Canada, House of Commons Debates, “Establishment of Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons”, 32nd Parl, 1st Sess (23 October 1980)


Document Information

Date: 1980-10-23
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 32nd Parl, 1st Sess, 1980 at 3979-4053.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).


The HTML Text Below Has Not Yet Been Edited

This document has not yet been edited for mistakes. Help us out by correcting the text and mailing it as a text file to pd@theccf.ca. Your help will make PrimaryDocuments.ca the most complete word-searchable electronic repository of documents relating to the Canadian constitution. For more information consult our Be a Contributor page.

Read the unedited text

October 23, 1980

COMMONS DEBATES

And more than five members having risen:

Madam Speaker: Call in the members.

[English]

The House divided on the motion (Mr. Pinard), which was
agreed to on the following division:

(1540)

(Division No. 16)

YEAS

Messrs.

Appolloni
(Mrs.)
Axworthy
Bachand
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate)
Beauchamp-Niquet
( Mrs.)
Blais
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Bossy
Breau
Bujold
Bussières
Caccia
Campbell
(Miss)
(South West Nova)
Campbell
(LaSalle)

Chénier
Chrétien
Collenette
Corbin
Corriveau
Cosgrove
Côté ( Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen

Cyr
Daudlin

de Corneille
Demers
Desmarais
Dingwall
Dion
(Portneuf)
Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Dubois
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras

Duquet
Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garamt
Gauthier
Gendron
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Irwin
Isabelle
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Lamontagne
Landers
Lang
Laniel
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Beauce)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Loiselle
Lonsdale
Lumley
MacBain

MacEachern
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Maltais
Marceau
Massé
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East)
Nicholson
(Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Prud’homme
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River)
Roberts
Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)
Rompkey
Rossi
Roy
Savard
Schroder
Simmons
Smith
Stollery
Tardif
Tessier
Tobin
Tousignant
Trudeau
Turner
Veillette
Watson
Weatherhead
Whelan
Yanakis – 132.

NAYS

Broadbent
Cardiff
Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quandra)
Coates
Cook
Cooper
Cossitt
Crombie
Crosbie
(St. John’s West)
Crouse
Dantzer

Darling
Deans
de Jong
Dick
Dinsdale
Domm
Ellis
Elzinga
Epp
Fennell
Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gamble
Gass
Gilchrist
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu’Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple
Creek)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Jarvis
Jelinek
Jewett (Miss)

Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Knowles
Kushner
Kambert
La Salle
Lewis
MacKay
Malone
Manly
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCuish
McDermid
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Miller
Mitchell
(Mrs.)
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan

Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
Patterson
Rae
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche
Rose
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Siddon
Skelly
Speyer
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Thomson
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wilson
Wright
Young
Yurko – 112.

Madam Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[English]
THE CONSTITUTION

ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE
SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS

The House resumed, from Tuesday, October 21, consider-
ation of the motion of the Minister of Justice and Minister of
State for Social Development (Mr. Chrétien):

That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons
be appointed to consider and report upon the document entitled “Proposed
Resolution for a Joint Address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the
Constitution of Canada” published by the government on October 2, 1980, and
to recommend in their report whether or not such an address, with such
amendments as the committee considers necessary, should be presented by both
Houses of Parliament to Her Majesty the Queen;

That 15 members of the House of Commons to be designated no later than
three sitting days after the adoption of this motion be members on the part of
this House of the Special Joint Committee;

That the committee have power to appoint from among its members such
subcommittees as may be deemed advisable and necessary and to delegate to
such subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly
to the House;

That the committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the
House of Commons;

That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to
examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may
be ordered by the committee;

That the committee submit their report not later than December 9, 1980;

That the quorum of the committee be 12 members, whenever a vote, resolu-
tion or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented and that
the joint chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and

3980

The Constitution

authorize the printing thereof, when six members are present so long as both
Houses are represented; and

That a message be sent to the Senate requesting, that House to unite with this
House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it to be
advisable, members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.

Madam Speaker: On Tuesday last, October 21, 1980, when
the House was considering government business No. 18 deal-
ing with the Constitution of Canada, the hon. member for
Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) offered an amendment which the Chair
took under advisement. I might read it for the benefit of hon.
members.

That the motion be amended by adding thereto after the sixth paragraph the
following:

Notwithstanding any standing orders or practices of either House, the com-
mittee shall have the power to table a minority report, with its main report, and

any such report shall be tabled by the committee if signed by three or more
members of the committee.

The Chair has some serious concerns about the procedural
acceptability of this motion.

First of all, the amendment seeks to change the powers of
the committee to be established in a way which is not contem-
plated by the rules or practices of the House as they now
stand. The submission of minority reports from committees to
this House is not part of our parliamentary practice. This was
clearly stated by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux in a ruling on
March 16, 1972, in which he quoted paragraph 319 of the
fourth edition of Beauchesne, which I do not need to repeat
now. I might add that the same provision appears in citation
641 of the fifth edition of Beauchesne.

If the hon. member’s amendment were accepted, it would
indeed amend our standing orders in an indirect way. As hon.
members know, amendments to standing orders can only be
effected by unanimous consent or by a substantive motion
preceded by a 48-hour notice. Therefore, I cannot accept the
hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Dick: A good Liberal ruling.

Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker, my
constituency lies in that area of Canada which might well be
called the cradle of confederation. It is just a little extension
from Charlottetown. It was in that cradle that the concept of
confederation was conceived, and in that plan four then
independent countries rendered unto the confederation of
Canada their own independence to become part of a greater
team.

In that rendering of their independence to the rest of
Canada they conceived a plan in which the first ministers of
this land, now 11 in all, were each to be one among equals.
The practice and procedures of .confederation from that
moment until this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office
were that, being a group of equals, the chairmanship revolved
around, through, and among the provinces, and included the
Prime Minister of Canada. This Prime Minister has chosen to
dominate the various meetings of first ministers of Canada. He
has imposed himself upon this nation not as one among equals,
but he has self-esteemed himself as the first among equals.

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

Under this situation the spirit of confederation cannot func-
tion, and unity cannot prevail.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

0 (1620)

Mr. McCain: Canada has long had two competing parties.
One of them was the Liberal party. It was a proud party and it
has been successful in the political scenes of Canada because
the Liberal party controlled its governments. This government
has escaped from the judicious control of its party.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. McCain: If any member in this House does not believe
me, let him read Canada’s political history from cover to
cover, let him spend some months, as I have, in neglect of my
constituency problems, in neglect of functions in my constit-
uency, to devote full time to the problem of the Constitution of
Canada.

I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of
the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) should say that I was
passed this speech by somebody to deliver it in the House.
That may be his fashion of operation, Mr. Speaker, but it is
not mine, nor has it been, for his information, the fashion of
operation of any speaker in this party on this subject.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. McCain: There has been no coercion, there has been no
suggestion as to “what you say or how you say it,” and this
includes me, at this, the most crucial moment perhaps of all in
the debate. I am proud that at this moment in time I can stand
here in defence of Canada. I sang “O Canada” with a zest’ ‘
with which I never sang it before.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
An hon. Member: No Liberal stood up.

Mr. McCain: Never before did I feel that I was complying
in totality with the words “I stand on guard for thee” as I do
at this moment, and as I sang in this House.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. McCain: I sat here watching every Atlantic member
who was in his seat rising in contempt of the Atlantic area

which cradled confederation and which has cherished it. I
think I heard the bones of the Fathers of Confederation

rattling all over Atlantic Canada as these people, who have not
studied the consequence of what we are considering today, rose
and voted for closure on this item. Mr. Speaker, it is an
insufferable neglect of duty and I hope that, particularly those
from Newfoundland, when they go back, will receive the
treatment which they deserve.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. McCain: They have confronted the opinion of every

legislator, regardless of whether or not they support Mr.

October 23, 1980

Peckford that Newfoundland should have control of its
resources both onshore and offshore and free passage of its
renewable resources to any markets to which they might
-deliver them. Every member of Newfoundland’s legislature
supports that, and the vote has to be interpreted as being
against that. I say that because, although we have been
pledged ownership of resources by some who have spoken on
the government side of the House, the controls which will be
imposed by the constitutional proposals, and the scurrilous
agreement between the NDP and the Liberal party, put own-
ership of a resource in no substantial position of importance
any longer because the control of the resource passes over from
those independent entities to the Government of Canada.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. McCain: I just want you, members from Atlantic
Canada, to understand what you are voting for and what
interpretation can be put on this very innocuous-appearing
document which carries within it powers of interpretation
which go far beyond the understanding of the parliamentary
secretary and of the President of the Privy Council.

Canada is in jeopardy, it cannot be otherwise described. I
have assumed this position, not because of my party but
because my party and I agree wholeheartedly. It is a position
against which I have been advised by constituents because
there is no understanding among the masses in Canada of the
real consequence of the ultimate interpretation of the resolu-
tion, section by section. There is no understanding that
Canada will now be governed by the courts instead of by the
legislation of this land, that Canada may have its rights
jeopardized in the courts and they will not be correctable by
legislation in this land but will instead demand an amendment
to the constitution.

How could any democratic-minded person, in all honesty, if
he proclaims democracy as his base, vote without understand-
ing the possible interpretations? I think the weakness of the
case can be well pointed out by the fact that not a single
Liberal member in the House has offered an argument in
support of the document which we are at present considering
and debating. They have shafted us with their barbs. They
have had their tantrums, as did the Minister of Justice (Mr.
Chrétien) yesterday, a perfectly planned theatrical tantrum
which got him the publicity he wanted. It was a disgrace to the
operation of Parliament from a minister of the Crown, particu-
larly one holding his portfolio.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. McCain: I have listened with great care to many
speeches, and have read others, and I have not found one
supporting statement or argument for a clause, word or phrase,
but merely a contention that it must be there.

The government now is afraid that the milk chocolate with
which it has adorned this instrument will dissolve, and that the
intelligent people of Canada will begin to spread the word that
it is only used to encrust a bitter lemon. It has been a matter of
camouflage and misleading information promoted both by

COMMONS DEBATES

3981

The Constitution

speakers in this House and a $30 million propaganda program
to advise the people, “We are working for you, God bless you,
you are in safe hands.” Little do they know what is happening.
Now they are afraid of time because there is an obvious
change of opinion and because I and others members of this
House, with some danger to our own political future, recogniz-
ing that principles are more important than an individual
political future, have taken this unpopular stand, as every poll
in this country has proclaimed. But we have taken the logical
stand, and logic and right will prevail, Mr. Speaker.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. McCain: Why the rush? I want to know what is the
importance of time in the discussion of this item. Why should
discussion of an item of such consequence to the country be
restricted in time when the consequence of the time spent and
the decision reached will be timeless as it goes forward in the
history of this country? What is the justification for the
restriction of time and for closure? In the interests of a happy,
prosperous and harmonious Canada co-operating together for
prosperity in the future, I make a plea that sanity may prevail
and emotion may subside so that reason can rule and we get
what we need in a constitution. I support human rights, etc.,
and let no one have the unadulterated gall to deny that. So in
order that we may have more time, I plead with the House
that it may accept this motion which I make, seconded by the
hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):

Thatthe motion be amended by deleting the sixth paragraph and substituting
therefor the following:

“That the committee submit its report not later than February 12, 1981; that
the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within Canada; that
the committee be empowered to retain the services of advisers to assist in its
work; and that it also be empowered to retain such professional, clerical and
stenographic help as may be required.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. McCain: I move that motion in recognition of the fact
that there are people who have spent a lifetime studying the
constitutional history, constitutional procedures, the constitu-
tional possibilities, and the consequences of hasty adoption of
constitutions in other domains, and that this constitution
should not he arrived at under datelines and deadlines. Before
it becomes law, or before it is submitted to the Parliament of
the United Kingdom, it must have the pooling of the wisest
men in this domain to phrase it so that it will last. It should
not be the hasty phrases committed to paper as they were in
the PM’s office or in some other marble alley somewhere out
of sight in this domain of ours, without proper understanding
of the ultimate consequences.

o (1630)
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Order, please. With
respect to the motion moved by the hon. member for Carleton-
Charlotte (Mr. McCain), because this may occur again in the
proceedings, I want to indicate that in view of the fact
Standing Order 33 is in play at the moment, I think it is the

3982

The Constitution

obligation of the Chair to take into consideration any amend-
ments such as the present one and to give a ruling on them as
quickly as possible. I would propose that the debate continue
and that a ruling will be prepared within the next few
moments.

Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):
Mr. Speaker, I do not have time to deal with all of the remarks
of the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), but
I should like to deal with one point because it affects my
constituency so much. He somehow implied that voting for this
motion, as we did today, those of us from Atlantic Canada and
from Newfoundland somehow voted against the transmission
of hydro through Quebec to market. I want to tell him that the
Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is on public record at the first
ministers’ conference–

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Rompkey: —as saying that the federal government is
totally behind the province of Newfoundland in the transmis-
sion of hydro through Quebec, providing a market can be
found for that power. It is quite clear it in no way affects this
vote at all.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Rompkey: I wanted to speak about that point, but also I
want to address myself to the resolution before us. We are
discussing here the foundation of ourfuture. We have an
opportunity to set down the ideals on which our way of life is
based.

