are employed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the (a) English (i) television (ii) radio (b) French (i) television (ii) radio networks?
I wonder if hon. members have a ball park understanding of the number of permanent employees in the CBC. In the
February 23, 1981

French and English networks, radio and television, plus those who are operating in ancillary forums around the Ottawa area, there are 12,035 permanent employees.


Donald W. Munro: Is that just in Ottawa?


Benno Friesen: No, these are across Canada. The fourth part of my question was:
How many individuals were employed by the CBC on a contract basis in (a) 1979 (b) 1980 to date-
Of course it referred to the French and English television and radio networks. In 1979 there were 30,817 persons on contract, and by 1980 the figure was 32,189. In other words, in one year the number of employees on a contract basis had grown by 1,372. That increase cost us something like $5.5 million.
At the same time the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) put a question on the Order Paper which was answered on October 7. His question was similar to the one I asked. The second part of his question was:
How many persons are regularly employed by the CBC on a contract basis?
Here is the conundrum: in answer to my question, the parliamentary secretary indicated 32,189, but in answer to the question of the hon. member for Vaudreuil it was 1,085. There is a lot of spillage or leakage somewhere, which can easily happen. The only difference between our questions was that he used the word "regularly." Are we to say, then, that 31,000 are irregular, or are we to say that there has been an awful ballooning in one year of 31,000 people employed by the CBC on a contract basis? There is something wrong.
Then the hon. member asked the following question:
How many persons receiving an annual salary from CBC also receive contract payments for specific assignments?
Of course that referred to moonlighting within the corporation, and the answer was that 412 were on regular salaries within the CBC and also moonlighting and receiving contract payment.
My point is that one cannot expect a corporation with approximately 44,000 employees, which is really the size of the city of Chatham or some other small city, to operate efficiently; there is a lot of spillage in that size of corporation.
We ought to split the corporation into two separate organizations. We hope this will create some competition which would plug some of the holes through which the leaks are taking place. Competition is always related to efficiency, or vice versa. So, I propose one separate corporation dealing with production facilities. Those facilities ought to be available by contract to independent and CBC producers on a fee for service basis. An independent producer would then be able to go into those facilities and say, "I want to rent these facilities for a production I have in mind; I am willing to pay the going rate." That corporation should be managed on a cash and value of production basis; CBC producers should pay the same amount as independent producers; then there will be some control of the costs.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
The second corporation would deal with programming distribution. That CBC distribution centre would design its programs on the available ones from independent or CBC producers. It would buy those programs on a budget and value criteria. Because of the market system, hopefully it would find programs produced by independent producers to be just as attractive-and sometimes even maybe even more attractive- as those produced by CBC producers. The marketing division of the separate program distribution corporation would treat independent and CBC producers on an equal basis. In that way there would be an opportunity for CBC production costs to be held in line, because it could not have massive cost overruns and find a product which would be saleable to the distribution corporation. Therefore, CBC producers would have to discipline themselves in producing their programs. Also it would open up the entire area of distribution and viewing opportunities for a host of independently produced programs which ought to be seen but are possibly being shut out, because it is too easy for a bias to exist within the CBC against anything produced outside of the corporation.
I believe my proposal deserves some study. It is not an idea which will be bought overnight. I am sure the people within the CBC will fight it because they have a vested interest. I suggest to hon. members that there would be greater opportunities for parliamentary control of the vast expenditure of $1.5 million per day in the CBC today, for which we are accountable, if there were two independent corporations competing for the marketplace and providing what I think would be a higher quality of viewing for Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made some very legitimate and good points. However, I question his modus operandi.


Benno Friesen: The "however" came too early.


Ron Irwin: I put it to the hon. member that there are now two distinct parts to the CBC. There is CBC Radio Canada and CBC in English Canada and there is talk of a CBC-2. In essence, we would have a CBC-1 and 2 in English Canada and a CBC-1 and 2 in French Canada. Thus, there are four units. The hon. member suggests that this be broken into production and distribution. In essence, he is talking about chopping CBC up into eight distinct units. If he is looking for more efficiency and more accountability, and I am quoting him, then I suggest that is not the way to do it. I think what he should be looking for-and I say this sincerely-is the good in CBC. He should be promoting that. I suggest it is more difficult, politically, to do such things. I will give an example, namely Louis Riel. It was a good production, it taught Canadians-


Benno Friesen: It was run three times in three years.


Ron Irwin: It taught Canadians right across Canada something about their country. It was entertaining. But it cost $2

February 23, 1981
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation million. Would the hon. member opposite say we need at least a dozen of these productions every two years, or one every two months? Would he suggest we spend $24 million? I hardly think so.
I think what he is doing is what is popular, and what I did for many years, that is, CBC bashing. It is almost as good as bureaucrat bashing. As top officials of the CBC say, "We are loved where we are not, and we are hated where we are." There is much truth in that.
What is CBC and how does it relate to this proposal? The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Fries-en) has placed before the House a very important motion concerning the two major functions of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that is, program production and program distribution. The motion, in essence, proposes the examination of the advisability of re-organizing the CBC into two separate and distinct Crown corporations, one having responsibility for production and the other being primarily involved in the distribution of programs it would acquire, purchase or negotiate from the production facility. The theory behind this is not new. If the hon. member will read "Touchstone", I think he will see that is exactly what the president of the CBC wants to do.


Benno Friesen: Not "Touchstone", but "Tombstone".


Ron Irwin: The president of the CBC is talking about getting more Quebec people involved in production. He talks about better programming. I ask you what the other television networks are doing? Global has financial difficulties. What is CTV doing?


Peter A. Stollery: Zero.


Ron Irwin: That is right, zero. CTV is owned by a series of very lucrative affiliates. What they do is give just enough to the network, just enough to make it break even without doing top-notch production. They do some production, but not much. What is ATV doing? It is looking inward and not looking at all at Canada. Most of its production is designed to look inward. I say to the hon. member opposite that the only network doing anything of any importance and any quality is the CBC.
By the way, the hon. member is wrong with respect to the number of employees. He is 742 short. There are now 12,777, and holding. This is an updated figure.
The matter of two separate and distinct organizations to perform these functions must be examined in the light of past development and future options for the growth and health of public broadcasting in Canada. It must be looked at in the context of the utilization of public funds. What we have done with the CBC is to have set it up a decade or so ago and we have said that it must provide facilities to all towns with a population of over 500, all little villages with populations of over 500 and all little inlets with populations of over 500. They must bring CBC to the Eskimos and to all areas which the other networks will not serve. They have done this. But it has
cost a lot of money. Most of the money has gone into hardware.
Consequently, having followed the mandate of Parliament, they are now being criticized for bringing CBC to all areas of Canada. What they are looking for now is exactly what the hon. member has said-a production base. To create this production base in English Canada, they need the equivalent of what they put into Montreal. I challenge the hon. member opposite to put forward a motion in support of a production centre in Toronto. I say to him that he does not have the courage to do that, because if he did, he would find many people who would support him. He knows that such a production centre would cost $200 million. Is the hon. member suggesting that a production centre be built in Toronto at a cost of $200 million? That is exactly what it would cost.
We have given many mandates to the CBC. They have had to go to Regina, Victoria and New Brunswick, where there was no CBC until this year. They are just moving into New Brunswick. They have made their plans. They have announced that it will take some time for them to establish themselves there. The CBC is also in Sudbury. They are in these places because of the demands of Members of Parliament. The CBC having done all these things, it is now being criticized for using funds to follow the mandate of this Parliament. If this is an error, it is the result of our perception of Canada. It is not hardware which is needed, it is better quality Canadian programming.
Oddly enough, I was out in the hon. member's province as a CRTC commissioner. That was my last hearing. We were dealing with a presentation from a large B.C. delegation which was saying that they were receiving five U.S. channels in their area. They said that was undemocratic and that they were entitled to receive six. There were 10,000 buttons distributed by well-meaning British Columbians which said "CRTC, CBC-Get out of B.C." The slogan rhymed-that is culture.


Benno Friesen: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. 1 cannot let the hon. member's comment in this regard go by. It was not this side of the House which published those buttons, but the former Liberal member for Vancouver-Kingsway who was peddling them.


Ron Irwin: Over the years the CBC has been the most effective channel through which to address the matter of Canadian program development. Again, this was primarily due to the small Canadian population base, as well as the accompanying and persistent constraints on production and distribution.
In the Canadian private sector, we have one of the best production facilities in North America. It is called Glen Warren Productions, which is situated in Toronto. It is part of the CTV empire, for want of a better word. Why is that facility not used?


Benno Friesen: It is for Americans.
February 23, 1981


Ron Irwin: As the hon. member says, it does American productions which are sold to the United States. And that illustrates the attitude of the private sector. It is an attitude which the CBC must fight. If I understand correctly what the hon. member opposite has said, he is suggesting that we should build more facilities-


Benno Friesen: No, no.


Ron Irwin: Let me finish, please. The hon. member is saying we should build more public facilities which the private sector can use.


Benno Friesen: Keep the ones you have.


Ron Irwin: He wants more public facilities that the private sector can use, or ones that we already have, so that they can use their facilities for United States productions. What kind of subsidy is that?


Benno Friesen: What is the difference between selling that and selling lumber?


Ron Irwin: The CBC has always been a prime mover in Canadian program development but, at the request of Parliament, it has also figured highly in the extension of the broadcast distribution facilities.
We must make up our minds today, or within the next year, whether there will be a CBC at all. Right now in Ontario there are 56 American stations coming into the province. I firmly believe that you should not watch Canadian programs just because they are Canadian. You should watch Canadian programs because they are a good quality product. We, as parliamentarians, must decide today whether we will put our money where our mouth is and give the CBC the necessary funds to carry out this type of programming.
Obviously, we are producing good actors, writers, comedians, people in drama, because they are showing up in California. We must be doing something right in Canada because these people are coming out. In the words of Northrup Frye, they are thrown up from their environments. We are producing these people in all parts of Canada; but at the head end, namely, the House of Commons, we are not giving the required support to the CBC and its production in terms of the dollars necessary to keep these people in Canada and not let them escape to the United States. If we did, then we would be able to produce quality prognms which, first, would be watched by Canadians and, second, could be sold on the world market.


Benno Friesen: You don't want to export them.


Ron Irwin: We want to export them, Mr. Speaker; CBC wants to export them; the private sector wants to export them. They are not being exported because they are not being bought; and they are not being bought because they are not good enough; and they are not good enough because we will not put the dollars into them.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation


An hon. Member:: Wait until Andrew Johnson reads this.


An hon. Member:: Alan.


Benno Friesen: Sorry, A1 Johnson.


Ron Irwin: In addition to the competition from which we are suffering, primarily the United States-there is not that much coming in from Europe-the CBC has another problem. It is seriously challenged today by cabletelevision, pay TV, closed circuit delivery systems. Do you know what these are? They are supposed to result in an expansion of culture, but they are really one more way of hustling the American product, one more way of making a dollar, and one more way of defeating our own Canadian culture by not supporting it. Besides that, they are suffering from the adverse effects of optical fibre technology, of the videodiscs on the market, of the satellites. For $420, you can buy a dish which you just set up and point south. You lift it 18 or 19 degrees above the surface, and you can receive almost 21 or 22 U.S. programs. This is all new in the last three or four years.
The CBC was suffering before that. Prior to that time, other than sports, news and specials, it had a watch factor of perhaps 10 per cent. Over all, with these factors, it would have had a watch factor of, perhaps, 20 per cent. In other words, before these came onto the market, 25 per cent to 30 per cent of the time we were watching Canadian television, and 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the time we were watching U.S. broadcasting. It was worse in English Canada. It was far better in French Canada.


Benno Friesen: Let's build a wall.


Ron Irwin: But they are suffering too, from exposure to the culture from the United States. It is far worse now with the satellites, the videodiscs and the various technologies which have come on the market.
The point is that the whole on-air broadcasting and on-air culture is more fragile today than it was three or four years ago. Even though it is politically popular today to attack the CBC as if it were in the best interests of Canada, I do not think it is constructive any more. The CBC is on the ropes, and Canadians must decide whether the corporation is going to bind this country together, in the broadcasting sense, or whether we are going to keep it on the ropes and drive it right out of the ring, because it can be done. People listen to what is said in the House of Commons, and if we say irresponsible things- and I do not suggest that what you are saying is irresponsible-they are going to be taken as the truth, and if they are taken as the truth, people are going to turn even more against the CBC. There will come a point in this House of Commons, if people do not periodically try to defend what the CBC is trying to do, when there will be a vote, and there may be sufficient numbers in this House to vote to disband CBC, and then what are we going to do, watch ABC, CBS? Perhaps we could watch educational television from the United States? That time is nigh. Just listen to what the hon. member has said, because he makes some good points; but carry it one step

February 23, 1981
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation further and give the CBC the support that it deserves and merits. After all, it is not doing it for its own benefit. It is doing it for the benefit of Canadians across this country. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the proposal by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) that consideration be given to dividing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation into two, with completely separate jurisdictions over program production and distribution, provides fruit for argument both for the status quo and for change. The test of a final decision, I believe, is whether such a move would improve control and promote progress in these areas, and, of course, whether or not such a move would prove cost-effective.
In establishing some framework for efficiency, it should be pointed out that the corporation has a good record of performance. Studies have demonstrated that the CBC is an efficient and productive organization compared with other public broadcasters. The conclusion drawn from the studies is that the CBC has produced more programming in radio and television with less public funding and fewer employees than the BBC, or the networks of France and Japan. In fact, the CBC produces more than twice as many hours of programming per employee than other public broadcasters, in both television and radio.
I think that if you are a fan of radio, the way I am, then you, Mr. Speaker, along with other members of this House, would agree that the quality of CBC radio is unsurpassed in North America at the present time.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: CBC radio has been worked upon over the recent years, and has developed to be not only informative, but extremely enjoyable.
The CBC is demonstrably one of the most efficient, if not the most efficient, program production houses in the world, doing more with less than any other national public broadcaster. Much of this is done by a competent, talented staff aided by external contributions.
In terms of efficient use of funds, the CBC's costs per hour of programming are substantially lower than those of other public broadcasters. The total budget per hour of CBC's production output in 1975-76 was $11,600 for television compared with $43,500 for the BBC, $56,200 for the Swedish service and $78,400 for the French system.
From these statistics, the conclusion can be drawn that the CBC's ratio of program and distribution expenditures to administrative expenditures compared favourably with those of the private broadcasting sector, a conclusion which was at that time supported by the analyses of the private broadcasting sector done by Statistics Canada.
The CBC has taken a conscious managerial decision to increase greatly its involvement with the independent production sector. Its involvement embraces a number of areas;
namely, procurement of programs from independent producers, commissioning productions, co-financing and co-producing arrangements with independent producers, and craft support including post-production houses, like film processing labs and sound recording studios, as well as script development. Indeed, whenever CBC and Radio-Canada schedules can be complemented by such material, effort is made to include independent Canadian productions. It should be noted, however, that competition and private sector productions are not necessarily synonymous with lower production costs, or that private producers do not incur cost overruns.
I would say that the CBC has a record of assisting, where possible, the independent producers in carrying out their tasks. 1 am sure you have noted, Mr. Speaker, that people have complained there are many more employees of CBC present when press conferences are called than people from other networks and they want to know whether this is necessary. It should be noted, however, that the independent producers, the competing networks, make use of the equipment set up by the CBC. Certainly the costs of the independent producers would be considerably higher were it not for the fact that the CBC supplies a good deal of the necessary equipment.
A brief analysis of the situation in the United States makes this point quite clear. The major United States networks do relatively little in-house production, other than news, current affairs programming and sports. The bulk of the variety and drama productions comes from independent producers in Los Angeles and New York City. The structure of the United States industry is not without its costs. Having selected scripts for pilots, a network will pay what essentially amounts to a "licence fee", which today is usually less than the actual cost of making the pilot. In that market, it is the producer who absorbs the difference, with the hope of making it up on rights for syndication, foreign sales and literary rights.
The point made here is that, even in the United States, producers seldom cover their costs on a production. Cost overruns are either guaranteed outright by the networks in the manner of "overage" payments or the producer gambles on a long syndication run. There are built-in inefficiencies in all systems but what counts in the United States is the large market base and the potential for the recovery of costs, along with sizeable profits. In Canada, the marketplace is much different. Production funds must be utilized efficiently to achieve optimal results.
To some degree, we have already seen the corporation's efficiency in responding to its program production mandate and its flexibility and willingness to seek out the services of the Canadian independent production sector. This clearly has a stimulative effect on this service industry sector. Also, the single organization concept for both the distribution and production functions has been found to be efficient. The corporation has been able to draw upon its over-all resources to respond to so challenging a mandate. The dual agency alterna-
February 23, 1981

tive appears to add nothing new to the present broadcasting system.
Other questions also, are raised about the corporation. Would the present organizational structure not be in a better position than two corporations to integrate within its ranks the changing objectives and functions of the CBC? In its long-range objectives, is the CBC not now well placed to exploit and to market the substantial expertise of skilled personnel, associated with the combined hardware and distribution side of the business for example, to Third World countries seeking our aid, as it frequently does? The issue of morale among all experienced and dedicated staff, too, must not be overlooked.
Furthermore, from the point of view of the over-all efficient use of public funds, it is difficult to imagine how two separate and distinct organizations would not add to the burden to be borne by Canadian taxpayers. From a purely administrative point of view, many of the present functions would be duplicated since, depending on the structure of the organization itself, separate boards of directors and management functions would have to be established if the organizations were to function properly. Other questions, such as co-operation between the two organizations, duplicate roles regarding contracts with industry, governments and regulators also come to mind.
The CBC has an admirable performance record, and further, it has an unexcelled international reputation. Public broadcasting in Canada is superior in quality worldwide, relative to the financial support and human resources available. Separate and distinct organizations would not necessarily increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the services being provided and would, in all likelihood, cost more.
While I would not declare that the CBC has mounted the uppermost pinnacle of efficiency and can ascend no further, I believe it has coped well with developing requirements and is planning well to meet the future. My advice to the House, therefore, is don't tamper with success!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, fairly often we hear the Progressive Conservative Party requesting the government to cut down the number of Crown corporations in this country. So it is a bit of a change today when the hon. member asks that two corporations be created where one is doing the job. I do not hear my hon. friend advocating that private broadcasters should break themselves into separate corporations, one side for production and the other side for programming. Frankly, this is an idea we have heard in the past and not found acceptable, so we see no reason to support the motion that is before the House today.
I do not criticize the hon. member for bringing in a motion that calls for a discussion of broadcasting generally and for a discussion of the CBC. Perhaps we could do this more often. I am prepared to say that in my view the CBC, for all its faults-and it has them not only in broadcasting but in labour relations, and so on-is nevertheless doing a good job in Canada. It is a unifying force, an institution for Canadianism, and I think we should give it our full support.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
In my view, the proposal in the motion does not go in that direction, and therefore I hope the House will not pass it this afternoon but that instead, there will be other expressions of support by members of this House of Commons for a very useful and worth-while institution in this country, the CBC.


Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Fries-en) and others. Although the purpose of the motion is pretty clear, that the hon. member would like to see the CBC made into two corporations, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has just explained the sense behind it, the point of it escapes me. The arguments of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta, which I have heard on these kinds of subjects for many years, give me no clue as to why he would be interested in creating two Crown corporations instead of one. Given his philosophical view of these things, I am puzzled as to why he would be interested in creating yet another layer of bureaucracy. I am sure many people would argue, as he would, that one of the problems with Crown corporations is that they are weighted with bureaucracy. His argument that we should create a special bureaucracy to take the place of the CBC, therefore puzzles me. It does not seem to make any sense to me. I would also point out to the hon. member that when he discusses the CBC, he seems to take the view-and in this regard he has associated himself with other motions-that there should be unlimited access to signals from outside of the country. I am sure the hon. member is interested in more productions being done in Canada, because I presume that is the only substantive argument he is putting forward in favour of this motion. But I do not understand how this can come from an hon. member who believes in freedom of information and in signals being allowed across borders. He seems to take the view that that is something with which there should be very little interference. Canadian production, CBC and private, already has difficulty in competing with U.S. networks which think nothing of spending half a million dollars per hour on production. In Canada, the only serious production house, namely the CBC, spends $100,000. In other words, Canadian production is outspent five to one by the competition.
The hon. member would now like to see a special Crown corporation put together to take care of production. At the same time he does not want to give protection to the existing facilities in Canada. The sort of protection that may well be needed, in view of the technological changes, was explained to him by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Irwin). The arguments which he put forward appear to be contrary to his previous approach to the problems of broadcasting in Canada.
[ Translation\
-Mr. Speaker, in short the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta has proposed that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as it now exists be replaced by two distinct

February 23, 1981
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Crown corporations which would be fully independent from an administrative standpoint. That is what he has proposed. One corporation would be responsible for programming and the other for distribution. I must say that there is no mention of the CBC technical problems which are more complicated than a simple distribution operation.
Those problems have cost a bundle to the Canadian taxpayers because of the technical means the CBC representatives have to use. And as the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie was saying, they have just now approached the problems of northern New Brunswick which is one of the under served areas of Canada, and the cost of survival in Canadian regions where there are very few people. First I would like to give this motion a short historic background. Then I will weigh the pros and cons of that proposal in light of the technological challenge of the 1980s. Or I might leave that task to my colleague from Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) who perhaps may want to speak to this motion for a few minutes.
Whether we are talking about the English or the French network, with all their hesitations and their evolution which mirrors the development of Canada over the last quarter century, the history of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation spells success. And yet the corporation has had to overcome serious obstacles, including the breadth of the territory and the dispersion of the Canadian population, as in New Brunswick for instance. The very economy of television production is an even more serious obstacle because from the outset it militates against the production of Canadian programming. American competition is so strong indeed that some people have said that Canada's radio-television system has become ever more a means of recycling American broadcasts. Those obstacles appear to be almost insurmountable since the funds at the disposal of the American networks are two to three times larger than those available to the Canadian networks. In addition, the Canadian networks can buy low cost American programs and get more advertising dollars than they would for a Canadian program. Finally, through the cable distribution system, Canadian viewers can tune in to a great many programs aired by American stations.

I will end my remarks at this point because I know there is another hon. member who would like to say a few words on this subject.