We may have thought that we were creating a country in
1867, but surely a modern and independent country must have
a constitution of its own and the power to change that consti-
tution, a constitution which sets down for all time the rights of
individuals. That is what this motion is all about. It seeks to
ensure that Canadians everywhere have the fundamental free-
dom that people in other free nations enjoy; that people have
the democratic rights to which they are entitled; that there be
no discrimination in this country on the basis of race, ethnic
origin, colour, religion, age or sex; that the citizens of the
English and French-speaking minority in any province have
the right; to educate their children in that minority language
wherever numbers warrant; that mobility rights ensure the
right of every citizen to move freely from one province to
another, to establish a residence and to seek a job anywhere in
Canada.

Our people—and I am talking of the people in Newfound-
land and Labrador–no matter where they are, where they
were born or what their ethnic origin, have never been con-
fined to a particular region of the country. Our people have
been free to go where fortune beckoned them. Before confed-
eration between Newfoundland and Canada, Newfoundland-
ers travelled the oceans of the world, crossing the sea to a
variety of foreign lands in pursuit of trade and commerce.
They came to know many countries, and many countries came
to know them as seamen and businessmen.

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

Since confederation in 1949, Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians have travelled to all parts- of Canada—to Fort
McMurray, to Toronto, to Calgary, and to Galt. They have
settled, raised their families and pursued their careers. In
doing so, they have made themselves not less Newfoundlanders
but all the more Canadians. It is true some of them have gone
of necessity and have regretted that necessity, but others have
gone through choice. Of the latter some have obtained the
highest offices in this land. Yet, certainly the effect of the
present provincial regulations would be to confine our people
to the province.

Surely if Newfoundland would keep other Canadians out, it
stands to reason other provinces would be forced to keep out
Newfoundlanders. The outcome of that policy would be to
balkanize, to build walls, to restrict Canadians to a region.
This is clearly wrong. This country belongs to all of us; not just
a part of the country but all of Canada. Each of us should be
free to move and to settle in any part.

Mr. Clark: Who wrote that speech?

Mr. Rompkey: This freedom must be written for all time in

our constitution.
The present government proposal also establishes in th

constitution the principle of equalization. If any province in
confederation has benefited from this policy, surely it has been
Newfoundland and Labrador.There is no Newfoundlanderfsgf
today, no Labradorian today, not a single one of us from Cape
Chidley to Cape Race, whose life is not immensely better
because we are today Canadians. At the present time 60 per
cent of the provincial budget comes from Ottawa. Of course
this does not include the individual transfer payments such as
family allowance, unemployment insurance and pensions,
which are an attempt to equalize the financial situation of

individuals.

People in provinces want to be able to stand on their own
two feet through income from the development of their own
resources. But, until such time as this can be accomplished;
they have a right to expect that the resources of the nation are
used to ensure their services are up to a reasonable standard,
for the fundamental principle of confederation is sharing, and
the manifestation of that principle is the program of
equalization.

The inconsistency of the provincial government of New-
foundland mystifies me. Are they saying that by rejecting this
resolution they are rejecting the principle of equalization?-
Quite clearly they are firmly rejecting the measure before the
House of Commons at the present time. We know they have
rejected the federal government offer of 100 per cent of the
revenue which would normally accrue to a province from oil
production. I am at a loss to know exactly what they
Certainly they want to sustain their rhetoric; they want to
rattle sabres; they want to hunt headlines; they want to bicker

with the federal government.

I believe the people of Newfoundland understand the need
for a strong national government. They are aware of the
individual benefits such a government can provide, and I have

October 23, 1980

listed some of them. They know from where the money has
Elcome to build the Trans-Canada highway and the major trunk
roads in that province. They know who built the wharves,
breakwaters and fishing boats. The people of Newfoundland
know the need for a strong national government, a government
with the strength to help those who need it most. That is why
they will never condone the vision of Premier Peckford. That is
why they will never agree with him that the federal govern-
ment is merely a creature of the provinces, so that presumably
they can change it and, indeed, destroy it at will. That is why
they will never share with him the vision of Premier Lévesque.

For, while he may later have tried to wriggle out of it, he
quite clearly placed himself in the Lévesque camp at the first
ministers’ conference. He said:

It is too bad all of Canada couldn’t have viewed it yesterday when both yourself,

Mr. Prime Minister, and Mr. Lévesque articulated clearer than I have ever seen

it done before two different visions of Canada. Hydro power notwithstanding, I

would have to side with the theory advocated by Mr. Lévesque.

That is where the dispute is, hydro power is the greatest
resource we have and that is where our future lies.

Premier Peckford, like Premier Lévesque, wants a confed-
eration of convenience. He wants the federal government when
he needs it, but he wishes it was not there when it needs him.
He needs the federal government to authorize pushing power
from the Lower Churchill through Quebec; he wants the
federal government to give orders to another province in that
instance, but he wants a hands-off policy when it comes to the

offshore. In that situation he wants to cut the cord and forgets
about a Newfoundland contribution to the welfare of Canada.
He is saying to Canada, “Yes, you’ve invested hundreds of
millions of dollars in the fishery to develop it. Yes, you have
supported fishermen and fish companies but now the compa-
nies are making a dollar and fishermen’s incomes are up, we
want to draw a line around Newfoundland and catch and
process our own Newfoundland fish. We don’t know how we’ll
tell Newfoundland fish from Nova Scotia fish but we’ll find a
way. Thanks for the ride, Canada; don’t call us, we’ll call
you.” .

Similarly, the federal government has made an important
contribution to the development of offshore oil. Surely federal
tax incentives have played an important part in bringing all
offshore exploration to its present state. Surely the role of
Petro-Canada, the state-owned oil company which members
opposite wanted to do away with, has been a tremendous asset
to Newfoundland. In fact it is fair to say that without direct
and indirect federal involvement there would be no offshore oil
and gas exploration, there would be no Hibernia. According to
Premier Peckford it all belongs to Newfoundland, in spite of
the national need for petroleum. He is saying, “We want you
around when we need you, but kindly disappear when you need
us.” He makes Scrooge look like the tooth fairy.

(1640)

No nation can exist on the basis of expediency; there must
be a constant sharing and not just when it is convenient.
Canada has a need, a need fora secure supply of petroleum.
The country which has helped and supported Newfoundland

COMMONS DEBATES

3983

The Constitution

since 1949 now needs our help and we, as a province, should
respond. We should agree to share the revenues and the
control of development. That is the Canadian way, and it could
work. If the provincial government were thinking “Canadian”
and if they were willing to co-operate, it could work. But
instead we find a constant bickering with and railing against
the federal government.

Every day from the Confederation Building in St. John’s the
federal government is bashed as if the provincial Tories
thought this was the way to win friends and influence people.
Every; possible opportunity is seized to blame the federal
government for the ills of the province. Everything that goes
wrong is the fault of the federal government. And yet the
federal government is expected to step in and pick up the
pieces when things fall apart. And things are falling apart
because the whole focus has been on offshore. Everything else
is pushed into the background. Unemployment is growing, the
cost of living is rising, the construction industry is reeling while
the provincial government treats its people to rhetoric on the
offshore. And this in spite of the fact that we need many
Hibernias to reduce our dependence on equalization grants.
But you cannot put rhetoric in the bank. You cannot put
rhetoric on your kitchen table. Our people want jobs and
prosperity for themselves and their province.

I wish to quote from a recent letter from Mr. John Mac-
Donald of Paradise River on the coast of Labrador. Labrador
is the site of the Churchill River vast hydro potential and the
member for Carleton-Charlotte referred to that. Mr. Peckford
says he wants to go ahead with this development. He wants a
strong federal government to order Quebec to take Labrador
power through their province. He is for mobility of power but
against mobility of people. The only problem is that while he
has found a way to benefit the people of New York he has not
found a way to benefit the people of Labrador. They see the
danger of this resource, like others, moving out of their
territory, with no real benefit to them. Meanwhile, conditions
in Labrador are crying out for attention and the provincial
government does nothing to address these conditions.

I want to quote from Mr. MacDonald’s letter to a St. John’s
newspaper, which said in part:

People in other towns complain about the condition of their roads. We don’t
have a road. We have a foot path running along the edge of the river—we have
one telephone in town, usable for about four hours a day. It is regularly out of
order–we don’t have a supermarket—we must scramble to find a wholesaler
who will sell us our winter supply of food in September–medical facilities are a
laugh—so Mr. Peckford when you’re sitting in St. John’s sometime–anticipat-
ing your next speech on oil rights, give a thought to Paradise River.

The people of Labrador are not fooled by the provincial
rhetoric. They know the reality of the situation. They know
that the wild talk and gestures are a smokescreen to camou-
flage deplorable conditions which the provincial government is
doing nothing to correct. What our people want is not rhetoric
but jobs. They know enough about Canada to know this can
only be accomplished through co-operation with a strong
federal government. Their experience in confederation tells
them that it is a matter of give and take. Sometimes you take,

3984

The Constitution

other times you give. That is what confederation is all about-~
sharing.

The federal government offered a good deal on the offshore.
The provincial government turned it down, claiming the only
important thing was ownership. Yet it has refused to present
the.matter to the Supreme Court, the only body which can
decide ownership, in spite of the fact that Newfoundland
claims to have an excellent case. Many people believe New-
foundland has a special case, a unique case. But only the
Supreme_Court of Canada can decide, and the province will
not submit the matter to it. It refuses to negotiate. It refuses to
go to court. Meanwhile the rhetoric continues. Ottawa-bashing
continues. An ugly, anti-Canadian feeling continues to be
fostered in our province. That is the saddest thing of all, Mr.
Speaker.

All across this county groups and individuals are attempting
to balkanize, to cut off apiece of the country, to build a wall in
order to achieve separation. This is a challenge to the essential
nature of Canada. I

There are those in my own province who would encourage
extreme Newfoundland nationalism that they know was
present at the time of confederation. In 1949 the vote for
Canada was put. There were those who wanted Newfoundland
to be independent, and they feared Canada. This feeling was
reflected in an anti-confederate song which ended with the line

Come near at your peril, Canadian wolf.” Today there are
those who are trying to preserve the myth of the Canadian
wolf, except today there is a variation on the theme, which
goes, “Come near when we want you, but only if we want
you.” So the challenge and the conflict are still present in
Newfoundland, the conflict between those for confederation
and those against, those for one country and those for ten,
those for the Trudeau vision and those for the Lévesque vision.
But Newfoundland has changed since confederation and New-
foundlanders have changed. In 1949 just over 50 per cent
voted for Canada. Today the vote would be overwhelmingly
for Canada, because since that time we have come to know
and appreciate our Canadian neighbours. Since that time we
have become Canadian.

While we may look back nostalgically at the past, this very
act suggests a different future. Surely that future is within and
not without Canada. Surely our Canadian identity enhances
rather than diminishes our Newfoundland identity. Surely we
do not have to be either Newfoundlanders or Canadians. We
can be both. We must be both, just as French Canadians must
be both and Alberta Canadians must be both. Canada draws
its strength from its differences but only when those differ-
ences exists in harmony and unity.

There are those who want to put Newfoundland culture on
the shelf and make it a museum piece. Those people want to
build up the myth of the modern Canadian wolf. But our
society is strong because we are growing and developing. Our
people are_strong because they are not only Newfoundlanders
but Canadians. That is why I am shocked and outraged at the
recent hysterical outburst of the Premier of Newfoundland.
We heard he would take the federal government to court over

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

this constitutional initiative. He must know full well that he
does not-ghave a chance. But he is persuaded to this cause
because he is a member of the Lougheed, Lyon, Levesque
group–and we all clearly know Mr. Lévesque’s intentions.
Still, Premier Peckford seeks the authority of the court in a
case he cannot win and, at the same time—-

Mr. Clark: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if the
minister would clarify whether he is suggesting, in the name of
his government, that Premier Lyon of Manitoba and Premier
Peckford of Newfoundland are separatists. Is that what he is

saying?

Mr. Rompkey: You will have to rule on that point of order,
Mr. Speaker, but I have said what I have said and I am sure
the—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Order, please. I think the
hon. minister perhaps does deserve the usual comment which

goes in such cases. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Clark) took the opportunity to do what has been done on
some occasions, that is, to interrupt an hon. member who has
the floor and to ask a question. I did not underline the right of
the hon. minister either to answer a question, if he saw fit, or
simply to continue with his remarks. Having said that, I
recognize the minister again.

Mr. Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, there was a clear grouping of

premiers and we know clearly what certain members of that
group stand for. I think it is pretty clear.

Some hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Rompkey: Premier Peckford refuses to submit offshore
ownership to the court in spite of the fact that many believe
Newfoundland has a good case. Why this ambivalence? Why
is there this contradiction? If the courts are trustworthy and if
only they can rule on ownership, and if ownership is the “be

all” and “end all”, then why are they not asked to judge? Mr.