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, a while ago, I was astonished to hear my colleague from the opposition ask that the CBC be divided into two entirely separate entities. As pointed out the former speaker, I feel the problem with CBC, at this time, is one of consolidation. To my mind, we can say that all in all, the CBC has been a great success. Just think of how vast and diverse is the territory it covers! It is a challenge that not even the American network could have met with such a small population as is the case in Canada.
As my time is very limited, I should like to stress one point only, the responsibility the CBC has to try to increase the Canadian and even the regional content of its broadcasts. That, to some extent, is the problem which confronts the Canadian people in terms of identifying the contents of its own network. Why should Canadians often prefer American or foreign programs? Because, within the contents of our CBC broadcasts, either in French or in English, there is often a feeling that programs are a copy or a remake of other programs that have nothing particularly Canadian about them.
In the area I represent, our main difficulty with the CBC concerns regional programming. In that regard, the minister was very firm recently when he said it was imperative for the CBC to move toward regional productions, that people might identify themselves with the content of their own network. One thing is sure: with the limited financial resources we grant the CBC, because after all our resources are limited-which often is not the case at the creation level-we do have to make choices.
However, in view of the main objective of the CBC and the difficulty of meeting this objective, in view of the terms of reference given to the corporation, I believe that it can be said that it has had a major success. We should consolidate further before thinking of dividing up the network. I am really surprised to hear my colleague opposite talk about dividing the network and having two separate units since his colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), appeared like myself before the CRTC to object to CBC II and Tele II.
I believe that the CBC should not aim for an extended mandate at the present time, but should instead try to consolidate what it now has. I believe that all Canadians would be proud of an increased quality and unity in the contents of CBC programming. This is one of the major objectives of the CBC at the present time as a Canadian network, and we must do everything, not to divide the CBC, but rather to unify it and to ask it to consolidate its present assets to look further to the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. Accordingly, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
February 23, 1981


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed debate on the motion of Mr. Chretien, seconded by Mr. Roberts, for an Address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada.
And on the amendment of Mr. Epp, seconded by Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton)-That the motion be amended in Schedule B of the proposed resolution by deleting Clause 46, and by making all necessary changes to the Schedule consequential thereto.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. When the debate was interrupted at five o'clock p.m., the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) had the floor.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, before the private members' hour I stressed to hon. members the importance of listening to the people at the grass roots, something that many of us, primarily the Liberals opposite, have not done enough of, particularly when it comes to the constitutional debate. My public forums in the constituency of Halton, at Acton, Milton and Oakville, were well attended. The people there were representative of other parts of Canada. They really let me hear what they thought about the Constitution.
Without a doubt, they want the Constitution here. In fact, it should have been here years ago, but certainly not in the package that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Liberals introduced before this House and in the manner they introduced it.
People ask me why this Parliament has been preoccupied for nearly a year with the constitutional debate, virtually ignoring the important issues. That is the question. This was made clear to me in October of last year when I sent a questionnaire to my constituents. I asked them, "What, in your opinion, are the most important issues in Canada today?" The replies were as follows: inflation, 47.1 per cent; energy, 14.3 per cent; unemployment, 9 per cent; law and order, 8.1 per cent, and so on down the line until the Constitution, 3.5 per cent.
The results of this constituency poll, as hon. members know, were verified by a recent Gallup poll which clearly indicated that the majority of Canadians still consider inflation the number one problem, unemployment close behind, and the Constitution way down the line.
In the public forums where I speak in my travels across Canada I am asked why the elected representatives are preoccupied with this situation at this time when we are facing inflation at 12 per cent, unemployment of one million or more, and bankruptcies, the largest portion of which occur in the small business sector of our economy. In 1980 alone, they accounted for some $700 million in liabilities. That is a shocking increase when one considers that only ten short years ago the total dollar value was only $300,000.
The Constitution
Real wages in 1980 increased by 9.9 per cent, only to be eroded by a 15.2 per cent increase in the price of food. Almost two million person-days were lost as a result of strikes and lockouts in the last three months of 1980. The national debt soared to a projected $14 billion this year. These are some of the concerns about which Canadians ask me, their elected representative. I am sure they are asking the Liberal members as well.
Any sincere attempt to develop a true people's package, as the Prime Minister refers to it, not a Constitution package, should address itself to the real concerns of the Canadian people, those I have just stated. It would propose, not the removal of the constitutional guarantee to own property, for example, which is something I want to touch on a little later but, rather, fuel and shelter allowances or a mortgage rebate plan. It would demonstrate a willingness to come to an energy agreement with Alberta. It would spell out a national energy plan which would incorporate the wisdom of the business community rather than the philosophic edicts of bygone colleagues.
Having said that and having articulated what I know are the major concerns and priorities of the citizens of this nation, I would like to turn to the issue of patriation. My colleagues have referred to this before me, but I want to put something on record again because it is important to say it over and over so that the Liberals will go back to their ridings, listen to their people and come back to the House of Commons representing the wishes of their people. When the vote comes before this Parliament, I hope they will vote in a non-partisan way and on behalf of their constituents.
It would be convenient for the Prime Minister for political reasons to define positions on this resolution as being either for or against it. This distorted perception needs to be clarified again because clearly the government is making every attempt to tag those who do not go along with his constitutional proposals as being colonials. This is just another example of the Prime Minister's contempt of the Canadian people and another example of what he hopes will be a successful attempt to mislead a misinformed and manipulated multitude into overlooking the inadequacies of his package and to distort the efforts of those concerned about the dangerous precedents which will be set should this proposal proceed as the Prime Minister has planned. It is because of regard for the federalist principles upon which this nation has been founded and upon which assurances our provinces, partners, contracted into this federation that we are determined that no constitutional amendments that would create third-class provinces and give a permanent veto to central Canada will be accepted. The Prime Minister knows this. He also knows that the package as it now stands would never receive a consensus in Canada. This is why he is going to Westminster, not just to have the Constitution patriated, for there is a number of simple ways of proceeding with such a revision, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said earlier today. The Prime Minister is going to Westminster with the hope that the British government will

February 23, 1981
The Constitution
see fit to pass what he knows will be unacceptable to the Canadian federation. In short, he has a separate set of rules for his favourite amendments. It is the Right Hon. Prime Minister who is the colonialist when he speaks this way.
I do not think it is unreasonable that we on this side of the House have asked that the convention of a century of Parliaments be recognized and the sovereignty of the provincial legislatures be recognized. This is what the Vancouver consensus proposes should be done. We know there is agreement throughout Canada for this process. We also know by instinct that no one man has the right to change our nation, to disregard convention or to destroy our federation just because he chooses to do so. Nor is it unreasonable to begin with the position that agreement can indeed be reached rather than assume that such is not possible.
The Prime Minister would like us to think that our federation has not worked. Many others before me have reminded us that it indeed has. Federal-provincial agreements have often been reached in the past. I refer, for example, to medicare, the Canada Pension Plan and equalization, to name a few. Agreements will continue to be reached in this country in the future, but not with the passage of the proposal before us. That is one of the reasons why Canadians disagree with this over-all proposal.
I know all members have received all sorts of letters from their constituents. I would like just to quote a few excerpts from the many letters which we have received, all opposing the resolution. I challenge a Liberal Member of Parliament to tell me that his constituents, in writing, through phone calls or by questionnaires such as the one I put to my constituents, agree with his proposals. In other words, I am suggesting that hon. members opposite will be voting against the wishes of their own constituents.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: We always wake them up when we tell the truth. That hurts them the most. It happens every time. Here is a letter from a constituent in Calgary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) has the floor.


Otto John Jelinek: The following is a quotation from a letter from a Canadian to me.
Trudeau is bent on changing this country into a socialized dictatorship and you are the only people who can stop this fool ... He is dividing the country to conquer it.
That is from Robert Moyer of Calgary. Here is part of another letter:
Equal application of discriminatory rights is not the answer.
That is from Judy Alexander of Oakville. Here is another one:
If Pierre changes our Constitution and then brings it home, what he is bringing home is not our Constitution but Pierre's Constitution. We are led to believe there is nothing we can do to stop this changed Constitution from arriving in Canada because Pierre was voted into power by a majority.
That is signed by Margaret Catchpole of Oakville. There is a point in that. This Canadian citizen voted for the Liberals, perhaps, but she did not give the Liberal government the mandate which the Prime Minister says he has in dealing with the Constitution. I did not hear him make great waves during the election campaign about the constitutional proposals and what he would do. In fact, I did not hear him say anything during the election campaign. However, what did remind me of his campaign promises in the last election campaign were those of Premier Levesque of Quebec when he ran his last election campaign on the economy and not separatism but then reversed the situation.
I do not like quoting too much, but I must quote one part of an editorial for the benefit of the Liberal government, which is mostly comprised of Quebec members.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: We have read many editorials from Ontario, from the western provinces and from the maritimes. Here is one from Le Devoir, which usually supports the Liberals. I will read just a portion of it, as follows:
If Mr. Trudeau wishes to be intellectually honest, he will recognize that he has no moral right to alter the federal system without consulting the country. Before going any further the Prime Minister should call a general election. It is essential that Canadians know clearly what future is being readied for them in Ottawa and London.
That is from an editorial in Le Devoir of October 16. There should be an election or even a referendum because when we are talking about the future of our country, the people should have a say, and they do not have a say when it comes to the benches opposite and to the majority of those left wingers to my left, with the exception of the four escapees and now their new supporter in Saskatchewan.
Allow me to become a little personal because this is relevant to this whole situation. My family and I escaped from a foreign country in which rights, privileges and freedoms were taken away. I speak of Czechoslovakia. There were five of us children and my parents. We left because we were bred on the strengths, opportunities and freedoms which used to exist in that country. When these disappeared, my father in his wisdom took the whole family, seven of us, out, with no money, to a new country where we could not speak the language. We did not know the new way of life in the new country. We came to the shores of Canada. Upon stepping onto the shores of Canada, I and my family fell in love with this country. We have loved this country dearly from the day we stepped onto its soil. It has given us many opportunities. It has given me opportunities in the fields of amateur sport, professional sport, business, the helping of disabled children, Big Brother organization and the list goes on. It was a country which provided the freedoms, hopes and aspirations of many Canadians like myself and my family. My reason for telling this story is very simple. We came to Canada because the freedoms were here-
February 23, 1981

the freedom to move, the freedom to speak, the freedom to work, and freedom of the press.


Ron Irwin: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: What does the hon. member opposite have to say about it? Why does he not rise and say what his constituents think about the Liberals opposing this? The Liberals are trying to tell me that Canada does not have these freedoms. They are trying to tell me that Canada has no freedoms, that we are not allowed to speak or to travel.


Mr. Portelance:: What happened in Czechoslovakia?


Otto John Jelinek: Now an hon. member opposite is telling me to go back to Czechoslovakia.


Mr. Blais:: That is not what he said.


Otto John Jelinek: That is a good Liberal! In that sense, if we compare-


Arthur Portelance: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member has not understood what we have said on this side of the House, I would advise him to read and pay attention to what we said previously. We would not want to see what happened in Czechoslovakia occur in Canada. This is what we said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: They sound like a bunch of penguins over there. I have the Soviet constitution in front of me to which I should like to refer. It is amazing how similar it is to our Constitution. Section 2(a) of the proposed Canadian Constitution reads:
freedom of conscience and religion;
Article 52 of the Soviet constitution reads:
Citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess in any religion, and to conduct religion worship of atheistic propaganda.
Section 2(b) of Canada's Constitution reads:
Freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
Article 50 of the Soviet constitution reads:
In accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system, citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations.
It goes on and on. Elections shall be equal; each citizen shall have one vote; all voters shall exercise the franchise on an equal footing. All the rights which are supposed to be entrenched in our Constitution are in the constitution of the Soviet Union. They are very similar, to the point where the right to own property is not included in either constitution.
The Constitution
The Prime Minister does not want to include it and the Liberals refused to accept the amendments of my party. It is interesting to note that both these constitutions do not include property rights. Therefore, is it any wonder that the Kremlin or the Soviet Union, through its official newspaper Pravda, has finally thrown its support behind the Prime Minister and the Liberal government?


Some hon. Members:: Naturally.


Otto John Jelinek: Is that a coincidence?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Tell us about Bill Davis.


Otto John Jelinek: If 1 had had more time, I would have dealt in more detail with the right to own property in this country, which is why many people came here. If certain rights are not entrenched in the Constitution, obviously they will disappear in the future.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Oh, come on.


Otto John Jelinek: If not, why is the government not entrenching them? Can they tell me that?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: They will not tell me. I do not have the time to deal with that matter, primarily because of the many interruptions of the Liberals during my brief remarks.
For the record, I should like to refer to some of the statements of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) who is present in the chamber. In chronological order, on June 25 last year, the Prime Minister stated that he did not discuss the problem of lack of consensus in Canada with Mrs. Thatcher. He said:
Well, that's a hypothesis I did not ask her to examine and I don't believe she did examine-
On September 26, press reports of the London talks indicated that only the technical aspects of patriation were discussed. On October 30, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that Mrs. Thatcher was informed of the possibility of disagreement in Canada, but he led us to believe that the British did not see any problem. He went on to say:
-there was a common assumption that on both sides that the normal constitutional convention would be followed.
On October 31, the same minister reaffirmed his position of October 30. Then on January 22, the Prime Minister told us in a press conference that he informed Mrs. Thatcher of the charter and of the possibility of disagreement in Canada on June 25. He told her on June 25 that the government would not get support-or so he said-so she knew.
Some people could refer to these inconsistencies as flip-flops. God only knows the Liberals have had enough of those. We do not have to go all the way back to 1974, at which time the Liberals said that we would never have wage and price controls, and a few months later they imposed much tougher wage and price controls than this party would have recommended.

February 23, 1981
The Constitution
I could refer to the recent election campaign when they said, "Do not vote for the Tories because they will increase the price of gasoline by 18 cents." Since last year, as all of us who buy gasoline at the gas pumps know, the price of 18 cents per gallon of gasoline has roughly doubled.


Some hon. Members:: Even more than that.


Otto John Jelinek: Yes, even more than that. The Liberals know what a flip-flop is. We can compare the June 25 statement of the Prime Minister to the one of January 22. It was not tongue in cheek, as the Prime Minister likes to say. He said that perhaps he was less than candid. It was not less than candid. He lied, he lied to the Canadian people and he lied to the media. We have a Prime Minister who lies to the country and gets away with it. In any other country, like the United States and elsewhere, a leader of the government would be impeached for lying to the people, especially in regard to an important situation like the future of the country. I challenge the Prime Minister to either withdraw his statement-


Jean-Jacques Blais: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) on a point of order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am dismayed with the comments of the hon. member. He is using unparliamentary language and I would ask him to abstain from doing so in the future and to withdraw the allegations and statements that he made in unparliamentary terms. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that you will ask the assistance of the clerks of the Table to have the member himself withdraw from the House or withdraw his offensive comments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. minister has raised a question of language used by the hon. member which is unparliamentary. In particular, reference to lies, I believe, would be construed as unparliamentary. Is the hon. member prepared to withdraw those allegations?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I still have a few minutes left. The minister says that he is dismayed by my unparliamentary language, to use his words.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw!


Otto John Jelinek: Be quiet for one second and listen.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Otto John Jelinek: The minister says that he is dismayed by what he refers to as unparliamentary language. I, and Canadians, are dismayed by the Prime Minister's language.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I invite the hon. member who is making his point to consider that certain references^are generally accepted as unparliamentary. That particular expression is unparliamentary. If the hon. member could rephrase his remarks to avoid an unparliamentary expression, I invite him to do so.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, my conscience does not allow me to withdraw something which I believe in very strongly.


An hon. Member:: Resign!


Otto John Jelinek: Anyone who knows the facts, Mr. Speaker, knows that the Prime Minister lied. My conscience will not allow me to withdraw that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I invite the hon. member, in the tradition of this House and the customs which have prevailed, to consider the language he has chosen. 1 invite him to restate his remarks.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister has acted in an unparliamentary way by twisting truths and by lying. I cannot possibly withdraw my statement.


Some hon. Members:: Resign!


Jean-Jacques Blais: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to direct the hon. gentleman from Halton (Mr. Jelinek) to some of his own words which he used earlier in his speech when he related how his own family had left a country called Czechoslovakia because rights had been infringed upon. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to recognize that he is infringing upon the traditional rights of all members of this House and this democratic institution. By his behaviour he is directing himself toward that sort of abuse from which his own family fled, from a country in which they felt they could no longer live. I suggest to him that if he respects the institutions and the traditions of Canada and our parliamentary institution, he ought to accede to the requests that the Speaker has made of him, and do so promptly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. When the Prime Minister tells an untruth and then covers it up by saying that he said it with tongue in cheek, he is doing exactly what the hon. member says he is doing. On the rules-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With respect to the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Would you let me finish, please, Mr. Speaker?
The rules of the House are that a member cannot say those words. 1 suggest the hon. member accept the ruling of the Chair, since that does not change any of the facts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I appreciate the intervention of the hon. member for Bow River.
Again, I would ask the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) if he has anything he wishes to say.
February 23, 1981

The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) on a point of order.


Mr. Blenkarn:: No, Mr. Speaker. I believe the hon. member for Halton has ceased speaking. I think that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As far as the Chair is concerned, the hon. member for Halton still has the floor. There are certain matters which must be considered.


Otto John Jelinek: Thank you for extending my time, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: No!


Otto John Jelinek: Let me say to hon. members opposite that Mr. Speaker has just recognized me.
I began my remarks by saying that we should listen to the grassroots, to Canadians as a whole, from coast to coast. We should listen to their wishes. Before the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) arrived in the chamber, I had quoted some statistics which show that the majority of Canadians are opposed to the unilateral-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Not true.


Otto John Jelinek: The minister says "not true." A Gallup poll which came out, and all forms of other questions-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I invite the hon. member to deal with the serious matter of the language he has used. I invite the hon. member to rephrase his remarks regarding the allegation that another hon. member of the House has lied. 1 have ruled that this is unparliamentary.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, my conscience has already told me what to do in this regard. I already made it very clear that I am unable to do so for the very reasons which I stated earlier. If I am allowed to continue and finish my remarks, I will be happy to take that opportunity.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No way!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I could make a personal appeal to the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) with respect to this matter. He has already stated it is his intention to stand firm. I know that it may seem difficult for him in view of that to change his opinion. But I ask him to show, as he so often does, respect for this place.
One of the advantages that we have here is that we can hit back and forth as hard as we want. We can argue until we are blue-or red-in the face. Confrontation, and all of that, is in order. But in order to keep the place going we have established certain lines which we will not cross over. I would like to say to the hon. member that we appreciate very much how difficult it may now be for him but that we will greatly respect him if he will agree to the request of the Chair and make it possible for us to avoid any unpleasant scene.
The Constitution
I am not getting into the argument. I am not discussing what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said. I just make the personal appeal to the hon. member for Halton to do something for which we would all greatly respect him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I add my personal appeal to that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)? It is not a matter of an individual's conscience, it is a matter of the rules and procedures by which hon. members govern themselves in this House. The precedents are clear, and in my opinion the citation is abundantly clear concerning language which is parliamentary or unparliamentary. I invite the hon. member to rephrase his remarks.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have, and always have had, in my eight years or more as a Member of Parliament, due respect for the Chair, and I certainly have as much respect for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). But, Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about something that has happened, and is true, what would my conscience say if I suddenly had to back down and say: What I said, 1 did not really mean, or we can resort to flipflops or speak tongue in cheek, as the Prime Minister said? I cannot do that, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to you, to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and to all hon. members of this House.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think that under the circumstances, I have no choice but to ask Your Honour to move that the hon. member, according to the rules, be suspended from the House of Commons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Jelinek, I have to name you for disregarding the authority of the Chair. I invite you to withdraw from this place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Maybe the Prime Minister will stop talking with tongue in cheek.


An hon. Member:: Maybe he should be named. There are different ways to say "a liar".
And Mr. Jelinek having withdrawn:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton).


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think it is customary, Mr. Speaker, under the written rules, that when a speaker is named in person, the leading member on the government side, the House leader, has to move a motion which must be accepted by the House before the hon. member has to leave.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) has said is correct in terms of what is usually done. But since, in this case, the

February 23, 1981
The Constitution
hon. member for Halton withdrew without a motion being put to ask him to withdraw, do we need go any further? I do not think we want any unpleasantness. Why do we not let it rest at that?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has a point well taken. The Chair has no authority to request a direct motion. In the circumstances, all the Chair can do is to recognize the hon. member for Mississauga South.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I hate to correct the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but the precedents are very clear that when a member is named by the Speaker, it is the responsibility, under the customs of this House, for the government House leader or the Prime Minister, or whoever is sitting in his place at the time, to move a motion and have it passed by the House before the matter is complete, because the motion must include certain things.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's point is well taken. However, there is no direction that the motion must be presented immediately. If there is a decision to present such a motion, it would be usual to assume that there might be a few minutes needed in which to prepare it. Is the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) seeking the floor?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, on the same question, on the point of order that is before the Chair at the moment, it would seem to me that if the hon. member who has left the House is in error in not following the rules of this House by retracting what he said, then it would likely be true that the Chair could give serious consideration to the precedents, the rules of this House, which indicate that in order for what has happened to happen, a motion from the government side, or from some member of this House, that the member leave the House, would have to be moved.
Now two wrongs do not make a right. I would suggest that if it is Mr. Speaker's intention to delay the point at which this motion is presented, I should like to know the time-frame for such a delay.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it is usual to have a motion in such circumstances. A motion was moved, and it was on the receipt of the motion that Your Honour then requested the hon. member to retire, after naming him.


An hon. Member:: There was no motion.


Mark R. MacGuigan: In those circumstances, the hon. member having already left, there is no way in which any irregularity of procedure can now be undone. The hon. member had to make his case and others had to make his case while he was still here. At this point, even if there were an irregularity in the procedure, I would submit, Your Honour, that that cannot now be undone, and, the hon. member having left, the matter must be considered closed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I must repeat that the precedents are very clear. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) stood in his place and suggested that you move the motion. That is impossible. The Minister of Justice, representing the government, has to move a motion before this matter is legal. Nothing else must interfere until that is done.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, no. I said that I was sorry, but I had no other choice, being the ranking member of the cabinet, but to move at this time that he be named, as you did, Mr. Speaker. I had that very unpleasant responsibility because of my rank in the cabinet.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I concur with what the minister has said. I believe that the member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) is correct in citing the precedent. I believe that what we have is a situation where the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) has voluntarily withdrawn. I imagine it could be interpreted to mean that now that he has voluntarily withdrawn, he could come back tomorrow, and I think that is where the matter rests, unless those who want to raise it at a more appropriate time do so.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Now that the Minister of Justice has moved his motion, that is correct. He has not put into the motion the duration of the suspension because the whole matter is not legal, under our rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair heard the Minister of Justice rise to propose a motion that the hon. member be named. The Chair decided to name the hon. member. Under the circumstances, the Chair felt there was really no option, and the hon. member has left the chamber at the invitation of the Chair. The Chair will consider any further motions if and when received. Meanwhile, the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Mississauga South.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) is a Member of Parliament who chose Canada. He was not born here. He chose Canada over Czechoslovakia. He chose the freedoms that all Canadians, native born and otherwise, have from our very heritage, and from the seed of our father's loin, the right to enjoy-


An hon. Member:: Are your serious?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Those freedoms and rights to express ourselves are very important. The hon. member for Halton was speaking with emotion. When, as a result of abusing the technical orders of the House, he removed himself, he left with the feeling that he was standing up for the freedoms of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: There is a tremendous interest in this country, in this Constitution of ours. The proposals were worked on through the summer when there was little interest in the
February 23, 1981

Constitution. I suppose, in relation to the question of inflation, there is little interest, but there is a great number of people in Canada who are very seriously concerned with what we are doing here in this chamber.
This fall I sent 5,000 copies of the Unity Canada brochure containing constitutional proposals to my constituents. The proposals which were presented to the House in October were really propaganda pieces, intended to sell the Constitution. 1 did not care; I sent them out. I was not worried about the fact the government had flown Canada geese across the television screen; 1 sent out the proposals as they were, with the comment: "This is what the government is proposing to do with the Constitution in Canada, tell me what you think." My constituents told me. Eighty per cent of them were opposed to the process or to the details of it. I stand here tonight on behalf of the constituents of Mississauga South, and I suggest to the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) on behalf of the constituents of Mississauga in total, as a good portion of my correspondence comes from his riding as well.


An hon. Member:: How many responses did you get?