Peckford will ask them to rule on a matter which affects the
future of Canada, but not on a matter which affects the future if
of Newfoundland and Labrador. One thing we can say about
the plan is that he is consistent in his inconsistency. However, i

several days ago Mr. Peckford rose to an all-time high in
rhetoric by charging that the proposed resolution on the
Canadian constitution would take away the rights of the
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to denominational educa-
tion and would leave the way open for changes to the Labrador

boundary as it now exists.

(1650)

Either Mr. Peckford cannot read or he is deliberately mis-

leading the people of the province by those ridiculous state-

ments. By deliberately singling out emotional issues such as
the denominational education system and the Labrador bound-

ary, he is attempting to stampede Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians against the federal government’s constitutional

proposal. The scare tactics which Mr. Peckford is using are

similar to those used by Mr. Lévesque during the Quebec

tiobcr 23, 1980

referendum campaign. But these scare tactics did not work in
ebec and they will not work in Newfoundland.

The Newfoundland Liberal MPs on this side of the House
are determined to fight, with all the strength we can muster,
the demagoguery which we have witnessed in our own prov-
ince. Once our people know the facts they will see the sham for
what it is. The constitutional resolution which we are debating
here explicitly guarantees the Labrador border and our
denominational schools. Section 43 and section 47 of the
resolution are our protection.

Section 43 provides a special rule whereby amendments that
do not apply to all provinces, such as the terms of union, would
be made only with the consent of Parliament and the province
concerned. Mr. Peckford conveniently forgot to point this out
in his province-wide broadcast. Furthermore, section 47 is even
more explicit. It says that no amending formula as outlined in
the resolution would apply where the constitution contains
another procedure for making an amendment.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Order, please. As I often
do when in thechair, I try to signal hon. members or ministers
who are speaking that they have a moment or two left to wrap
up. There is some pressure on all hon. members because of the
20-minute time limit. Because I allowed an interruption, I will
give the hon. minister 30 seconds.

Mr. Rompkey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to point
out the facts on this important issue in our province, as they
exist at the present time. We on this side of the House stand
firm on the matter. I wanted to point out one particular matter
which came up in the recent amendment that deals with the
transfer of resources from one province to another and indirect
and direct taxation. The Leader of the New Democratic Party
(Mr. Broadbent) dealt with this subject very well yesterday.

Some hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Rompkey: I want to say to my friends across the way
that it will be an asset to our people, not a liability.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my point of
order to the acting government House leader. It would be my
view, as well as the view of members of my party that,
considering the events today, it would be inappropriate to have
a private members’ hour. We would rather have the hour used
for the debating of this resolution. I have spoken to the House
leader of the New Democratic Party, and I believe that they
are in agreement. I would ask that the government accede to
this request as well.

Mr. Dick: Make it unanimous.

Mr. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that the
hon. member could have given me prior notice of this sugges-
tion. We have six minutes left before we call it private
members’ hour. I will give my decision at one minuteto five.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Order, please. There is a
small technical problem, and the Chair has difficulty hearing

COMMONS DEBATES

3985

The Constitution

at times. I do not know whether the hon. member for Pro-
vencher (Mr. Epp) put a motion or whether there was an
implicit agreement to give further consideration to the
suggestion.

Mr. Epp: I asked for unanimous consent.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): The Chair can interpret
the remarks of the hon. parliamentary secretary that there is
not unanimous consent, but nonetheless I think it is in order to
put the question.

Mr. Dick: No, he said that he would wait for five minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Then there is agreement
to delay discussion on this matter?

Mr. Dick: Yes.

Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John’s West): Mr. Speaker, in
due course I will deal with the remarks of the Minister of
National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) where it is necessary. In
my opening remarks I would like to say with regard to my
leader that as I was reading my Roman history recently I
came across the philosopher Seneca, who said:

Whereas fire is the test of gold, adversity is the test of a strong man.

Our leader has been tested in adversity and I think that he is
showing himself well in these times of adversity.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Crosbie: I am not talking about brown, I said gold. I
have only 20 minutes allotted to me, so I cannot make the full
presentation that I wanted to make. I did not expect that
closure would be introduced in this debate. After only 24 hours
of debate, after only 46 members out of 279 in this House have
spoken, after 22 out of 145 Liberals have spoken–123 have
not spoken—after 19 out of 102 Progressive Conservatives
have spoken, 83 have not; and after only five out of 32 NDP
members have spoken, leaving 25 who have not spoken–

Mr. Knowles: Twenty-seven. Can’t you count?

Mr. Crosbie: —231 members of this House, give or take a
few, have not had a chance to speak in this debate. It took God
six days to make the world. It takes the Prime Minister (Mr.
Trudeau) only 24 hours of debate to remake Canada.

The Prime Minister has tried to deceive the Canadian
people. He said in his opening statement several weeks ago on
television that the Canadian people have to find a way of
breaking out of 53 years of constitutional paralysis. To say the
best about that statement, it is an untruth. We have had many
constitutional changes in the last 53 years. There has been no
constitutional paralysis.

For example, in 1940, unemployment insurance was added
to the federal jurisdiction, and in 1951 section 94(a) was
added to the old age pension to clarify federal powers. There
has been no impasse. Even if there has been debate on the
constitution over the last 20 years or 30 years, it has not been

3986

The Constitution

because of the provinces that have been so abused by the
government–Newfoundland, Alberta and the rest of them–it
has been_ mainly because the French Canadian people of
Quebec. did not feel that their province had sufficient powers
and jurisdiction to protect them in their homeland of Quebec.

That is the debate which I. have been following since the
1940s. That is the debate which I have heard introduced by
premiers of Quebec ever since the late 1940s, that they did not
feel under the present system they had sufficient powers and
jurisdiction in the province of Quebec to protect the rights and
responsibilities of their own French Canadian people. Sudden-
ly this summer after the referendum, in which the Prime
Minister at no time during the referendum ever said to the
people of Quebec, “Vote no against the referendum and, if you
do. I am going to restrict your provincial powers”, he has a
change of mind. He.was going to double track the country,
now he is doublecrossing the Quebeckers.

After getting the people of Quebec to say no in the referen-
dum, he isnow turning around and restricting the powers and
responsibilities of the province of Quebec as well as of the
other nine provinces. It is a shameful turn-around from what
was promised to the people of Quebec in the referendum. The
people who have introduced this issue in Canada over the past
30 years are now having imposed on them something which is
100 per cent opposite to what they wanted.

We have a strong central government now. We should pay
no attention to the pretence that poor granny Trudeau is up
here with a weak federal government and he is going to be
severely abused and assaulted by these ten rapacious premiers.
It is untrue. The Prime Minister has the power to disallow
provincial legislation or have it reserved by the lieutenant
governor. He has the power to have a work declared to be for
the general advantage of Canada. He can take over any
industry in the country through a proclamation passed by this
House. These are all federal powers which the Prime Minister
has today. Under section 92(10)(a) he has the power with
respect to works or undertakings between the provinces, but he
will not use this section to aid the province of Newfoundland.

The Prime Minister will not work to declare a hydro trans-
mission line from Labrador to, say, New York, Ontario or
New Brunswick, to be to the general advantage of Canada and
to stop the tyranny under which we have suffered in New-
foundland since 1965 so that we can transmit our electricity
across Quebec.

0 (1700)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary
Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Col-
lenette) on a point of order.

Mr. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, we would be agreeable to
sitting through private members’ hour. The item which will be
set aside IS in the name of the hon. member for Richmond-
South Delta (Mr. Siddon). I must reiterate, however, that the
House will take its normal adjournment at six o’clock. We will
just go until six o’clock, but through private members’ hour.

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Is there unanimous
agreement that the House dispense with private members’

hour?
Some hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is so ordered. The hon. member for
Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) on a point of order.

Mr. Siddon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I approach this
request with mixed feelings because my private members’ bill
was to come before the House. I am faced with a choice
between freshwater fish and the future of our country. I feel,
Mr. Speaker–

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I can understand the

hon. member’s problem, but all the Chair can do at this time is

ask the House if there is unanimous consent to dispense with
private members’ hour. Is there?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There being unanimous consent, the
Chair must recognize the hon. member for St. John’s West.

Mr. Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has these
powers now, but it often chooses -not to exercise them because
it does not think that the people -of Canada would support the
exercise. Mr. Speaker, we support bringing the BNA Act back
from the United Kingdom’ to Canada–and an amending
formula as well. But we do not support the scurvy plot that the
Government of Canada is instituting–that because it would
not have the powers after the constitution is brought back to
do what it now proposes, it should have it done in the United
Kingdom in Parliament there first, because they think that
what would be illegal here would be legal there.

The Prime Minister is the last of the old colonial boys. He
not asking us just to improve and bring back the constitution;
he wants it changed fundamentally before it ever comes here
We cannot accept that and we are not going to accept
concept of a referendum.

The Minister of National Revenue referred to Premier
Peckford’s worries about denominational education and the
Labrador boundary. Section 43 of this act is meaningless. It
can be changed. If this can be done today, any Government of
Canada in the future with a majority in Parliament can
change it again. They could use the referendum to go over the
heads of the provinces and have any section of the act
changed. So section 43 is meaningless. There is no protection
for Newfoundland’s denominational education, there is no
protection for the Newfoundland boundary with Quebec, there
is no protection for any provincial right in the constitution
whatsoever if what the government attempts to do now is
carried through and they are given the power to have a
referendum and to decide what powers are necessary to amend
the act and decide who has to agree. None of us have any
protection.

The charter of human rights is meaningless, and if I had the
time I would go into that. It can be changed at any time by the

October 23, 1980

tyranny of the majority opposite. They are going to tyrannize
the rest of us. They plan to tyrannize the country because they
havethis majority and they are going to shape Canada, they
think, in the view that they have of it. They are going to find it
cannot be done, Mr. Speaker.

What is a confederation, Mr. Speaker? Webster’s dictionary
gives the following definition:

A body of Confederates especially of states more or less permanently united for
common purposes.

Canada is given as an example. But we are not going to be
that kind of state any longer if this goes through. The Prime
Minister does not even mention the states that were there
originally before they joined; just people.

What did Sir Wilfrid Laurier say in 1889? He said:
The only means of maintaining confederation is to recognize that, within its
sphere assigned to it by the constitution, each province is as independent of
control by the federal Parliament as the latter is from control by the provincial
legislatures.

That is what the grand old man of Liberalism said. The only
means of maintaining confederation is, as he put it, not this
kind of imposition on the legislatures by the federal Parlia-
ment. That is why we fear the termination of our system if this
attempt is successful.

In the course of his lectures on April 10 and 11, 1980, Mr.
Michael Kirby, who is now secretary to the cabinet for federal-
provincial relations, said:

But for anyone who believes—-as I do–that the process of decision-making in
our kind of society is as important as the decision itself–that is, that means are
in fact as important as ends to our society–then this was an important and
imaginative experiment.

I repeat, Mr. Speaker: “that means are in fact as important
as ends”. That is what hon. members opposite forget. They are
going ahead as though their ends justify everything and as if
the means do not count. In his advice, Mr.’Kirby forgets what
he said in his own lectures.

An editorial in the Toronto Globe of July 3, 1869, stated as
follows:

The danger most to be feared is that men who really do not believe in
confederation at all should so seek to extend and consolidate the federal
legislative and executive power that the local governments and legislatures shall
be in danger of becoming mere shadows and shams, and that the evil from such a
danger may lead to the opposite extreme of ignoring national unity, and in zeal
for mere local interests and specialities, the breaking up of confederation
altogether.

That is what they feared in those days, and that is what is
happening today. It is what we fear.

The Prime Minister apparently wants to have his place in
history. I should like to make one brief reference to the book
“Newfoundland—Dawn Without Light”, in which the author,
Dr. Herbert L. Pottle, deals with the question of leaders who
want their place in history. The relevant abstract reads as
follows:

A political leader’s preoccupation with hisplace in history is not a good omen for
his enduring contribution to history. For a leader so engrossed has his attention
constantly diverted from the basic business of governing–which can have
historical significance~—to the petty distractions of forever reckoning up his
personal triumphs and setbacks–which is not history but diary.

COMMONS DEBATES

3987

The Constitution
That is what the Prime Minister is doing.

Let me deal with the Newfoundland situation now. There is
nothing in this great resource concept of the Leader of the
NDP (Mr. Broadbent) and the Prime Minister that deals with
offshore mineral resources at all. As a matter of fact, in his
letter of October 20, the Leader of the New Democratic Party
did not even mention the offshore resource question. He did
not make that a condition because he does not care about
eastern Canada. He does not care a bit.

What does the government leader in the Senate say about
this? Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from the proceedings
of the other place of yesterday, at page 909. When asked about
this arrangement between the Leader of the NDP and the
Prime Minister, the government leader in the Senate had this
to say:

There is no deviation from the BNA Act. This statement in the letter from the

Prime Minister flows from the BNA Act itself. It is a reconfirmation. It is a
restatement of a right which is already enjoyed by the provinces.

So the Leader of the NDP.has negotiated mightily and all
he got was a reaffirmation of the BNA Act, which is being
disregarded in this House in any event.