An hon. Member:: Four?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It was not in the tens of letters; it amounted to tens of hundreds. We have a constitutional proposal, and most of the people of this country are opposed either to the ongoing process or its detail.
It is true that almost every one of my constituents wants the Constitution of Canada to be patriated. We want to feel, as Canadians, that the Constitution of this country is ours, and we do not want to be beholden to Britain. We respect the Queen and our British heritage, but Britain is now a foreign country to us. There is no reason to go to foreigners to patriate what is ours, to change what is ours, to plead, beg, grovel or demand that Mrs. Thatcher use a three-line whip.
People have raised issues about this. In my riding, some people came together and formed an association to protest this constitutional activity. I should like to read from a brief prepared by Bob Shapton, chairman of the Committee for Constitutional Awareness. The address is 1150 Haig Boulevard, Mississauga. In one place the brief indicates:
It is our position that the current furore over the proposed amendments is an eloquent demonstration that Canadians do not want one man, one party, or one region's views enshrined as the new Canadian Constitution. It is only after a major consensus-building exercise has resulted in a common statement of purpose for this country, should we formulate a new constitution.
Much has been said about this process, so let us examine it. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) said that Canadians want the details of what is going into that package; the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that Canadians want the details of what is going into that package. They have both said that Canadians do not like a situation where in the process of what they are doing does not have the general support of Canadians. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice are saying that the end justifies the means. They say to us, "It does not matter how we do it. You like the end product, don't you?" I suppose
The Constitution
in the last world war Canadians liked the end product when we evicted the Japanese in British Columbia, stole their property and sold it.


An hon. Member:: Where was your party?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It was the end justifying the means. When Hitler killed millions of Jews, it was the end justifying the means. Where was the member's party in that? Their claim is that the end justifies the means. Stalin said the end justified the means when he got rid of the kulaks.


An hon. Member:: And Mussolini.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: So did Mussolini. Yes, the end justifies the means. It does not matter how one does it, the end justifies the means. That is what the Prime Minister said, that is what the Minister of Justice said, and that is the proposal before this House; the end is supposed to justify the means.
Let us go back and consider the history of this country. I come from the province of Ontario. We have always felt that we have two capitals. The capital of the province is Toronto, and we own the capital city of Ottawa. For a good part of this century we have had 40 per cent of the population of Canada and most of the industry in Canada. Ontarians basically feel that they own the capital city of Ottawa, so they have two capitals, and are therefore quite prepared to say that we should have a unitary state. When I ask my constituents, "Why don't we have a standard of education and a standard for workmen's compensation across Canada?", they reply, "Why don't we? We have the majority."
We in my province of Ontario can say that we are part of Canada, we own Canada. We can even summon up enough bravado to say that we can throw away any equalization grants to which me might be entitled because we are Canada, we are the province of Ontario.
One of the most important Ontarians, John A. Macdonald, the first prime minister of this country, was prepared to say, after he said he wanted a unitary state, that Canada must be a federal country. Because of our differences in cultures and attitudes we must be a federal country.
While some people in Ontario would be very happy to impose Ontario standards across Canada, it would be wrong because we have been in the past, and perhaps still are, the most prosperous province in the country. It will not work, it will not wash, it is not correct.
In a federal state, each province, whether it be Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, Saskatchewan or New Brunswick, a province with its hand out looking for a gift or worried about its fish, is equal in terms of jurisdiction. We in Ontario with our large population base, vast wealth, manufacturing industries and Pickering nuclear plant, must recognize that Canada is a federal state.
What will this Constitution and process do? It will tear apart the federal state, rip it asunder. After the proposal goes through the House, the bitterness, nastiness and divisiveness that should not exist will exist as never before.

February 23, 1981
The Constitution
Normally I do not quote the New Democratic Party, but I cannot help but quote from the brief of the province of Saskatchewan presented to the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution by the Hon. Allan Blakeney. At page 2 it reads:
In 1867, it was recognized that, in a country like Canada, only a federal form of government could work. Some may have desired a unitary state, but they knew it was not possible. Only a federal system could achieve union, while accommodating the great distances, the fierce regional loyalties, the linguistic and cultural differences, and the distinctive economies of the four uniting colonies. Only a federal system could achieve unity without imposing a totally unacceptable uniformity.
In 1867 we created a country, Canada, as a federation of four colonies with distinctive cultures, linguistic backgrounds, attitudes and ways of approaching our problems. We created two orders of government, both of which operate today in the name of the Queen. When statutes are passed in a province or regulations are promulgated, they are promulgated in the name of the Queen. The provinces are not subservient to the Dominion.
Last fall, there was an effort to work on constitutional proposals which, to some extent, had been hammered out over the summer. The Prime Minister said that there was no agreement and, to some extent, misled the House when he talked of 54 years of indecision. Let me again quote the Premier of the province of Saskatchewan. At page 6 of the brief he said:
I want to emphasize, though, that by September, 1980, after intensive negotiations, Canada's 11 governments had reached a significant measure of consensus on even the most contentious constitutional issues.
It would be pointless to speculate, here, on the reasons why governments failed to reach final agreement at last September's first ministers' conference. The point I want to make is that a negotiated agreement was within our grasp, and could have been achieved-with more time, with flexibility, and with good will on all sides. In deciding to proceed unilaterally, the federal government has brought an end to the process of federal-provincial negotiations. And it has done so not at a time when those negotiations were hopelessly bogged down, but at a time when progress had been made and might have been continued.
The Prime Minister did what he could with the Kirby memos and the rest of the documents to ensure that constitutional consensus between the federal government and the provinces would not work. Now he presents through his government a unilateral act which tries to destroy the basis of federalism.
I do not agree politically with the Premier of Saskatchewan. I have no use for socialism, but the evidence is that agreement was possible. Agreement was there, agreement was on the road. There is no reason why the agreement bogged down, except for the fact that the Prime Minister stated in the House that there was no possibility of agreement. The evidence is that there could have been agreement, but it was frustrated. The Prime Minister said there is justification for unilateral action and talked about 54 years during which we could not reach agreement.
The brief of the province of Saskatchewan continues:
What can be the justification for unilateral action? Many are offered. Most rely upon the failure of governments to reach agreement respecting patriation after repeated attempts since 1927.
But I remind you that the idea of entrenching a charter of rights was not discussed in 1927; it did not emerge until 40 years later. Some of the provisions of the particular charter contained in the resolution appeared only last summer; others were revealed for the first time only two months ago. Clearly, many of the provisions have not been subjected to any substantial period of public scrutiny. Similarly, the proposal for an amending formula involving a referendum has not been under discussion for 50 years. Indeed, it has not been under discussion for 50 weeks or even 50 days.
Amendments have been subject to some sort of process. We have had consultative process before in this country. We had it when the Constitution of Canada was amended to provide for the federal government's handling of unemployment insurance. Amendments to the Constitution were made in 1960 with respect to supplemental old age pensions. Recent amendments to the Constitution provided for the retirement of judges at age 75. Do not say for one moment that amendments to the Constitution of Canada have not been made without the consultative process.
Indeed, there have been no amendments in this century to the Constitution of Canada affecting the rights of a province without consultation. In the Thirtieth Parliament an attempt was made by the Government of Canada to amend without consultation the operation of the Senate of Canada in Bill C-60. This was taken to court and the right to amend the Constitution of Canada without consultation was thrown out by the Supreme Court of Canada.
One cannot help but wonder why the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Justice would not take what is now before the House of Commons to the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling as to its legality. Is it illegal, is that the reason? The minister took Bill C-60 to the Supreme Court of Canada and it was thrown out. Is he afraid to take this process to the Supreme Court of Canada? The answer can only be yes, because the opinion of his law officers is that he might lose. Therefore, the House of Commons, the highest court of Canada, is being asked to look askance at what is being attempted.
Canada is a federal nation, a partnership of provinces or colonies joined together, the last one being Newfoundland, to form this Dominion. Those colonies turned over certain of their powers to a national government. The national government has no right in that arrangement to change those powers and responsibilities without massive consensus. I do not talk about absolute unanimity but about massive consensus.
When we look at this process, we must look at the fact that eight of the ten provinces are opposed to what is happening. Six of the ten are taking the federal government to court. 1 have received in my office an opinion poll by an independent business group. It reports that 20 are in favour of what the government is doing, 83 are opposed, and nine are undecided. What the government is doing is not acceptable to the people of Canada or to the vast majority of provinces of this country. It is abhorrent to the concept of federalism.


An hon. Member:: What about Ontario?
February 23, 1981


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We will talk about that in a moment. The concept of this government is that the end justifies the means.
I say to the Minister of Justice that if he had a Supreme Court of Canada ruling to the effect that the means he is proposing are legal, if he had all-party support in this House and massive consensus, say eight out of ten provinces, as the bill requires, for the amendment, perhaps then what he is doing would be correct. However, without legal approval, massive consensus of the provinces and all-party support in this House, there can be no justification for passing this resolution. This resolution is not a simple bill, a part of the Income Tax Act, or a change in the ordinary procedures of this House. This resolution attempts to change the very fabric of Canada.
Without massive consensus, all-party support and Supreme Court of Canada approval, this resolution cannot and must not be pushed through. It cannot be done simply because on February 18, 1980, 147 Liberal Members of Parliament were elected, almost entirely from central Canada, Ontario and Quebec, without a member west of Winnipeg. Just because the electoral system works that way, it does not entitle those opposite to force through with their majority basic changes in the fundamental rights of Canadians.
The Liberal majority was not created on that basis. Therefore, it does not have the right to use the weight of its vote to force on me, my children and my children's children a basic change in the Constitution of our country. It must have the massive support of the provinces and Canadians generally, and not just a majority. This resolution can only be put through with massive support right across Canada. If the government is not prepared to go for that, then government members must vote against this resolution because my kids and my kids' kids will not support them.
I want to talk about the referendum portion of the resolution for a moment. This constitutional proposal has provision for a referendum or plebiscite. These have only been held on three or four occasions in Canada, one in connection with prohibition, in connection with conscription and one, recently, in the province of Quebec. Each of those public opinion appeals have been the most divisive this country has ever known.
In the first plebiscite in connection with prohibition, the province of Quebec voted against the other provinces. It was very divisive, as was the one in connection with conscription, with the predominantly English-speaking provinces voting in favour and the province of Quebec voting against. Canada was torn apart. Canadians in one part of Canada were devided against Canadians in other parts.
One great problem with referendums is that the majority may be in favour but Canadians in one part of the country may be very much opposed. While a referendum is broken down into the four segments of Canada-the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario, and the west-we may run into the problem of one segment voting against the interests of the rest of Canada. We may be better off to have the provincial governments do the voting. I hate to say we should not consult the people because consulting the people looks democratic, but the history of Canada shows that referendums have been
The Constitution
divisive. We need only go back to the referendum in Quebec where there are still hurts and anguish. The losers do not give up. They still yearn and hurt, and families yearn and hurt because of the result of the vote. We would be far better off to bury our differences with provincial governments rather than resort to the referendum technique, even though that technique may appear democratic.
Let me deal with the amendment provisions of this resolution. This resolution incorporates the Victoria formula founded in 1971 in Victoria, ten years ago. It is true that that formula had wide acceptance at that time. We would, in fact, have had an amendment procedure for this Constitution back in 1971 had the province of Quebec not reneged. But things have happened since 1971. Since 1971, the west has grown. It is like a young man breaking out at his shirt sleeves. The west is bursting its seams. It has the aggressiveness, the confidence and the drive young men often have. That part of the country is not satisfied with the Victoria formula any longer. In that part of the country, provinces have 10 per cent, 12 per cent or 15 per cent of the population now, but that part of the country is not happy to allow another part of the country, which today may have 25 per cent, but not tomorrow, a permanent veto. Some provinces in the west may have tomorrow 25 per cent of the population and the west wants equal status in confederation. On that basis, the Victoria formula will not work today. This is 1981. It will not work.
The province of Saskatchewan has advocated the formula of 80 per cent of the provinces with 80 per cent of the population. I can buy that, but I can tell hon. members what the provinces will buy, and that is the Vancouver formula. The provinces will all buy the Vancouver formula. Under that formula, two-thirds of the provinces with 50 per cent of the population can change the Constitution.
The only objection is the checkerboard effect that might have. That is the reason of the Prime Minister for refusing it. Let us talk about checkerboards for a moment. The whole country is a checkerboard. Our medicare rules are different from one province to another, our education rules are different, our workmen's compensation is different, our housing standards are different. Even the government's current bill before the House, Bill C-61 on juvenile offenders, is different from province to province. There is nothing at all in this country which is the same from province to province. There is nothing unusual about a checkerboard in Canada. We are used to it. The enforcement of every part of our Income Tax Act, and sometimes our Customs Tariff Act, is different from province to province. Do hon. members think that is strange? This is a vast country, and the way we look at things individually in Canada is different from one province to another or from one community to another. We are not upset about that. That is Canada. It is a checkerboard. I can make a right turn on a red light in one province but not in some others. The rules in this country change from one province to another and from one community to another. Hon. members opposite say we will create a checkerboard if we follow this system. That is non-