There is nothing for offshore resources and there is nothing
for interprovincial movement of electricity. And the hon.
minister opposite even had the gall to mention that. There is
no action by this government to free Newfoundland from the
tyranny and usurpation of their electricity by Quebec which
refuses to let it flow through that province to other customers.
There is nothing about that. You could drive a truck through
the equalization clause in the so-called charter of human
rights. There is no obligation on the government whatsoever
with respect to equalization. This is the government–

Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker—-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Humber-Port au
Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) on a point of order.

Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for St.
John’s West (Mr. Crosbie) entertain a very short question? It
will not take much of his time. I realize he has a lot to say.

Mr. Crosbie: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Tobin: Would the hon. member tell me what he and his
government were doing for seven months about solving all
these problems that he is accusing this government of not
having solved? What were you doing for seven months, John?
Writing that budget?

Some hon. Members: Hear; hear!

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order please. Order, please. The hon.

member for St. John’s West (Mr. Crosbie).

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

3988

The Constitution

Mr. Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we were recognizing the offshore
mineral rights of the province of Newfoundland.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Tobin: You were—
Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
St. John’s West.

Mr. Crosbie: What about this labour mobility, this terrible
thing that the Newfoundland government is trying to do? The
Minister of National Revenue said that the Newfoundland
people have gone all over the world to work. Yes, Mr. Speaker,
but that is not a freedom; it is because they have been forced
out of their own island, out of their own province to get jobs
because they cannot get them there. That is not a freedom. It
IS tyranny that men have to leave their families for six months,
nine months or twelve months to go to the Yukon or Ontario
or Quebec, or somewhere else in the world, to work because
they cannot get work at home. That is why the Peckford
government has got this regulation that applies only to the
offshore. That is not freedom- But it is freedom we want in
Newfoundland–freedom to grow and develop. That has been
forgotten on the other side that has forgotten Newfoundland.

Q (1710)

Here is the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien) referring to
the premier of our province. He said this yesterday:
If he wants us to help, I think he should stop that kind of statement.

If that is not a threat, what is it? If the Premier of
Newfoundland dare so much as to have his own opinions and
to give his own views then this government here is going to
punish him. This government here is not going to help New-
foundland because of statements made by Newfoundland’s
premier. I tell you we are not coming hat-in-hand and cap-in-
hand to you crowd up here any longer. We are going to stand
on our own feet. Our premier does not have to beg for help
from you people here in the government. He is not going to
beg for help. He is going to put forward his views onpolicy,
the same as the Premier of Ontario, the Premier of Quebec
and the premiers of the other provinces do.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Crosbie: The Minister of National Revenue is going to
blame the regional disparity in Newfoundland on the New-
foundland government. I ask what has the minister’s govern-
ment done to help Newfoundland since it assumed office? It
has not signed one DREE agreement. It has cut off the money
flow to Newfoundland. It has reneged on the Trans-Canada
highway agreement. It has stopped, for example, the little
synchrolift in St. John’s West. This is nothing but the tyranny
of the majority attempting to bully us into keeping our mouths
shut in Newfoundland.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

Mr. Crosbie: Then we come to the Prime Minister and the
Queen. I do not have time to go into this, but I tell you to read

the threat the Prime Minister made with reference to the

Queen in his press conference two weeks ago. The Prime
Minister was asked why he had chosen to retain the British

monarch as a symbol of the Canadian state. The answer. given

was this:
Well, because this evening we are not attempting to solve all the problems.

Ergo, the Queen is a problem. But she is not a problem to us

in Newfoundland. But that will be the next step, to tamper
with the monarchy, if the government is successful.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Crosbie: The amendment of the NDP is not even,
supported by the Premier of Saskatchewan. All he has is the
right for Saskatchewan to impose indirect taxation. There is
nothing that is conceivably of any use to any other province
but weakened resource ownership and control in all the other
provinces. There is nothing for the offshore. He has done
nothing but humiliate his own party and his own members
and contradict what they said in this House.

We do not have time in 20 minutes to consider all of the
constitutional issues. But this whole process and this amend
ment should not be going to England. It should have had
unanimous consent here. If this government had only done
what we had suggested yesterday should be done and left the
rest to be done properly in Canada, all of us could have
supported it. But instead it is going there in discord and
disharmony. It is going with six provinces deadly opposed to it.
The constitutional amendment is going there ignoring the
courts of Canada and not waiting until they give a judgment
on whether the process is legal or not. It is going without our
support. We are going to fight it to the end. We are never
going to stop fighting it. Is that the way to change and bring a
new constitution to Canada? I do not think so.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Crosbie: And hon. members over there have put us
that position. Here is what the Prime Minister said in 1968:
If the underdevelopment of the Atlantic provinces is not corrected–not
charity or subsidies–

It is the charities and subsidies which the minister loves. The
statement continues:

—but by helping them become areas of economic growth–then the unity, of t
country is almost assuredly destroyed as it would be by the French-English
confrontation.

He has forgotten that now. We want to be an area of
economic growth and we want to do that through the offshore
The Prime Minister stops that because he wants us to be
dependent, waiting for his charity for the rest of our lives. We
are not,..going to do it. That is the position in Newfoundland.

I want to move a suggested amendment under the provisio
of Standing Order 5(a):

That the House continue its consideration of government motion No.18
between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. this day.

‘ October 23, 1980

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Does the hon. member
intend to move his motion under the provisions of Standing
Order 6(5)(a)?

Mr. Crosbie: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

While you are considering that, Mr. Speaker, I will close on
this note. Dr. Pottle in his book~–

Mr. Collenette: Have you moved the motion? Did you say
Standing Order 6(5)(a)?

Mr. Crosbie: I take~my orders from the Chair, not from any
Liberal parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I understand the hon.
member is proposing to move his motion under the provisions
of Standing Order 6(5)(a).

Mr. Crosbie: Precisely.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding my remarks, I refer to Dr.
Pottle’s book which is very valuable. At page 199 he asked, of
Canada:

What are thoseidreams, he queried quietly, of hope that leap to life in your fair
land?

And further down the page we read this:

What do you hold supreme in unison? What is the good for which you stand on
guard?

The good for which we stand on guard is not closure on the
fundamental issue of the constitution. We do not stand on
guard for the bullying of small provinces, underdeveloped
provinces and poor provinces, because they dare to speak out.
We do not stand on guard for that, and we do not agree with
that. We do not stand on guard to change the whole nature of
Canadian federalism without the consent of the provinces
which help make up the 11 governments. We believe in 11
strong governments, not one super government and ten coun-
ties which the government can bully at will. We believe that
that protects freedoms, and that is the only way freedoms will
ever be protected.

We do not stand on guard for the referendum techniqueof
the fascist states. They always have their referendums and
they can get the people to agree to everything. We do not, and
I do not, stand on guard for the despotism of an arrogant and
unbending idealogue who is going to force this country to suit
his tastes before he goes, he thinks. Well, he will suffer a lot of
resistance on that.

I do not stand on guard for the use of polls and advertising

which misinform the public and keep people’s minds closed
when they should be open. This is done not to help them

understand the issue but to help them not to understand the

issue. I do not stand on guard for that, and I feel shame for
those who do. I do not stand on guard to use any means at all
to keep ourselves in power. That is already obvious. We believe
that a government has to work for the good of the people, not
just to use every sleazy trick it can to stay in power and never
accomplish anything. We do not stand on guard for that. We
stand on guard for La Canada that has some democratic

COMMONS DEBATES

3989

The Constitution

freedoms, and economic freedoms. We are not even free to
enjoy property under the Prime Minister’s new charter.

We believe that standing on guard means standing on guard
for conciliation and compromise, for consent and for a confed-
eration, not a unitary state with everything imposed on the
rest, where a minister of justice–

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.
Some hon. Members: Order!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Crosbie) agreed to.

Q (1720)

[ Translation]

Hon. Pierre Bussières (Minister of State, Finance): Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to have the opportunity to take
part in this extremely important debate on the future of our
country. I am somewhat surprised at the comments made by
the previous speaker, especially the impassioned rhetoric he
used to make a review of the constitutional problems which
our country is facing, problems which we have been consider-
ing for years.

I have been especially astonished by his intervention
because, in my opinion, the process which will be launched
with the passage of the resolution introduced by the govern-
ment, that is adoption by both Houses, the House of Commons
and the Senate, is indeed the ideal opportunity given to all
governments in the country, federal and provincial, and to all
Canadians to untangle the constitutional issue. And I know
that this constitutional solution is a concern for most Canadi-
ans as well as for a great majority of members of this House,
especially for those who were involved in the Quebec
referendum.

At that time, Mr. Speaker, as we all remember, a commit-
ment was made to get the constitutional revision under way as
soon as possible, a process which has been going on for years
and has always pitched headlong into a dead end, not neces-
sarily because of ill will, but because of certains restrictions.
We now have the possibility, by accepting this resolution, of
launching that constitutional reform. As I said, those of us
who were closely involved in the Quebec referendum promised
to spare no effort in breaking out of the impasse and breaking
new ground in the constitutional revision process. I am happy
that the government should have taken steps to respect that
promise by bringing in this resolution to the House and
referring its study to a committee which, contrary to some of
the remarks we heard here today, is not subject to closure, but
will have every opportunity to question and hear Canadians
who will doubtless have extremely interesting views on this
resolution.

3990

The Constitution

Why is it specious to oppose, unless it is for reasons of
principles, the adoption of that resolution and the start of our
renewedconstitution? Indeed, it would be a matter of concern
if the resolution infringed upon the fundamentals of the shar-
ing of powers between the central and provincial governments.
It would be upsetting if, in fact, the resolution contained
provisions adding to the powers of the central government and
reducing those of the provinces or, inversely diminishing those
of the federal government and adding to those of the provinces.
However, Mr. Speaker, a close look at the resolution will
reveal that it does not alter in any way those fundamental
powers, the sharing of powers between central and provincial
governments. What it does is this: it prepares–

Mr. Clark: I am listening!

Mr. Bussiéres: Yes, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Clark) had better listen, because he does not seem to have
understood. The resolution paves the way for patriating the
constitution and that is important. As far as I know, this does
not reduce in any way the power of the provinces or add
anything to those of the central government. So the objective
of the resolution is to patriate the constitution, to see to it that
the most important document for Canadian political institu-
tions, that is the constitution, become a truly Canadian instru-
ment, to Canadianize the constitutional instrument governing
the country. I think there is nothing outrageous in there, and
the vast majority–

Mr. Clark: Bring back the constitutional document from
London, England!

Mr. Bussiéres: Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time since
the sophisms uttered by the Leader of the Opposition fail to
impress me. He should realize that not only do they not
impress Canadians but they make him look ridiculous.

We shall therefore begin by patriating the constitution. This
makes the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) smile
becaue he has never taken his role as a Canadian member of
Parliament seriously. Does he really want Canadians to have a
constitution? If so, let him support the resolution introduced
by the government with the same energy he used to fight the
Parti Québécois referendum. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, with this
resolution, we shall be able to include a charter of rights in the
Canadian constitution. Will the entrenchment of this charter
of rights give more powers to the central government and take
some away from the provinces?

The first aspect of the charter of rights concerns basic
freedoms. We want to enshrine the freedom of conscience, the
freedom of religion, the freedom of the press and the freedom
of information in the constitution. The hon. member is show-
ing that he is not very knowledgeable in this matter since the
Canadian constitution does not provide for these freedoms. If
we want to entrench these basic freedoms within the constitu-
tion, I do not see how this can add to the powers of the central

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

government and what entrenchment of the freedom of religion,
of thought, of the press and of information takes away from
the provincial governments, since we also want to include in
this charter of rights basic democratic rights, the right to vote
and the right of eligibility to the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, what does the fact of entrenching these rights
within the constitution add to the powers of the central
government? Doesthe entrenchment of the right to vote, the
right of eligibility, the right to hold elections within a certain
time take anything away from the powers of the provinces? I
do not believe that by enshriningthese rights of the individu-
als, these basic liberties, these democratic rights, we are taking
anything away from the provinces or adding anything to the
powers of the central government.

Still within the context of this charter of rights, there is the
freedom to move and to settle down anywhere in Canada for
all Canadian citizens. Once again, this individual right of a
Canadian citizen adds nothing to the powers of the central
government and takes nothing away from the powers of the
provincial governments. The same is true of the legal guaran-
tees of citizens, and non-discrimination. What is also extreme-
ly interesting is that the equal status of the French and English
languages everywhere in Canada will be enshrined in the
constitution.

Mr. La Salle: Where numbers warrant!

Mr. Bussiéres: And I hear, Mr. Speaker, like a heart-felt
cry coming from the hon. member for Joliette, the bitter
comment of the Quebec premier, “where numbers warrant.”
There is nothing disgraceful, Mr. Speaker, in the fact that
equality of rights is guaranteed, adding “where numbers war-

rant”–
Mr. La Salle: Repeat that.

Mr. Bussiéres: —for some school services and so on. It is
not disgraceful. It comes to adding, ,Mr. Speaker, and to
indicating for the first time in Canadian history, the equality
of rights of French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians.
And I am proud to see that our government provides all hon.
members with the opportunity to give their views on this
fundamental equality of French-speaking and English-speak-
ing Canadians everywhere.

Mr. Speaker, in a third step, we shall establish the principle
of sharing, of equalization. What makes our country interest-
ing is its wealth, reflected as it is in its diversity first, namely
the make-up of the population itself. Diversity in respect of
geography, which shows that throughout history there has
been a displacement of wealth from one area to another, that
some regions at some point in our history went through periods
of wealth, and it is the foundation of our federalism that when
these regions went through a period of wealth they shared it
with other regions. And we realize, we get the obvious feeling
these years, especially since the energy crisis, that that wealth

October 23, 1980

was displaced from a region or regions to other ones, and as
our history unfolds, sharing is to the benefit of other provinces
that at some earlier point also had to share with others.

By enshrining into our constitution that basic principle of
wealth-sharing, and solemnly reaffirming in a constitutional
document one of the principles behind our Canadian federal-
ism, I fail to see how we could be detracting powers from the
provinces and adding to central powers. What we are doing in
fact is recognizing what has kept this country united, the
generosity of Canadians, and reaffirming a solemn commit~
ment in the constitution that such a bond will be maintained
and strengthened by all governments.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, in a last step, we give ourselves an
amendment mechanism, a deadlock-breaking mechanism.
Over these last 50 years we have gone through many attempts
at constitutional negotiations. We realize it was not always
easy to come to unanimity rules, we also realize the danger in
unanimity rules- The danger is not to err but to do nothing,
procrastinate and never progress. In order to avoid any recur-
rence of such deadlocks, there is provision for a deadlock~
breaking mechanism.

As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, I am especially happy

that the Canadian government allows this House and the

Senate, by addressing this resolution, to break the deadlock of
constitutional reform.

We have had tensions, we shall certainly have more in our
country, but as we become able first to Canadianize our
institutions, keep improving the way the various powers are
used in our country, we shall have ever more chance of
meeting more and more pressing requirements of the people
who want a new constitution. Moreover, I am convinced that
after the committee study and after the debate that will follow
its report, we shall be able to proceed as quickly as possible to
the patriation, to the entrenchment of a charter of rights into
our constitution. We shall also be able to recognize equaliza-
tion as the underlying principle of Canadian federalism and
give ourselves an amending formula. Thus we shall have
honoured the commitments we made to the majority of Que~
beckers who voted yes to the Canadian federation and to the
renewal of the federation.

[English]
9 (1730)

Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I feel
grateful to be speaking in this debate. It is sad that a member
should feel grateful that he is able to speak in a debate in the
House, but I am pleased I was able to get in before the
Liberals cut us all off at one o’clock tomorrow morning. I
would like to express my appreciation to my colleagues, many
of whom are not permitted to speak on this resolution and who
are going to be deprived of their opportunities as members of
Parliament to participate in the debate, thanks to the peculiar
notions the Liberals have about what is fair debate in the
House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada.

COMMONS DEBATES

3991

The Constitution

Todayrwe are under closure, which was brought in last
night. I would like to comment a bit about that. Unusual as it
is, this is the third time in our history that we have been
gagged in this fashion. I am astonished at the New Democratic
Party–with the word “democratic” in its name—-fo,r having
raised no objection to closure yesterday. Today, under the
provisions of Standing Order 43, the New Democratic Party
brought in the most irrelevant possible motions which made no
mention of our having to operate today under closure.

Again during the question period members of the New
Democratic Party raised no objections to closure on an impor-
tant item like this. I can hardly believe it.

Mr. Orlikow: Did we not vote against it?
Mr. McKinnon:, They will probably vote against it.
Mr. Orlikow: We did vote against it.

Mr. McKinnon: They did vote against it, but they are there
when the Liberals need them. The Liberals can always count
on them. There was once a movie, and I believe it was Lauren
Bacall who said to Humphrey Bogart, “If you need me, just
whistle.” That is all the Liberals need to do, and members of
the New Democratic Party will come. They do not have to be
paid; they do not have to be given position; just whistle, and
they will be there if they are needed, and members of the
Liberal party know it.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and “simple Simon”
came to an agreement as to what would be a suitable exchange
for the loyalty of the members of the New Democratic Party
at this time. As I understand the letter I read, there were three
items. Mainly the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr.
Broadbent) was able to assure himself that not much would be
taken away from the provinces, seeing that the provinces
already own the resources, and that they would be given
management and control while the ownership was taken away
from them. To my mind, I would prefer ownership if I had a
choice between owning something or managing and controlling
it.

As I walked this morning and puzzled over how the Leader
of the New Democratic Party could do it, I could think only of
the poor provinces which are to gain nothing. Instead of Mr.
Blakeney’s dealing in the highly intelligent and forceful
manner he does in negotiations with the Prime Minister,
simple Simon went instead.

We heard much today from the Prime Minister about the
necessity for this drastic measure because the matter has been
discussed for 53 years. While he shed his crocodile tears here
about the discussions he has gone through and the trouble he
has seen, I was thinking about an article which appeared in
1971 written by the journalist Peter Ward. This is what the
Prime Minister had to say about the charter in those days, and
Peter Ward quoted the Prime Minister at that time:

Constitutional reform is something Canada can live without. A fact demon-
strated by all the premiers at the series of conferences, said Mr. Trudeau. He
reminded Toronto newsmen that in 1967 at the Confederation of Tomorrow
Conference, he had opposed tackling constitutional reform.

3992

The Corzstitution

fl said if we opened the constitution, it would be a can of worms and we were
going to have more trouble than is obvious to those who are sailing into it with
light hearts.

“I said we had more important things to do.”

” Constitutional reform is not an issue that is important to the people, but is a
good whipping boy for a lot of the nationalists,” he said.

The Prime Minister now claims that we have worked hard
for 53 years to get our constitution back, but that is what he
was actually saying in those days. This is also reflected in
Hansard for January 26, 1970, at page 2812. The Prime
Minister said, and I quote:

I, personally, went on record as saying that of all the urgent problems facing
Canada, in my view the constitution had lowest priority.

Today for the third time in history he invokes closure in this
Parliament to make sure we do not have an opportunity to look
at this, and he tries to wrap himself in the flag of patriotism by
saying that he has been on this beat, or that there has been an
ongoing debate for 53 years. If there has been, he has been on
the wrong side of it.

9 (I740)

. Let us leave the sorry spectacle of what has been happening
in the last few days and go on to the real problems with the
constitution. We are in a debate on the constitution, and while
we are being asked to vote on the patriation resolution, this
almostmundane term, in fact, connotes far more. The resolu-
tion with which Parliament has been presented is, in fact, a
fundamental constitutional assertion. It proposes a new
amending formula, seeks to entrench certain, linguistic and
economic rights, and sets out certain rules within which Parlia-
ment will operate.

All of this should mean that we have gathered here for a
profound. and thoughtful debate, and yet there is a pervasive
rancour in the House and in the proceedings here. It is with
unhappiness that I contrast the spirit in the land today with
George Brown s assessment of the original confederation
debates. As you will recall, George Brown was the Liberal
opposite number of John A. Macdonald in those days. George
Brown said:

Have we not then, Mr. Speaker, great cause of thankfulness that we have found
a better way for the solution of our troubles than that which has entailed in other
countries such deplorable results? And should not every one of us endeavour to
rise to the magnitude of the occasion, and earnestly seek to deal with this

question to the end, in the same candid and conciliatory spirit in which, so far, it
has been discussed?

I wish that today’s national debate also displayed such a
candidand conciliatory spirit. Yesterday we had the example
of this party putting its policy-eon the line in the form of a
motion in an opposition day, that the constitution be patriated
at once and that it be subject from then on only to Canadian
amendments, made in Canada for Canadians.

Where does this national rancour that I mentioned come
from? I believe that the answer to that question lies here in
what the House is being asked to pass. Parliament is not being
requested to participate in the formation of federal proposals,
nor is it being asked to decide upon an agreement worked out

between Ottawa and the provinces. It is being told, instead, to

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

confirm an individual’s ultimatum. This has caused the unease
here as well as the evident concern displayed by many of the
provinces.

The document with which we have been presented is not the
product of confederal deliberations. Rather, while dealing with
the federal nature of Canada, its genesis is clearly the almost
solitary deliberations of this Liberal Prime Minister.

This fact concerns me for several reasons. First, this unilat-
eral action to impose, in addition to a new amendment proce-
dure, a bundle of other major changes to the constitutional
order of this country, is being undertaken without the assent of
the provinces. On this matter I will quote my leader, the
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), who succinctly summa-
rized the situation in his initial response to these proposals
when he said of the Prime Minister:

He imposes a double standard for changing the constitution. For those changes

he wants, Ottawa will act alone. For the changes that others might seek later, he
requires unanimous consent for at least two years and then an unknown formula.

This flies in the face of this country’s legal and constitution-
al practice and, indeed, takes on aspects usually seen only in a
unitary state, not in a federation. On this matter I should like
to quote A. V. Dicey from his “An Introduction to the Study
of the Law of the Constitution.” It reads as follows: ‘
The law of the constitution must be either legally immutable, or else capable of 3
being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary legislative
bodies, whether federal or state legislatures, existing under the constitution~–
It is, at any rate, certain that whenever the founders of a federal government
hold the maintenance of a federal system to be of primary importance, supreme
legislative power cannot be safely vested in any legislature acting under the
constitution. For so to vest legislative sovereignty would be inconsistent with the
aim of federalism, namely, the.permanent division between the spheres of the
national government and of the several states.

I should like to quote again the Prime Minister from the
Debates in 1976 when he was speaking to the House about the
patriation of the constitution. He said:

It is for these reasons that I have raised the possibility that Parliament might:
seek to have “patriation” accomplished without provincial consent if that consent
seems impossible to achieve. Clearly it would be a last resort and clearly it
should not be on a basis that could affect the distribution of powers or the
position of the provinces.

That is exactly the opposite of what he is doing today.
went on to say:
It must not provide any means by which Parliament could act unilaterally
future in any area where it cannot do so today since that would erode the essence
of our federal system.

That is from page 12687 of Harzsard of April 9, 1976. Yet it
not this the precise effect of the resolution before us: to affect
profoundly the nature of Canadian government as the result of

unilateral action of just such an ordinary legislative body?

My second major concern with the form in which the
constitutional changes are proposed lies in the procedures of its
proposed passage through this House. It seems that the House
is to be denied the right to make any substantive amendments
to the Prime Minister’s proposals. While not wishing to dwell
overly on the specific defects of this legislation, does not
section 41, for example, deserve being debated and voted upon
considering that it entirely removes one province from the

October 23, 1980

constitutional process by rendering irrelevant its legislature’s
vote on any future amendments?

The House is to be deprived of the right to amend substan-
tively and, instead, a committee is to deal with the issues, with
no guarantee of their ability to change matters of substance.

On the respect for Parliament and the people of Canada
displayed by this procedure, I will quote from a less exalted
source than those I have been using, namely, from the infa-
mous memo to cabinet from the Prime Minister’s constitution-
al advisers. It reads:

A highly contentious measure may be best contained in a committee where it is
more readily managed by the House leaders and his officers, and where easier

and more effective relations can be maintained with the press gallery, since
relatively few reporters will follow the proceedings.

So members of Parliament are to be dealt with in the arena
in which they can most easily be managed, in committee, while
press relations are to be based on lack of knowledge. Such a
procedure can only result in substantial bitterness as well as
real cynicism about the commitment of the current govern-
ment to the fundamental tenets of democracy.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. McKinnon: The faith of the citizens in the justice and
merits of these changes in the constitutional order will depend,
in large part, upon the way in which they are seen to be done.
This brings me to an area of broad concern with these proce-
dures: the general spirit in which things are being done and the
way in which the changes will be perceived.

I spoke earlier about a feeling of rancour and distrust, and
that is surely what will result from the actions taken yesterday
and today in voting closure. While it is unfortunate that such
unpleasantness is developing over any government action, it is
a threat to the nature of politics when it develops over consti-
tutional matters. While constitutional change does not require
social unanimity, successful change surely requires the broad-
est possible consensus that the procedures were fair. On this
topic I should like to quote from the classics, not from
Machiavelli so in vogue in some quarters of the House, but
from Aristotle, who said:

Legislators would therefore direct their attention to the causes which lead to the
preservation and the destruction of constitutions and on that basis they should
devote their efforts to the construction of stability. They must be on their guard

against all the elements of destruction, they must leave their state with a body of
laws, customary as well as enacted.

It is precisely this latter element of stability–the customary
body of laws and procedures—-to which this resolution does
violence and which puts at risk the social consent on which the
constitution ultimately depends.

On this matter Iwill use another quotation, this time from
Bagehot’s study, “The British Constitution.” It reads:

There are two great objects which every constitution must attain to be success-
ful, which every old and celebrated one must have wonderfully achieved: Every
constitution must first gain authority, and then use authority; it must first win
the loyalty and confidence of mankind, and then employ that homage in the
work of government.