February 23, 1981
The Constitution
sense. The truth of the matter is that the country is a checkerboard. Let us understand that. That is the very nature of the federal state of Canada.
If we want to build a constitution, we have to build a constitution which is acceptable across Canada. If some things are subject to a checkerboard, so what?
You are indicating, Mr. Speaker, that I have only two minutes left, so I will have to make a couple of points very quickly.
I want to deal with the preamble to this charter of rights. Under our coat of arms the following words appear: "A Mari Usque Ad Mare," from sea to sea. That is a quote from Psalm 72. "Dominion from sea to sea" is emblazoned in stone.
Let us deal with the charter of rights for a moment. There was a refusal in the committee to allow the preamble of the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights. That bill of rights talks about affirming that Canada is a nation founded on the principles of 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 free institutions. I want to say to hon. members opposite that except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it. I want to say to hon. members opposite that if they refuse a preamble in the charter of rights which talks about the importance of the Creator or the importance of God in our society, then they are labouring in vain because their charter of rights will not stand up and will not be something Canadians will respect. It will do them no good, and while hon. members opposite may vote to ram it through and while they may use diplomatic pressure to push Great Britain to approve it for them, they labour in vain with that charter of rights without a preamble referring to God, the family and the purpose for which we are here as Canadians.
May I be allowed to make one more point, Mr. Speaker? As a Member of Parliament and as a lawyer I know that people came to this country from Europe to buy and own land. I remember their coming to my law office with paper bags containing ten dollar bills and twenty dollar bills to buy their first pieces of property. And hon. members opposite refuse to put the freedom to own property in a charter of rights! How can they possibly vote for this package without its containing the right to own land, the right of the people, who came from the tenant farms of eastern Europe, to own land, to be in Canada and to stand on their feet here, and the right for them to say they are free to own property? That that does not matter is impossible for me to believe. Hon. members opposite deny their heritage.
You are indicating to me, Mr. Speaker, that I have no more time. I have a lot more to say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I take part in this historic debate on the Constitution of Canada. I want to say that I am proud to have
served as a member of the special committee on the Constitution. It was an historic committee in many ways. I want to commend the outstanding work of the members of that committee from all parties and particularly that of the outstanding chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal). He guided that committee with wisdom over many, many hours-and troubled waters in many cases. I want to pay particular tribute to the work done by a number of other individual members, including the Constitution critic of the Conservative Party, Senator Austin from the other place and a man who was not a member of the committee but who appeared day in and day out, the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien).
As members of that committee, we heard witnesses from all provinces in Canada and from the Territories, from women's groups, native groups, civil liberties groups and Canadians all across the land.
It is very important that it be clearly understood that the resolution we are debating in Parliament tonight was made in Canada and shaped by Canadians. It is an insult to those Canadians who appeared before the committee and laboured long and hard on briefs to suggest that this work is not being done here in Canada by Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: We listened with great interest to the representations made before that historic committee. 1 should like to backtrack just a moment, if I may, to about four months ago when the government presented Parliament with a proposed constitutional resolution. There were four major elements in that proposed resolution. The first was patriation. I do not think anyone in this chamber would suggest that the time has not come when Canadians should be able to amend their Constitution in Canada and should not have to go on bended knee to Britain to ask for changes to their Constitution. The second was an amending formula. Of course, there must be some way of changing the Constitution of Canada once we get it home. The third was the principle of equalization, one of those principles which is particularly important to this party. This party, and the CCF before it, have fought for it long and hard. It is the principle that right across this land there should be a certain basic standard of services. The rich and the poor should all have access to adequate health care, to education and to decent housing. Surely that is a principle which all Canadians must espouse. Finally, with respect to a charter of fundamental rights and freedoms including language rights, while there can be debate on the substance of what should be included in a charter of rights, I suggest that in this day and age, after the long course of history and the many attempts which have been made to entrench a charter of rights in Canada, surely the time has come to move, and to move now, to recognize that Canadians all over the land have fundamental rights and freedoms which no government can arbitrarily take away.
February 23, 198!

I recognized these principles and their importance four months ago. However, I voted against sending this package to the constitutional committee. I was the only New Democrat to do so at the time because I had very grave concerns, particularly about the charter of rights. It was a document which was described by many at the time as being one which would be better left on the table. In fact, had that charter of rights been entrenched, in many ways Canadians would have been worse off. There was no protection in that charter of rights for the handicapped; there was no recognition of the right of equality for women; there were no provisions for remedies in that proposed charter of rights. The War Measures Act could have been enacted tomorrow under this charter of rights in exactly the same terms. Above all, there was nothing in that charter of rights to recognize the rights of the aboriginal peoples of the country. It was the view of this party that this was our last opportunity and that were we not to act at that point in our history and were we to delay in recognizing aboriginal rights, we would have betrayed the trust of the aboriginal peoples of this country.
My party and I had concerns about the process, about the invocation of closure at a very early stage and about the denial of the opportunity to televise proceedings, for which we had to fight. During his trip to western Canada, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suggested that somehow western Canadians were incapable of using reason and resorted only to passion. He accused them of hysteria, which made it no easier to deal with this particular proposal. Then, of course, there was the December 9 deadline, which turned out to be completely unworkable. It was extended by two months, largely as a result of the demands of group after group that they had the right to be heard.
The resolution went to committee; we heard many witnesses. What emerged is a different document in many ways. It is so different now that, despite my very serious initial concerns with respect particularly to the charter of rights-and I will elaborate on them in a moment-I support this proposed resolution. As a result of the changes we have made, the role my party has played in this process and because in many ways it is a different document, I intend to support the proposed constitutional resolution when it comes to a final vote provided, as my leader said, there is a full and fair debate in the House of Commons, there are no adverse amendments, no sudden changes and no introduction of amendments on Friday, the effects of which are taken away on Monday. I intend to support this resolution, provided those conditions are met. I view the role my party played as being a constructive and positive one. It will be with pride that I will support this resolution at third reading.
Before I examine the role the New Democratic Party has played in this process, I should like to say a few words about the suggestion of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and certain other Conservative members that a bill of rights is something new and that this is a recent decision made by one man who is attempting to foist his views on Canada. I should like to examine briefly the history of
The Constitution
attempts in this country in the last four decades to achieve a constitutional bill of rights and to put to rest, once and for all, any suggestion that this is the work of one man. These rights are too important to be left to one prime minister or to parliamentarians generally. They belong to all Canadians; Canadians have been fighting for a long time to achieve these rights.
It was in 1947 that the first joint Senate-House of Commons committee was established to look into the question of a United Nations charter of rights and freedoms and what we might do in Canada. Also, in 1947 the province of Saskatchewan, under Tommy Douglas, enacted a bill of rights. In 1948, the United Nations enacted a universal declaration of human rights, and Canada played a part in that decision. In 1950, a Senate committee considered the whole question of entrenching rights and freedoms in the Canadian Constitution. At that time, three decades ago, over 50 national organizations appeared before that committee asking to entrench fundamental rights and freedoms. Then in 1960, there was the Diefen-baker Bill of Rights. I think Members of Parliament should be aware of certain developments behind the scenes of which perhaps they were not aware. There was a special committee at that time which considered that bill, but in January of 1959, the then premier of Saskatchewan, Tommy Douglas, wrote the then prime minister, Mr. Diefenbaker, saying that the time had come for a constitutional amendment in this country to entrench fundamental rights and freedoms.
So, it was not the present Prime Minister who was the great pioneer in this area. If anyone was a pioneer, it was Tommy Douglas who fought in 1959 to entrench these fundamental rights in the Constitution of Canada. When in 1960 the CCF moved to entrench these rights and freedoms in the Constitution, and not just to have an ordinary bill, two parties opposed it-the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. It was the CCF which was the pioneer in an attempt to entrench fundamental rights and freedoms in Canada.
To show hon. members how far we have moved, the committee which considered the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights in 1960 sat without any interpreters. There were no interpreters then for French or English, and there were no reporters at that committee who understood the French language. We have come a long way.
Witnesses appeared before that committee on the question of a charter of fundamental rights and freedoms. One of the witnesses who appeared was a representative from the Canadian Labour Congress. The Canadian Labour Congress had fought long and hard since its founding in 1956 for a constitutionally entrenched bill of rights. One of the witnesses who appeared on behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress at that time was the man who now sits as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I am proud to say that he played a role back then, two decades ago, in pressing for a constitutionally entrenched bill of rights. That was long

February 23, 1981
The Constitution
before the present Prime Minister was actively involved in politics.
Another man who played an active role was a very distinguished Canadian, Frank Scott. He was honoured only this past weekend for his contributions in this area. Frank Scott made representations to the committee in 1950 and also to the committee which considered the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights in 1960. There was a federal-provincial conference in July, 1960, but no further action was taken.
In view of some of the remarks which have been made about God in this proposed Constitution, I think we should study our history a little more carefully than have other hon. members on this side. I reject any suggestion that we play politics with something as important as freedom of religion. I suggest that is what other members on this side of the House are doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Conservative members have suggested that the Conservative Bill of Rights, the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights, contained a reference to the supremacy of God. I suggest to them that when the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights was introduced in committee, there was no reference to the supremacy of God. The Conservative Party then did not believe that this was a fundamental matter.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Svend Johannes Robinson: It was a Liberal member who introduced an amendment on the last day of the committee hearings to entrench that in the Constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Let us expose this hypocrisy for exactly what it is. If members of the Conservative Party are serious about entrenching freedom of religion, why are they not prepared to take the next step? Why do they say it belongs only in the preamble? They will not entrench freedom of religion, they say it is up to the provinces to decide.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: We can have God in New Brunswick, but maybe not in Manitoba. We can have God in British Columbia, but maybe not in Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: That is their formula. That is what they mean when they talk about freedom of religion.
1 come from a family which is very deeply religious. My mother held deep religious beliefs before her death. For anyone in this chamber to suggest that, because my personal views are that we should respect freedom of conscience, in some way I am denying freedom of religion, I suggest is an insult not only to myself as a member but to all other Canadians in this pluralistic society, this great society which recognizes the rights of all minorities in Canada. They are playing politics with God!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the debates have gone on. In 1968 there was a first ministers' conference which involved a discussion of a charter of rights. In 1971 there was the Victoria Conference. In 1972 there was the Molgat-Mac-Guigan committee. In 1978 there was Bill C-60. In 1979 there was another first ministers' conference. In 1980 there was another first ministers' conference. How much longer do Canadians have to wait before we can finally have a charter of fundamental, basic rights? Surely that time has come.
Let no one be under any illusions; we have been trying for years to achieve a statement of fundamental rights and freedoms. The Conservative Party suggests that the only way we will achieve this is through unanimity. I will come to their amending formula in a few minutes.
Before I do so, however, I would like to turn to the role which has been played by my party, the New Democratic Party, in the process of constitutional change. I am proud of the changes we were able to achieve in the areas of resource control equalization, and the amending formula, but I am particularly proud of the changes we were able to achieve in the charter of rights.
What were those changes? Where was the Conservative party when these changes were being made? The committee heard from many groups. I have a list of a few of them here. We heard from the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the Association of the Mentally Retarded, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and la Federation des Francophones hors Quebec on minority language and educational rights. We heard from Indian, Inuit and Metis groups, the National Association of Japanese-Canadians, the United Church of Canada, and many, many others. As a result of these representations and as a result of the work done behind the scenes and in committee by members of the New Democratic Party, on January 12 the Minister of Justice tabled extensive amendments. Prior to January 12, where were members of the Conservative Party? Where did they stand on these questions? Where did they stand with respect to a charter of rights? They stood silent. They said not a word in this House on changes to the charter of rights. That is their commitment to the question of a charter of rights. During the course of our deliberations not one speaker referred to the charter.
What were some of the changes we were able to achieve? The proposed constitutional resolution was one. We were able to achieve fundamental changes in the legal rights sections. Clause 1, which was dubbed by many the "Mark truck clause" or the escape clause, was significantly tightened as a result of pressure from the New Democratic Party and from many witnesses who appeared before the committee. Where did members of the Conservative Party stand on Clause 1? They stood silent. They said not a word.
Clauses 8, 9 and 11(d) theoretically deal with entrenching, freedom from arbitrary arrest or arbitrary search and seizure. We moved amendments in these areas. Witnesses appeared
February 23, 1981