80090–31

COMMONS DEBATES

3993

The Constitution
(1750)

In seeking to use authority in the form which he alone
desires, I fear the Prime Minister may forget the loyalty and
confidence upon which it must be based. This House must look
with foreboding on this possibility.

Thus far in this debate I have concentrated upon the grave
defects in the way in which the Prime Minister wishes to have
the constitution patriated and amended. While these proce-
dural considerations are clearly the most important ones, for
they affect the spirit of the constitution, there are in addition
substantive problems with some of the changes being proposed.
I will now turn to those specific defects.

To begin with, I should liketo look at section 42 of the
resolution. In this formula for future amendments, the govern-
ment is proposing radical changes in the nature of constitu-
tional government. While the use of a referendum is itself new,
the really radical departure from current practice lies in the
complete circumvention of the provinces. Before this, any
change which affected provincial governments had to involve
those governments in the decision. Section 42 would see the
federal government appealing directly to the people over the
heads of the provinces. Not only would the federal Parlia-
ment–and particularly in times of majority government, that
means one political party–decide upon the issue and the
wording of any plebiscite, but section 46(1) gives the federal
government the power to set all the rules for the conduct of
any debate or campaign on the question that was to be posed.

The Prime Minister says thiswill only be applied in case of
deadlock, but “to him deadlock is when he has one viewpoint
and the ten premiers have another. It never enters his mind
that the ten premiers might be right and that he could be
wrong.

While this power to make the rules under which any cam-
paign would be conducted is an obvious example of the federal
government’s self-created monopoly on initiating and control-
ling constitutional change under section 42, a more fundamen-
tal source of control lies in its power to choose the substance
and wording of any referendum. This gives the federal govern-
ment all of the initiative.

To understand the consequences of this, consider a case in
which the federal government, with or without the support of
the bulk of the provinces, wanted a particular amendment but
faced adamant opposition from enough provinces to block
amendments under the provisions of section 41. In this case the
federal government would be able to circumvent the provincial
opposition and go directly to a referendum with a question
phrased to its liking, at a time of its choosing, with the rules it
selects, and as we now know, with an unlimited advertising
budget paid by the taxpayer.

Now consider the converse case where there is extensive or
even unanimous provincial agreement on a proposed change
which faces opposition from Ottawa. In this case there is no
recourse -for the provinces; the federal government would
retain antabsolute veto. This asymmetry in the position of
federal and provincial governments when it comes to amending

3994

The Constitution

the constitution would surely be a continuing source of conten-
tion within the Canadian confederation. As the hon. member
for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) said of the referendum
this section establishes, “it denies the basic partnership and the
basic essence of federalism.”

In addition to the opposition this proposal is bound to meet,
there is certain to be provincial dissatisfaction at the agglomer-
ation of proposals made in this resolution. It must be remem-
bered that this is not a seamless whole, a system of mutually
necessary provisions for the realization of a specific objective.
Instead, it is the embodiment of several disjointed policy
thrusts of the current Liberal government.

There is, to be sure, a portion which patriates the constitu-
tion and as a necessarily concomitant provision provides an
amending formula, although I might add paranthetically, with
one amending formula never discussed with the provinces and
another which, while masquerading as the Victoria charter
formula, differs radically in that it entirely disenfranchises
Prince Edward Island.

To this set of patriation proposals has been added a series of
other packages including political, economic, and legal rights,
the formal institutionalization of first ministers’ conferences,
the entrenchment of a limited policy of official bilingualism,
and some minority language education rights. This melange is
no coherent corpus on which any patriation must rest, rather it
represents the Prime Minister’s solitary vision of what is good
for the nation, what he feels he must impose.

In his remarks accompanying the release of the resolution,
the Prime Minister said in criticism of the provinces:
We were led by the dictates of unanimity to bargain freedom against fish,

fundamental rights against oil, the independence of our country against long-dis-
tance telephone rates.

Yet, leaving aside the overblown rhetoric, is this not essen-
tially what his ultimatum to this House represents? Is he not
saying, “You can patriate the constitution but only on my
terms?” To use his phrase, is this not bargaining the indepen-
dence of our country against an idiosyncratic vision of what
rights should be entrenched?

I suggest to the Prime Minister that accord is not impos-
sible. The Leader of the Opposition has detailed in his motion
yesterday a way in which it could be achieved. The constitu-
tion can be patriated with an amending formula. Then amend-
ments supported by either a province or the federal govern-
ment can be proposed, considered, and adopted if they meet
the requirements for amendments. By setting Ottawa’s desired
goals on equal footing with those of the provinces, the mutual
respect and independence between levels of government neces-
sary for the well-functioning continuation of any confederation
can be realized.

Madam Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but
his time has expired.

I am now ready to rule on the amendment offered by the
hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), which
reads as follows:

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

That the motion be amended by deleting the sixth paragraph and substituting
therefor the following:

“That the committee submit its report not later than February 12, 1981;

That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within
Canada;

That the committee be empowered to retain the services of advisers to assist
in its work; and that it also be empowered to retain such professional, clerical
and stenographic help as may be required;

I find the first part of the amendment acceptable, namely,
the change of the date by which the committee will report
back to the House, from December 9, 1980, to February 12,
1981.

However, the other two elements of the amendment cause
some difficulty because they seek to extend the order of
reference of the committee which can be done by means of an
instruction to the committee, but not by an amendment to the
motion to establish the committee. I refer hon. members to
Beauchesne’s fifth edition, citations 621(3), 756 and 759,
among others.

I would suggest to the hon. member that if he were prepared
to delete the second and third propositions from his amend-
ment, I would be prepared to propose the question on the first
part, namely:

That the motion be amended by deleting the sixth paragraph and substituting
the following therefor:

“That the committee submit its report not later than February 12, 1981.”

Mr. McCain: I respect the ruling of Madam Speaker and

accept your suggestion that the last paragraph should be

deleted and that the amendment should refer only to the date
of February 12, 1981.

Madam Speaker: Therefore it is moved by the hon. member
for Carleton-Charlotte, seconded by the hon. member for
Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):

That the motion be amended by deleting the sixth paragraph and substituting
the following therefor:

“That the committee submit its report not later than February 12, l98l”.

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition): Now that
Madam Speaker has found the amendment to be in order, I
should like to speak to it before there is a vote upon it. I think
the amendment is highly essential to the successful rescuing of
any remnants of propriety to this debate. I regret that then
narrow language of the rules under which we operate did not
allow the admissibility of , the other sections, because what this
party wants to do is ensure that even though a gag has been
put on the mouth of the House of Commons it will not be
possible to put so restrictive
committee proceedings, which we are now forced to move.

(1300)

There has been, by the imposition of closure by this govern-
merit, a very deep abuse of the privileges of the House of
Commons, and the privileges of all Canadians who are
and represented here. My hon. friend from Victoria has
indicated this is the third time in history–the third time in
history–that this measure has been used. And was it used on
some minor, niggling question, some matter of no moment to.

October 23, 1980

the people of Canada? No. This extraordinary measure to
limit the ability of Parliament to speak, this measure of
closure, is being used on the debate of the constitution of
Canada itself. That is an absolute abuse of the power of a
majority in this House of Commons.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Clark: I say this deliberately, if there were more
members with the kind of courage their electors thought they
had when they sent them to the House of Commons, this
motion would not have passed and we would not be operating
under the rules of closure here today.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Clark: I must also say, Mr. Speaker, that unfortunately
in this debate so far—in the 24 hours plus of debate that we
have had on this question—the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)
has demonstrated his respect for Parliament and his interest,
his interest, in the constitutional question. He urged members
of Parliament from all parties to debate, and then he took
away their opportunity to debate by slapping a muzzle on the
mouths of the elected representatives of the House of Com-
mons and then he, himself, declined to come before the House.
Why was that? I suspect it was because he is ashamed of the
measure which he is bringing in here, as every other member
of his party should be ashamed. What they are trying to do in
the name of reforming the Constitution of Canada is to force
upon the people of Canada, by going to Britain, proposals
which they are not confident the people of Canada themselves
would accept if they went to the people.

An hon. Member: That is not correct.

Mr. Clark: Some otherwise silent Liberal backbencher who
has voted here for closure, voted to muzzle Parliament, says
that is not true. If it is not true, why is the Government of
Canada running to Britain with questions which should be
decided here in the Canadian House of Commons? Why do
you not trust the people of Canada? Why do you hide out in
Westminster? 9

Let me refer also to the attitude of the NDP, as my
colleague earlier did, toward the question of closure. The
Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) yesterday, after closure
was announced by the government House leader, had an
opportunity to stand in his place and speak. He mentioned the
word “closure” once. He mentioned it in passing. The word
passed his lips. But there was no objection by the NDP to
closure. There was no -objection taken on the floor of the
House of Commons to the muzzling of Parliament on a matter
of fundamental concern and fundamental interest to the people
of this country–for the third time in the history of Canada.
We do not know what the price was. We do not know what
went on in those discussions between the Leader of the NDP,
that Neville Chamberlain of Canadian politics, and the Prime
Minister of Canada. Clearly, whatever it was, it bought the
silence of the NDP and they did not even stand in their places
yesterday to oppose the imposition of closure, to oppose the

COMMONS DEBATES

3995

The Constitution

attempt by the Government of Canada to muzzle debate on
the fundamental law of the land in this country.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Clark: Mr. Speaker, by their actions in the last 24 hours
the government have demonstrated what some of us previously
had only feared—-that there is no willingness at all on the part
of the Prime Minister, his ministers or, apparently, his sup-
porters on both sides of this House of Commons, to engage in
meaningful parliamentary debate on the constitutional resolu-
tion. The Prime Minister, after stating last October 2 that
Parliament would return early to begin debate on this matter,
after demanding that all the members of the House partici-
pate, said “Every member of Parliament from every corner of
this land is asked to participate in this historic act.” Now,
after only 24 hours of debate involving less than one-fifth of
the members of this chamber, we are faced with closure.

This is an extraordinary situation that the Liberal party has
imposed upon the House of Commons today, a deep abuse of
this institution. Such a move, such a gagging of the members
of this institution, should not be undertaken lightly. Indeed, we
know that the advice of even the most cynical. of the Prime
Minister’s advisers indicated that, in the words of the famous
leaked memorandum, that has guided their every action since
Herb Gray broke his word about resigning if interest rates
went up—that famous leaked memorandum said:

It would be almost unthinkable to use time allocation (closure) on a resolution
calling for patriation of the constitution.

That is what the leaked memorandum said—“almost
unthinkable”. Yet the unthinkable has happened. Further, by
his stubborn adherence to a December 9 deadline for commit-
tee consideration, the government of the Prime Minister is
determined to use every parliamentary device, every cynical
means of manipulation to thwart parliamentary public debate.

I hope that the government will accept the amendment that
is put forward here so that there will be an opportunity for this
Parliament to consider this matter without having a gun to its
head, so that there will be an opportunity for the members of
the House of Commons to take this question across the
country.

The other day we asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chréti-
en) whether there would be an opportunity to travel. We asked
the Prime Minister this question again today. In declining to
answer, they both indicated that they wanted to keep the
committee here. Well, why should the constitution of Canada
be confined to a discussion in the city of Ottawa? 1 see the
hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain) is here. Why
should not the people of Niagara Falls have an opportunity to
express their concerns about the constitution of their country
in their city? Why, if they are worried about it, should they
have to come here?

I see members of Parliament here from Toronto. Why
should Liberal members of Parliament from Toronto put up
with a provision which says that a committee considering the
Constitution of Canada will hold its deliberations only here?
Indeed, there is a chairman of a committee from Toronto here.

3996

The Constitution

His committee has the right to travel. It is considering the
problems of the handicapped. Why, if the people of Canada
are allowed to be heard on the problems of the handicapped,
should they not be allowed to be heard on the question of the
basic law of the land? Why is the attempt being made to limit
that debate to this city?

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Clark: I say simply, in passing, that there are two
regions in particular where this refusal to have the committee
travel would be deeply dangerous. It would be deeply danger-
ous in Atlantic Canada because, as my hon. friend from
Hillsborough has indicated, this proposal would wipe out to all
intents and purposes the influence of the province of Prince
Edward Island. Indeed, it proposes to confer upon other prov-
inces in Atlantic Canada a second-class status. It proposes to
smuggle through a reference to equalization that is a most
inadequate reference. And the people of that region, people
who do not have the money to travel to Ottawa to make their
VICWS. known on the constitution, should not be forced to
remain silent because they cannot afford to come to speak to
their Parliament about their constitution. They should have
the right to have their constitution debated in their region.
And the same is true for the west. I will return to the west in a
moment because I am deeply concerned about what is happen-
ing now in western Canada as a result of various initiatives of
this government.

In the west, in particular, there have been dramatic and
dangerous changes in attitude toward this Canadian confed-
eration. In the last eight to nine months there has been a
dangerous development of feeling against the country develop-
ing in that region. Liberal members of Parliament, I believe,
who voted for closure would not support that measure if they
had the opportunity to hear directly from the people of western
Canada some of the concerns that are on the minds of the
people in western Canada. I say to my colleagues in the House
of Commons who come from other parts of the country that
they owe it to their country, they owe it to the ability of their
country to continue, not to sit here in splended isolation in
Ottawa. But they should travel so that they can hear first-hand
the advice of concerned Canadians who are now falling victim,
falling prey to the siren song of separatism because of the
actions that have been taken by this government.

0 (1810)

Before you aggravate that situation, those of you who come
from other parts of Canada, who are members of a majority
government which has no seats in half of the geographic land
mass of this country, you owe it to your country and to
yourselves to go out and hear what the people of western
Canada have to say about the constitutional proposal. What
we need is parliamentary public debate here in the House of
Commons and across the country.

We have been denied that debate in the House of Commons
but we should not put unreasonable, destructive limits upon
the committee of the House of Commons and the Senate

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

which will consider this matter because if we gag that body, if
we allow the manipulative work of the Minister of State for
Multiculturalism (Mr. Fleming) to affect opinion across the
country, and if we leave it to propaganda and leave the truth
aside, then we are dealing very seriously with possible ruptures
in our country. I say to members of this House of Commons,
from whatever corner they may come, you should not be
prepared to allow your blind loyalty to your leader to force you
to take actions which might rend this country.

I had harsh words a moment ago for members of the New
Democratic Party. I will certainly amend them in one case. I
am delighted to learn that the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr.
Robinson) announced this afternoon that he will be opposing
the Liberal government’s motion to send the proposed constitu-
tional package to committee. I see that the hon. member for
Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is in the House of Commons.

I heard him speak on section 42, and he believes that it would
be destructive to the nation. I would hope that he will find in
his heart that it is his duty to act as his colleague, the hon.
member for Burnaby, did, and stand against this attempt to
ramrod through the House of Commons and into a controlled
committee the discussion of the nation’s future.

The amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon.
member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), is one further
attempt by my party to open up the process so that the people
of Canada can be heard and can study the issue. Yesterday we
gave this House of Commons the opportunity to end some of
the bitterness and to achieve some of the goals that surround
this debate. The goal is to get our constitution home. Yester-
day, we provided a means to allow Parliament to vote to bring
it home. The Liberal party and the NDP voted against bring-
ing our constitution home. We wanted our constitution home
in a way that we could work with it in an atmosphere that
would be constructive.

Instead, as my colleague from Victoria has said, we run the
risk of an atmosphere that is deeply divisive. As he said, a
constitution is not simply a piece of law, a constitution reflects
the mentality and the essence of a country. This government
by its actions and by acquiescing to closure is poisoning the
atmosphere of this country, and we will not have a solid
constitution emerge from a poisoned country.

We want the committee’s considerations to be open. We
want it to travel, and we hope that there will be a willingness
on the part of the Liberal members, as there is in the NDP and
in our party, to have television and radio in that committee.
We hope that the Prime Minister will not try to hide the
discussions on the constitutional package from the people of Canada. Indeed, had it been in order—unfortunately it is not
because of the narrow range of our rules—we would have
allowed the House of Commons the right to vote upon having
television and radio in committee so that the people of Canada
could know what is being proposed.

The reason that closure is upon this House is very simple
The Government of Canada does not want the people of
Canada to know what it is proposing to do with the constitu
tion. The reason that closure was rushed in so quickly, a

October 23, 1980

time when there have been more government members speak
than members of the official opposition, is that the Liberal
party with its pollsters—and it is a government not of princi-
ples but of pollsters–found out that public opinion is chang-
ing. It is changing because people are finding out what is at
issue here.

They understand that the propaganda put out by the Minis-
ter of State for Multiculturalism is false. What is at issue here
is not simple patriation. If patriation were the question, the
Liberal party would have voted for patriation yesterday
instead of against it. The people of Canada are becoming more
aware with each day’s debate of some of the issues. My
colleague from Rosedale dramatically indicated the other day
some of the problems for individuals, native people, women,
other individuals and groups in the country that might be
affected by affirmative action, a wide range of Canadians
whose interests are directly threatened by this piece of
legislation.

It is no wonder that the government do not want the matter
debated in public. They are ashamed and they do not want
people to know what they are proposing, so they try to hide-it.
That is why we have closure here. We believe that instead of
having closure and limiting this debate, there should be an
opportunity for the people of Canada to know what is going
on. This is why there should not be artificial limitation put
upon the time of that committee to sit, why there should be an
opportunity for television and radio to be present, and why
there should be an opportunity for the committee to travel
across the country.

Let the committee go to Newfoundland and see how badly
the people there are being served by the Liberal members from
that province, who trust their citizens so little that they do not
want them to know what the Government of Canada is
proposing. Let them go to western Canada and across this
country. Let them go into Quebec and ask the people there
directly whether or not they believe this proposal serves the
interests of federalism or the interests of separatism. We have
one response to that question. The hon. member for Montmo-
rency (Mr. Duclos) is quoted in the October 23 issue of the
Toronto Star. In the news article he indicates why he opposes
the proposal put forth by his government. He said:

I want English Canada to know this commitment . . . is not what we promised
Quebeckers during the referendum.

According to the public opinion polls, a majority of Quebeckers want a
substantive change—not just a cosmetic change to our federal system.

What we’re doing now is an indication that the federal government is not
really interested in a profound reform of our federal system.

I think that what we are doing now . . . we’re in the process of giving the Parti
Québecois another term of office.

Those are the words of the Liberal member of Parliament
for Montmorency who had the courage to stand in his place
and speak what he believes, rather than accepting the muzzle
of his leader. Where, I wonder, are the other Liberal members
of Parliament? What kind of sheep are they that they sit in
fear of their leader, rather than speaking to the interests of
their constituents and their provinces?

COMMONS DEBATES

3997

The Constitution

Yesterday in Quebec City the Prime Minister, while his
minister was acting to stop debate in Parliament, again
accused provincial premiers who oppose his resolution of siding
with René Lévesque.

I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are pointing at your watch, and
I believe that I have about two minutes left.

The Prime Minister’s argument is that if you are not with
him then you are against Canada. That is a familiar argument
of the Prime Minister, although it is a little bit more difficult
to make now that he wants Britain to decide questions which
most of us want Canada to decide. But his prophecy is true.
Mr. Lévesque embraced separatism in Quebec partly in reac-
tion to the rigid, stubborn attitude of this government, and
now other individuals in other parts of Canada are being
driven by the Liberal government toward separation.

The Liberal government which presided over the growth of
separatism in Quebec is creating the conditions for separatism
in western Canada. I would draw to the attention of hon.
members a speech made last night in the other place by a
former premier and a dedicated federalist, Senator Ernest
Manning, who said:

I am deeply troubled by the large number of serious-minded responsible
people in western Canada who a year ago would have rejected the idea of
separation out of hand, but who are now joining or supporting organizations
advocating that the west separate. Such organizations are attracting members
and fringe supporters not by hundreds but by thousands. It would be a grave
mistake for the federal government to ignore the potential danger to Canada
inherent in such trends.

3 (1820)

I implore members of this House of Commons not to ignore
the attitudes that are growing in western Canada and else-
where in the country, and not to ignore the seeds of disunity
that this government has sown. I urge the government, if they
must resort to this unforgivable mechanism of closure, if they
must muzzle Parliament, at least to let the committee of
Parliament do its work. Let it have time to study. Let it carry
through, as the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte suggest-
ed, until February l2. Let the television cameras and radio be
present so that people will know what is being discussed. Let
Claude Ryan and others come to that committee and let them
speak freely and fully about the damage this measure will do
to their part of Canada. Let the committee do its work. Do not
muzzle the committee as the House of Commons has been

muzzled.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Mr. Speaker,
we are now considering an amendment to the main motion, an
amendment aimed at delaying till February next the report of
the joint committee of the House and the Senate dealing with
the resolution on the Canadian constitution.

Before I deal with the matter, I know quite well that hon.
members will guess that the subject which I will try to develop
is very clear to me but before dealing with it, I would like to

3998

The Constitution

ask the former prime minister, the Leader of the Official
Opposition (Mr. Clark), to be careful when he misleadingly
suggests that the constitutional amendments proposed by Par-
liament and the government will be altered or redrafted by the
British government.

Mr. Speaker, I think that it is absolutely incorrect and he
knows it as well as all other members do.

I think, therefore, that on this point the Leader of the
Opposition should be corrected.

Moreover, he stated that yesterday we voted against the
patriation of the constitution, which is not correct. Hon.
members on the government side voted yesterday on the
patriation of the constitution and the Vanvouver formula, a
formula which is unacceptable to people like me and to all hon.
members on this side of the House.

When the former prime minister, therefore-
An hon. Member: Temporary.

Mr. Gauthier: —yes, temporary, for a six-month period–
when the Leader of the Opposition makes such a statement—I
know him as a man who is honest most of the time—-he knows
that this is not correct, I can only assume that it is fully
partisan and directed at the electorate.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to this debate and_ I
feel that this resolution is extremely important for Franco-
phone members born and living outside Quebec—they are few
and far between in the House. The proposed resolution is
extremely important, because we would no longer operate
under the supremacy of our provincial governments, but rather
under the rule of a constitution with our rights entrenched and
protected by a court of justice, which we hope will demonstrate
as much generosity and enlightenment as those we have
enjoyed for several years.

Still, Mr. Speaker, we are faced with two different concepts,
one of which is the concept expounded by several Progressive
Conservative members and which upholds the supremacy of
Parliament. Personally, I agree with those who firmly believe
that today, after 113 years, it is time for us to effect this
change and to entrench our rights in the constitution and then
move to the other aspect which I stand for, that is judicial
supremacy. And in the course of my remarks I will try to
demonstrate why today minorities in Canada, linguistic
minorities not only outside Quebec but within Quebec as well,
support and back fully this resolution which aims at enshrining
within the constitution the rights of minorities. If I were to put
a title on my speech, Mr. Speaker, I would say that minorities
need more rights and more power than majorities do. This
would be the title of my remarks because to anyone wondering
what promises of success any constitutional resolution may
hold I would say that the most fundamental matter is the
entrenchment of a charter of rights and liberties, including

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

language rights. In my opinion, any country must be defined
from this basis.

Therefore it seems to me, and it is not a surprise to hon.
members, that I linger over this vision, over this popular
concept, we want to establish the independence of our country
and in a move of pride and fairness, we want not only to
patriate the Constitution in Canada but also to include the
fundamental and individual rights, including some linguistic
rights.

As a matter of fact, minorities need more rights than
majorities. The latter protect themselves naturally because of
their number, their political influence, and the environment
they create. Within the time allocated to me I shall try to
demonstrate why we should act today and enshrine linguistic
rights of minorities and of all Canadians. In the present
system, those fundamental and individual rights are under the
jurisdiction of Parliament, which means they depend to a large
extent on legislative action, whether under the principle of the
supremacy of law or through common law and some other
texts which govern us. The constitutional bill of 1980 proposes
to change this system and replace it by the enshrinementof
rights, which of course favours the principle of judicial
supremacy. There rights, I repeat, cannot be changed or
circumvented by an amendment to the constitution, a proce-
dure which is more difficult than the mere passing of an
ordinary law.

Mr. Speaker, I am among those who believe that, after 113

years, parliamentary supremacy over rights and freedoms,

including language rights, must be replaced by the entrench-
ment of those rights and freedoms in the constitution, includ-
ing language rights, in order to guarantee and protect those
rights. It is fairly easy to explain why minority groups have -ft
tended to support the supremacy of the courts. The reasons
underlying that support are historical and confirm the experi-
ence several of us have had. Indeed I will give several

examples.

I support the entrenchment of fundamental rights because,
in my opinion, it provides greater assurance and therefore
greater protection against possible abuses by governments and
majorities. Besides, most major democratic countries have
already acted in that direction. A charter of individual rights
and freedoms is the most common aspect of all federations in
the world. The European Community, for example, to which
England, France, and other countries belong, is bound by the
European Convention on Human Rights and by the decisions
of the European Court of Human Rights. Finally, Mr. Speak-
er, who can deny the educational and moral value of entrench-
ing human rights in a constitution.

I also endorse the proposal to include in the constitution the
right to education in the minority language. This will, of
course, surprise no one. This will guarantee Canadians the
right to educate their children in their mother tongue, where
numbers warrant. It is not exaggerated to say that Franco-

Ontarians have suffered greatly from this concept of where
numbers warrant. I speak from experience because I have
spent 11 years on schools boards, from 1961 to 1972, trying to
make local and provincial authorities understand the grounds
for a French-language high school system financed by the
Ontario treasury.