before us. The government moved to strengthen that area. Where did members of the Conservative Party stand in this important area? Silent; they said not a word.
Clause 11 (c) deals with protection from self-discrimination. We in the NDP pushed for changes in this area. Many witnesses appeared. Where did members of the Conservative Party stand with respect to protection from self-incrimination? Silent; they said not a word.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Trial by jury is one of the fundamental rights Canadians have taken for granted. We pushed, and pushed hard, to entrench the right to trial by jury. We were supported by the Civil Liberties Association and others in this regard. Where did the Conservative Party stand with respect to the right to trial by jury? Silent; they said not a word about this fundamental right.
Clause 15 deals with equality rights. Initially, it was a very weak section. We in the NDP pushed, and pushed hard, to strengthen this section to guarantee equal rights for women and for the handicapped, and to strengthen the affirmative action provisions. Prior to the committee's considering these particular amendments, where did members of the Conservative Party stand? We will read Hansard in vain to see any expression of concern about women's rights by the Conservative Party in this debate.
Where did the Conservative Party stand on the suggestions made by many witnesses that we had to put some teeth into this proposed charter of rights? We proposed a section which would provide tough and effective remedies. The government accepted that section. Where did members of the Conservative Party stand with respect to a need for a remedies section in the proposed charter of rights? We heard not a whisper from them.
Most important are aboriginal rights. We heard from group after group of native people, Indians, Inuit and Metis. We heard Edward Scott, church groups and civil liberties groups. They all appeared before us and said that if we did not move now to recognize the fundamental rights of Canada's native peoples, we would never, ever achieve those rights.
My colleague, the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Island (Mr. Manly), and other members of this party fought long and hard to achieve recognition of aboriginal rights in the Constitution. Where do members of the Conservative Party stand on aboriginal rights? On January 12 they tabled certain amendments they felt should be proposed. Aboriginal peoples will look in vain for any suggestion that members of the Conservative Party felt that their concerns were important because they did not table one single amendment to recognize the aboriginal rights of Canada's aboriginal people.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!
The Constitution


Svend Johannes Robinson: That was their commitment to aboriginal peoples in Canada. It was a proud moment when the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) moved on behalf of the New Democratic Party an amendment to entrench aboriginal and treaty rights in the Constitution. Prior to that, the Conservative Party was almost silent on the question of aboriginal and treaty rights. The Tories voted against the amendments and the mobility rights which were proposed by my party and supported by aboriginal peoples. They voted against provisions in clauses 15 and 21 which would have protected and recognized the special status of aboriginal peoples in this country. I am proud of the role my party has played in recognizing the fundamental rights of the aboriginal peoples of this country.


An hon. Member:: And with good reason.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I would like to quote from a brief which was submitted to us. There were many briefs submitted to us on behalf of the aboriginal peoples, but I believe one of the most moving was from the Nishga native people of my own province. They said:
We perceive that you and the Parliament hold what may be the last key to the Nishga people being treated with justice by the white majority of our nation.
There will be no entrenchment after patriation.
The claim to aboriginal title to land is based on the time immemorial occupation by the Nishgas of the Nass Valley. At no time were the Nishgas the subject of conquest; at no time were they the subject of treaty. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 set out how governments were to respect the concept of native ownership of lands unextinguished by treaties.
You, as a committee, and the Parliament of Canada, hold the onerous responsibility of charting the future course of aboriginal title and the issue of aboriginal title in this country.
The Nishgas' destiny is in your hands.
The government has responded to the Nishgas and the other aboriginal groups in this country, but it did not respond to the Conservative Party because the Conservative Party said that this was not a priority to them. That party tabled no amendment on aboriginal rights.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Those were the fundamental changes which were made to this package, and I recognize that other changes could have been made. The minister knows we proposed a number of amendments in the areas of strengthening the provisions for women's rights and legal rights, for example, to include the right to a fair hearing. We suggested the addition of a commitment to economic rights and strengthening the equality rights provision to prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status, sexual orientation or political belief. We have come a long way from the day the government initially tabled its resolution.
What do members of the Conservative Party want to do with the charter of rights? What they want to do, as my colleague said, is play checkers. They say, "Split the package; send the charter to the provinces."
We heard the Leader of the Opposition say this afternoon, "Maybe the provincial governments' attitudes will change.

February 23, 1981
The Constitution
Maybe they will listen to the people." We have not heard anything from the premiers on this important question. A couple of weeks ago, six premiers met. I believe it was in Montreal. They had an opportunity then to say that they recognize the concerns of aboriginal people, the handicapped and women, but they could not even decide on an agenda for their meeting. We know very well that by sending back the charter of rights to the premiers, the charter of rights will be killed.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Svend Johannes Robinson: We know where the premiers stand. We know where Sterling Lyon, the Premier of Manitoba, stands on the charter of rights. He said that we have not:
- had the experience of significant rights, entrenched in the Constitution, inhibiting the development of new rights, such as the rights of handicapped people, or the right to privacy.
In other words, we should not be putting the rights of the handicapped in the Constitution because we have no experience with them. Mr. Lyon says it is not the Canadian way to give Canadians fundamental rights and that:
Manitoba's position was broadly supported by a majority of the provinces.
He says that entrenchment of rights is contrary to traditional and successful parliamentary government and that:
There is no historical justification for the entrenchment of a charter of rights-
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition says maybe we can change Premier Lyon's mind.


An hon. Member:: If you can find it.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I have a very simple question for the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. What evidence does he have that Premier Lyon is prepared to change his mind today? Is he prepared to allow the hopes and aspirations of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are handicapped, and the aboriginal peoples, women's groups and others to depend on the whims of Premier Lyon of Manitoba? I say no. I say we should move on this charter today, and move with pride.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I see that I have a couple of minutes before calling it ten o'clock, but I would like also to say that there are two provinces which support a charter of rights. One of them is Ontario, and we know what would happen if we were to send a charter of rights back to Ontario. We know all too well what would happen, because the man who was responsible for initially writing the section on legal rights was none other than the deputy attorney general for the province of Ontario. We heard from Rodrick McLeod, the assistant deputy attorney general, who said that the charter of rights was too strong in its initial form.
We say that these rights do not belong to provincial premiers. Fundamental rights do not belong to provincial premiers or the Prime Minister of this country. They certainly
do not belong to the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Great Britain. Fundamental rights and freedoms belong to all Canadians, and not just to the politicians of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: We do not believe, for a moment, that we should send that charter of rights back to the premiers who, only four months ago, said they wanted nothing to do with it.
If the Tories really believe in a charter of rights, why are they playing this game of smoke and mirrors with Canadians and suggesting, on the one hand, that they want to raise the hopes of the handicapped and others but, on the other hand, saying, "Just a minute; we are not prepared to impose it?" Either they believe in the rights of Canadians or they do not. 1 have seen no evidence that they have any commitment to those rights in which they pretend to believe.


An hon. Member:: Your eyesight is good.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Then there is the Conservative amending formula, the checkerboard formula. I would like to take a couple of minutes to discuss the checkerboard formula, but I see that it is ten o'clock, and I will reserve my comments for tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, on January 22, I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen), in connection with Canada Savings Bonds, to be fair to the ordinary people of Canada and pay them an interest rate on their savings which would be appropriate to his high interest rate policy. At that time the minister said "-of course we intend to be fair to those who have purchased bonds." Since January 22, when I asked that question, the minister and the government have refused to be fair. At the present time, the interest paid on Canada Savings Bonds is 11.5 per cent. Just this week the government placed $700 million worth of ordinary bonds on the bond market at 13.75 per cent. A number of bond issues are presently selling with an interest rate in excess of 14 per cent and the government is paying pretty close to 17 per cent on its treasury bill indebtedness. It pays 13.5 per cent to the big insurance companies, the sophisticated lenders, and nearly 17 per cent to the big banks, those which can afford to buy treasury bills.
February 23, 1981

To the ordinary people of Canada, the people the government conned into buying Canada Savings Bonds as an investment in the country, the government pays 11.5 per cent. The ordinary people who bought their bonds because they were an investment in Canada, for some strange reason believed the propaganda put out by the government. Until now they also believed the minister when he said in this House, as reported at page 6449 of Hansard "-of course, we intend to be fair-."
What is fair about that when you can get 13 or 13.5 per cent at a bank, and when you can buy one year bills at a trust company and get 14 per cent or better? What is fair about the government's intention? The answer is, nothing. Since January 1, about a billion dollars worth of Canada Savings Bonds have been redeemed. Because interest is calculated on the first day of every month, there will be another massive redemption next week. My calculations show that $968 million worth of Canada Savings Bonds have been redeemed since January 1 and there will likely be massive redemptions after March 1, a Sunday.
It is not just the people of Canada with whom I ask the minister to be fair, in terms of investing in Canada Savings Bonds. These bonds are a very expensive way for the government to borrow money. In floating an issue, the government pays commissions equal to 1 per cent of the bonds. In addition, it pays for massive advertising, printing and other things involved in the cost of a bond issue.
The parliamentary secretary is in the House tonight to answer my question, and I suspect that he can confirm that the cost of raising money through Canada Savings Bonds is close to 1.5 per cent. The billion dollars worth of Canada Savings Bonds redeemed between January 1 and today represents a massive cost to all of us; not just to the people lending money at an inadequate rate of interest but to the whole of Canada, those who have to pay for inept financial management.
On January 22, I suggested to the minister that he raise the interest rate on Canada Savings Bonds to 12.5 per cent. The minister has not done that, so we continue to get massive CSB redemptions. According to the Bank of Canada statement dated February 19, year over year we have had $1,923 billion worth of Canada Savings Bonds redeemed. The minister said to me and to members in this House that it was because he intended to be fair. However, the minister refuses to be fair. He wants to be able to borrow the savings of Canadians and gyp them by telling them that they are getting a good deal. He does not want to give them what they can get in a bank account or a savings plan.
The government has an obligation to come clean with Canadians. It can either pay Canadians a fair rate of interest on their savings, or induce them into handing their money over to a government which does not even give them 12 per cent interest, which is the rate of inflation.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in his question of January 22 to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen), the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blen-karn) noted that $261 million in Canada Savings Bonds were redeemed during the week ending January 14, 1981. In view of this rather high rate of CSB redemptions related to the high level of interest rates generally, the hon. member asked what the minister was prepared to do to reduce the future level of such redemptions. It was suggested that the government should be fair to CSB investors by increasing the rate of interest on these bonds.
I recognize that the 11.5 per cent 1981 CSB rate and the 10.5 per cent rate payable in the remaining years to maturity on all issues is somewhat lower than the current interest rates on other forms of government debt. However, it is not unusual for CSBs to have a slightly lower rate of return than other forms of government debt. Canada Savings Bonds compete in a different market. The CSB rate is guaranteed for a period of several years, whereas treasury bill rates, while attractive at this moment, may well move down sharply when short-term instrument yields change. Government of Canada marketable bonds, longer-term bonds, also have a more attractive yield at this moment than CSBs due to the market risks associated with these instruments. If interest rates move to higher levels, investors will suffer a capital loss when selling Canada marketable bonds, whereas Canada Savings Bonds can always be redeemed at full face value by the investor.
The government is continuously monitoring the level of interest rates payable on short-term savings instruments, and feels that in the present environment the yield on outstanding Canada Savings Bonds issues is still fair and reasonable. In most cases, the current rates payable on savings instruments which compete directly with CSBs have not changed dramatically since the interest rate on all issues was revised on November 3, 1980 to 11.5 per cent for the current year. The only major exception is the chartered bank non-chequable saving rate which has moved up by 3 percentage points since early November to the present 13.5 per cent. However, as most hon. members know, depositors are not guaranteed this rate for any stated period. It may go down as quickly as it went up. This is not the case with the rate on Canada Savings Bonds.
I am aware that some rates at present payable on longer-term savings instruments are also higher than those now payable on CSBs. However, in many cases these instruments cannot be redeemed before maturity. In others, redemption before maturity results in a stiff interest penalty, bringing the effective interest rate substantially below the current Canada Savings Bond rate. CSBs are a good investment. The rate currently being paid is a rate that is fair, given the flexibility which investors are offered with regard to the guaranteed face value and the ability to redeem these instruments at face value at the choice of the investor at any time.

February 23, 1981
Adjournment Debate


ENVIRONMENT-POLLUTION OF NIAGARA RIVER-REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES AUTHORITIES
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, one by one legal efforts to block the controversial SCA pipeline from discharging chemical wastes into the Niagara River are dying in the courts. I am well aware of the efforts made by local environmental groups, the efforts of the previous member for Niagara Falls, Mr. Jake Froese, and of the great efforts made by the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain) across the way. What he needs and must have is the support of his colleagues on that side of the House. Only top level negotiations and agreement between the highest authorities of both the United States and Canada will bring to a halt this SCA proposal. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during the election campaign of 1980 made a commitment to the people of Niagara through the hon. member for Niagara Falls that he would urge the U.S. authorities to prevent SCA from discharging chemical wastes into that river.
On February 19, in the absence of the Prime Minister I asked the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) exactly what steps the minister or his government had taken to urge the U.S. authorities to pressure SCA into discontinuing its proposal. The minister continues to avoid or refuses to answer or to admit that he cannot do anything about it or will not take any action to prevent this continuing or proposed discharge.
In the special report of the International Joint Commission, the recommendation was made that further dumping of those substances which have given rise to the high level of pollution be terminated. According to the IJC, neither the U.S. nor Canadian governments have met the 1978 pollution guidelines. The minister responded that he and the government do support the IJC, which must mean that they accept its recommendations. The question, therefore, is what the minister and his government are prepared to do in support of those recommendations.
We already know that the sewage disposal plant in Niagara Falls, New York is one of the pollutants of that river. There is no use in just saying it is one of the problems today. A question must be asked as to what is being done to pressure that municipality into remedying the waste problem.
Years ago sources of pollutants were identified and the proportions of pollutants established. Studies have been done, and recommendations have been made. The level of toxic chemicals, such as dioxin found in fish and gull eggs around the southern Lake Ontario region, is indeed shocking to all of us. According to officials of the state of New York, Lake Ontario fish contain the highest levels of dioxin in the world.
The minister declared that his position has not changed and, indeed, will remain the same. The question is what position the minister is advocating. The river is considered to be one of the most polluted in the entire North American continent. Over the last summer and fall it was learned that besides the massive amount of chemical waste making its way into the river, large amounts of explosives have also been discovered.
Local environmental groups and citizens on both sides of the border have expressed their fears and anger not only at the decision of the American courts but also the Canadian government's lack of a firm stand which could have had a positive influence on the U.S. authorities.
I therefore would like to ask the following question: what concrete action is the Minister of the Environment or the Canadian government prepared to take to have the recommendations of the IJC implemented? What communications has this government had with the U.S. government since the decisions of the New York courts were handed down on February 12, 1981?
If the present United States administration remains true to expectations, the likelihood is that pollution in the Niagara River will increase rather than decrease. The International Joint Commission has found that situation intolerable. The people of the Niagara region have found that situation intolerable. Hon. members opposite can join with the hon. member for Niagara Falls in impressing upon the minister that he must make it clear to the U.S. authorities that the present situation is not only unacceptable but also that certain specific, positive action must now be taken to impress upon them that this river is an international waterway and that there must be respect for it as such and for the people who live on both sides of that waterway.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my friend, the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), for having raised this issue on the late show. I believe it goes without saying that the government is concerned about the issue he addresses. It is an issue we have had occasion to talk much about in this House over recent months, and that is due in part to the continuing efforts of my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain), who has left no stone unturned in continuing to bring this to the attention of the department and the government. He is doing a good job with it, and he has the support of members on this side of the House. That is not the problem. I believe the hon. member for St. Catharines is just being mischievous when he says that might be the problem. That is not the problem at all.
Indeed, it is very easy to point the finger and, were I in a finger-pointing mood tonight, I would remind the hon. member for St. Catharines that while he is in the mood to enlist collaborative and co-operative effort, he should go out and enlist the efforts of his colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), who, as minister of the environment, refused to do anything on this particular issue. He did absolutely zilch. He did nothing on this issue. I remind the hon. member for St. Catharines of that. The record shows that.
While the hon. member for St. Catharines is in the mood for enlisting co-operative efforts, I invite him to go and see his provincial Tory colleague, Mr. Welch, who lives in the area.
February 23, 1981

He represents the area but he will not, mind you, drink the water. Mr. Welch has refused to do anything about it in his capacity of MNA with the Ontario government, nor has the gentleman who holds the position of minister of the environment in the Ontario government. He also has refused to do anything on this issue.
If the hon. member wants there to be co-operative effort and if he wants to point fingers, I can help him do a bit of both, but I suggest instead that he recognize that this is a problem which is of genuine concern to all of us. There is nothing to be gained by pointing fingers. Does the hon. member think for one fraction of a second that there is anybody in this House who wilfully goes out and encourages the further pollution of these waterways? That is the suggestion we hear tonight. We are all in this together, and I suggest to the hon. member for St. Catharines that we would all be a lot better off if we stopped pointing fingers and began examining what has been done.
Had I sufficient time remaining-the hon. member has seven minutes, but I only have three in which to respond-I would tell the hon. member about the number of diplomatic communications going back a number of years. The most recent were on November 28, 1980 and December 5, 1980. I could give the hon. member a whole list of what has been done. With the change of administration in the United States, we are now making an effort to discuss the recommendations in the latest 1JC special report.


NATIVE RIGHTS-AGREEMENT WITH COMMITTEE FOR ORIGINAL PEOPLES ENTITLEMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, on February 2, I raised with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the question of the government's failure to honour agreements made with native peoples in Canada. I wish to pursue this question with special reference to the James Bay Agreement which was signed by the Hon. Judd Buchanan for the Government of Canada on November 11, 1975. Section 14 of the agreement provides for the establishment of a Cree regional board of health services and social services. Subsection 22 reads as follows:
The budget from Quebec to the Cree Regional Board shall include funding for the support of health services, which are not included in provincial programs for the general population, but which are provided to the native people by the Department of National Health and Welfare or other agencies.
Section 28.11 of the agreement provides that Quebec and Canada shall provide funding and technical assistance for essential sanitation services in each Cree community.
The government has seen the agreement as an easy way to wash its hands of all responsibility for the native people in the James Bay area. Last summer, at least ten children died of stomach disease. This reflects the lack of adequate sewage, sanitation and a water supply which was supposedly provided for under Section 28 of the agreement. The governments of Quebec and of Canada must take responsibility for this epi-
Adjournment Debate
demic and for those deaths, because of their slowness in establishing proper sanitary facilities.
But even after these deaths, even after this epidemic had come to public attention, what happened? Because of disagreements over financing the Quebec government put the Cree board under trusteeship. Cree communities were without services from local clinics and hospitals because there was no funding available to pay health staff. This trusteeship was lifted last week, but the problem continues. The Cree have stepped into the crisis by spending other moneys to take emergency correctional moves.
Last September, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) promised that there would be $1 million to help cover these emergency measures. However, like so many of the promises of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, when the time came to work out the details these people were told that there was no money available. They were told that the money would have to be found in their housing budget. It is estimated that a permanent solution to the problems of health and sewage in these communities will cost at least $10-million in capital funds. The government offered only $3 million and said that the other funds will have to come from the general revenues of the Cree. This is a complete denial of the requirements of the agreement.
Last week, in a letter from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), she said:
I am following the situation very closely. However, 1 have been advised that to take any action beyond what I have described, unless it was at the request of the Cree board of health and social services and the ministry of social affairs of Quebec, would put the federal government in breach of the James Bay agreement.
The Cree board of health and social services has requested help. They have requested that the federal government step in and provide some assistance. It is shameful for the government to say that it is helpless to do anything; it is shameful for it to hide behind the James Bay agreement and say that nothing more can be done.
The credibility of the government is on the line. We have talked about the recognition of aboriginal rights in the Constitution, but there is a very clear indication that words are one thing and deeds are another. The COPE agreement is in difficulty because the minister wants the people of that area to make compromises. After an agreement in principle was signed by the government, the people are being asked to make compromises. The government is not living up to the requirements of the James Bay agreement.
What is the government doing? What long-term measures is it taking to ensure that the health of the James Bay Cree communities will be protected? What measures is it taking to ensure that Quebec lives up to its part of the agreement? What is it doing to ensure that its word, given on behalf of the Canadian people, will be honoured?


Mr. Ray Chenier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very important question, but we

February 23, 1981
Adjournment Debate
must realize that at this point the Grand Council of the Cree are alleging that both Canada and Quebec have failed to fulfil their obligations regarding health services, and that it is bringing the two governments to court.
The federal government has been committed and remains committed to the agreement. To say that nothing has been done is not absolutely correct, since on September 19 there was a meeting with Chief Diamond. At that time, short-term sanitation repairs to Rupert House and Nemiscau were discussed and an amount of $941,000 was allocated to it.
The discussions continued for the months of September, October and November when the details were being hammered out. But when the Quebec government took over the trusteeship of their health services and the Cree made a request that this be removed, it brought the whole case to court. At that point, we backed off. We are still waiting to
testify in those hearings, but we have not been requested to do so yet. The suit against Canada has not been heard, nor has a schedule been hammered out.
As the hon. member indicated, the trusteeship has been removed. There seem to be indications of a rapprochement between Chief Diamond and the Quebec government. This may bring about a solution.
It is very important to repeat that the allegations about Canada not remaining committed are not true. We are fulfilling our responsibilities and we intend to continue fulfilling them. The minister remains willing to do whatever he can to resolve the matter without resorting to further legal action.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
At 10.27 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, February 24, 1981