(l830)

We have won a few battles, but we are still far from having
the homogeneous French school system we” want and hope to
have one day. If minority rights had been entrenched in the
constitution, we would have reached our goal more quickly.
We are constantly in dangerof being assimilated by the
majority group. It has sometimes been only through our
individual will and collective determination that we have been
able to hope to survive as French-speaking Canadians. Once
again, Mr. Speaker, if minority rights had been entrenched, we
would have been able to remain more numerous. Individually,
French Canadians have survived onlybecause of their persist-
ent fighting spirit. They have been attacked from all sides, and
sometimes, they were able to survive because they were
attacked. When you are ignored, you die, but when you are
attacked, if you have courage, you defend yourself, and this is
what we did. Mr. Speaker, a minority needs more rights than
the majority. I am disappointed to note that he has left, but in
any case, I was very disappointed last Tuesday to hear the hon.
member for Joliette (Mr. LaSalle) lecture French minorities
outside Quebec about language rights. I was surprised and
saddened that this Francophone member of Parliament would
give us the classical argument of majorities concerning
entrenchment of rights in the constitution, and I quote:

–as these rights are very closely related to the provincial jurisdiction over
education, I do not see why it should be urgent or necessary to enshrine them in
the constitution at the risk of giving rise to quarrels like those the past
generations have known.

That is certainly the hon. member for Joliette speaking!
When a French minority in another province asks for the
concrete and practical means to survive, it is told that it must
absolutely not provoke conflicts and frictions within the com-
munity. It is all right to help it, but only if this disturbs in no
way the group which is comfortably installed in a majority
position. If it follows the rule suggested by the hon. member
for Joliette, the minority has only one alternative: to keep still,
be quiet and let itself be assimilated.

The linguistic minorities of Canada have no intention of
listening to the nonsense uttered by the hon. member for
Joliette. Hevspeaks very strangely. He speaks the language of
some of the premiers who suggested only a few years ago that
they should sign bilateral agreements :- -concerning education
and who favoured interprovincial bargaining with their minori-
ties as pawns.

Mr. Speaker, we will stand up against the trade-off of our
survival, we are not the pawns of the majority, we want our

rights to be entrenched in our constitution. We dream of

COMMONS DEBATES

3999

The Constitution

becoming first-class citizens. This collective will has given
birth to several movements aimed at regrouping minorities. We
have created many associations and several organizations.
These associations are made up of average Canadians and are
striving to correct linguistic injustice, both at school and in
society. These provincial associations which often work in an
hostile environment have been the main architects of an almost
permanent fight. We need them, they need us and the federal
government has supported them, God knows how much. Some
might say that these provincial and national organizations are
lobbying groups sometimes led by ambitious leaders. If the
leaders are sometimes obliged to speak frankly and roughly to
governments and to majorities it is because they sometimes
have to shout louder to be heard. I think that most Canadians
who are part of a minority will support entrenching linguistic
rights at school in our constitution. To them it is an important
guarantee which will help them in their collective search for
equality and equity. For instance, Mr. Speaker, on September
28, 1980, ACFO, the French Canadian Association of
Ontario, at their convention in Ottawa, passed the following
resolution, this was before the resolution now before us was
brought in and I quote:

That ACFO strongly urge patriation of the British North America Act, and
that the prerequisite for that support be that the new Canadian Constitution
enshrine basic rights and freedoms, including language rights for official lan-
guage minorities.

It is that same provincial association that often spearheaded
the fight in Ontario. We fought for the right to speak and even
pray in one’s language. We fought for the right to work in
one’s language, under a boss who often misunderstood our
aspirations. We fought to have our children educated in
French in Ontario and elsewhere. We fought for public ser-
vices in French. We fought for the right to defend ourselves in
courts of justice at all levels. We fought against language
prejudice, that often feeds on misconceptions about the institu-
tional bilinguism. We fought to preserve and develop our
culture. Such has been the struggle of . generations of Franco-
Ontarians and Franco-Manitobans, “Fransaskois”, Acadians
and people outside Quebec, who wanted to and will succeed in
surviving in this country.

It has been pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that although this
debate is very important and very serious for the Progressive
Conservatives, there are hardly some odd ten of them, here,
and I find ridiculous at this stage that we have to sit through
dinner hours when those people do not even think it worth
their while to remain here to listen to the debates.

Here we are, Mr. Speaker, inl980, discussing a resolution
that is most important in my view. I emphasize the phrase
“discussing a resolution”, because such is the process that will
start after this evening. Whatever the Leader of the Opposi-
tion or others on his side may say, the suggestion that we are
muzzling this debate is preposterous. What we are doing after
three weeks, after hearing nearly 50 members, what we are
saying is that finally we must come to serious consideration of

4000

The Constitution

the resolution. We are going to refer it to a committee, where
everyone will have an opportunity to comment, to put his
arguments forward and probably to point out and correct what
he considers is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, if the committee makes an in-depth study of
the resolution and tables a report, I hear the Leader of the
Opposition say: “We will be back on February 12 with a
report”. I do not care whether we come back on February 10
or February 12 or December 9, as long as we work seriously. I
have no objection whatsoever. We will manage to study the
proposal within the framework of the schedule Parliament
must follow. I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that we
should be talking about the economy and energy matters. I
think he understands very well the restrictions imposed by the
present parliamentary schedule and that he must also have a
lot of work to do and therefore it might be better not to keep
the debate going for too long if that is to disorganize every-
body’s work and delay our proceedings, as has been done for
two or three weeks after question period. Members of the
House would keep raising points of order and questions of
privilege for two or three hours. I do not think that delaying
the work of the House that way is what one could call serious
parliamentarianism.

How will Canadians use the new constitution? I honestly do
not know. Time will tell. There is no doubt, for instance, that
the constitutional instrument carries more weight than an
ordinary statute because a constitution is not easily changed.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke against section 42 because
it refers to a referendum and the people will have their say. In
short, Mr. Speaker, that is democracy, it is a regime where
people have the right to speak. Personally, I have read several
editorials and I would refer the Leader of the Opposition to an
article written September 23, 1980, by Pierre Tremblay of Le
Droit. I do not intend to read it because it is quite long but it is
very good. Indeed, Mr. Tremblay’s theme is that-the federal-
provincial dispute is over, that we must now call on the people
wfhen politicians are up against a deadlock they cannot get out
of.

Mr. Speaker, I have been told that inhistory–and that is
very interesting, in my opinion~–political powers may often
skirt around or repeal certain constitutional rights. I am
thinking in particular of section 23 in Manitoba which was
repealed by the will of a single legislative assembly. How many
times in our short history did linguistic minorities have to fight
to maintain, or even worse, secure such rights as the free
choice of their religion and their language? How often did
minorities see their rights disappear just when they seemed to
be safe? It took eighty years to recognize that those statutes of
the Manitoba legislature were discriminatory and anti-consti-
tutional. It was recognized because a man, Mr. Georges
Forest, on his own initiative, was willing to give of his time and
money to fight for one of his fundamental rights, his linguistic
right.

Here, in Ontario, we lived’ under regulation 17. It took
several years before we could get that regressive and dis-

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

criminatory measure repealed and get justice. Even now, it is
still an important theme in Ontario where we often call for
justice. That work is very important to us. Let us not think,
Mr. Speaker, that the charter of rights is the achievement of
all hopes, that it will answer all the aspirations of the official
languages minority groups. It is an excellent beginning, which
delights me, but though we have obtained the required mini-
mum, it does not mean that we should miss any opportunity or
initiative to improve it. If we really want the official linguistic
minorities to live their culture and language fully, they must
be dispensed health and social services in their tongue, in their
own provinces. Finally, radio and television services must be
extended to the whole population, and that, in the two official
languages wherever those who request it are numerous enough.

Canada is becoming increasingly a people of minorities.
Statistics confirm it every day. I feel, therefore, that it is
imperative that their fundamental rights be protected. There is
nothing extraordinary, Mr. Speaker, about the fact that a
country has one or several minorities. Most big countries in the
world have linguistic minorities that they have to accommo-
date. Besides, there is a maxim which says that a minority that
has the will to survive and is attacked will know how to fight
back, whereas a minority that isunaware of itself and is also
ignored by the majority is often doomed to extinction.

(1840)
[English]

We are faced in Canada today with a challenge of great
importance to us all, the challenge of keeping this country
together.

To understand each other with all our regional and sectional
loyalties, our varying customs and traditions; to understand
what this country is all about, a country with two official
languages and a multitude of cultures; to understand that
there are forces at work to build a better Canada while at the
same time other forces want to destroy it–therein lies the
chaflenge.

I see, Mr. Speaker, you are going to rise and tell me that my
time is up. I am very sorry. I would have liked to finish my
speech, but I must abide by_the rules and surrender my place
to another member.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Perhaps the Chair might
take this opportunity to familiarize hon. members, those who
are present, with the habit I have of trying to warn hon.
members that they are coming to the end of their time.
Whether the hon. member speaking happens to catch that
message or not—and I know there is a considerable amount of
pressure on members, although the Chair has been a trifle
lax–I think I ought to be exact from here on. I want to warn
hon. members that whether they see the notification that they
are coming to the end of their time or not, I will from here on
cut short debate precisely at the time required.

Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East): Mr. Speaker, in speaking
to the amendment and to the main motion, I have a 40-minute
speech which I cannot give in the 20 minutes allotted to me.
Therefore, I will make the whole text of my speech public. In

October 23, 1980

the interests of giving other hon. members the opportunity to
speak in order to express their views, I will just present a brief
summary.

I have said in the past that I am favourably disposed toward
the government’s package and have in the past supported and
still support a number of principles. My reasons are given in
the text which is available to anyone who wishes to read it. I
will file my speech with each of the committee members when
the committee is selected.

First, I support unilateral patriation by Parliament with the
unanimity formula, as per the motion I moved on May 9 and
which was passed unanimously by the House. I also supported
the motion of last night for unilateral patriation, with the
Vancouver consensus. The constitution must be patriated
quickly so that changes can be made sequentially to reduce
increasing tensions in our nation.

Second, I support the process of finding a less restricting
formula than the unanimity formula, but I reject the govern-
mennt’s process as needing substantive revision, and indeed,
revisions are mandatory.

Third, I support a people’s referendum as a process for
constitutional change. The peopleshould be able to initiate
such a referendum rather than the federal government only
and a majority in each province should be required for pas-
sage, not only the majority in each of the four regions.

Fourth, I strongly support maintaining the equality of pro-
vincial status and the protection of existing provincial powers
and rights with reduction in such powers being by consent
only, particularly in regard to provincial lands, resources and
boundary rights. In my main speech I have proposed an
amendment to that effect.

Fifth, I support equalization and the entrenchment of a
charter of rights and freedoms, but the resolution needs
redrafting to provide clarity and interpretation of these mat-
ters. I would have preferred that such be done in Canada after
patriation.

Sixth, I do not want to kill the government’s constitutional
package and, therefore, kill patriation. I want to improve it
and effect patriation. Therefore, I support sending it to com-
mittee, but not under the process of closure. This is an
unneeded action on behalf of the government. I am saddened
by it. It is an unfortunate action after only two and a half
weeks of sitting in this House to debate one of the most
important issues to come before this House since 1867.

This is an action to limit the privileges of members of this
House to speak on this vital issue. I know there has been some
obstruction. There always is on both sides. However, another
month of debate would not have been an inconvenience to this
House or, indeed, to Canada. I must utterly reject the closure
action by the government.

Thirteen years ago almost to the month, when I joined the
Conservative party of Canada, I asked, what does this party
stand for? Is it just a collection of individuals with a common
purpose and a common view, or is it more? Has it got a creed
and an unshakeable philosophical foundation, or is it just a

80090–32

COMMONS DEBATES

4001

The Constitution

garment which we can take off and put on as the opportunity
arises?

I searchedand there were few answers to be found. I had
resolved that this conservatism is an integrity of spirit and an
orderly expansion of conscience that is genuinely important
and not of the fleeting variety. It is on the basis of that
individual integrity or spirit of conscience that I shall vote on
this measure from here on, as it is a measure of profound
gravity. I trust that each member in this House will do the
same. I respect every member’s right to do so on this funda-
mental issue. This is an issue for statesmen and not for
partisan politics and partisan politicians.

Q (1850)

It has taken me five minutes, effectively, to file my speech,
or say that I am going to file it with the committee members,
and present my summary. At this rate I believe many mem-
bers will have–and they should have—the opportunity to
speak on this resolution before it is sent to committee later on
tonight.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. David Smith (Don Valley East): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour to participate in this historic debate, and I am proud,
as are all hon. members who have spoken, to play a small part
in it.

At the outset of this debate I thought perhaps I might be
hearing from a few constituents as to why Parliament would
be spending its time on a constitution when there are postal
interruptions, clerks’ strikes and obvious economic problems in
this country, but I think that the constituents of my riding
have shown great maturity. I think we have to recognize that
something which may be important is not on any given day or
week or month necessarily urgent, but the fact that it may not
be urgent on one day does not mean it is not of vital impor-
tance to this country. I think that the voters and constituents
certainly in Toronto and in the constituency which I have the
honour to represent have appreciated the necessity for Parlia-
ment to come to grips with this issue at this time.

I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister
of Justice (Mr. Chrétien) have to be commended for the
leadership they have shown in biting the bullet and being
prepared to go ahead with this question and resolve something
Canadians have not, unfortunately, been able to resolve for
decades.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Smith: What is before the House is a resolution to
appoint a joint committee of the Senate and House of Com-
mons to consider and report upon the constitutional document
which was issued by the government on October 2. There have
been many speeches. Many of them have been excellent. But I
think we have to recognize that we are beginning what will be
a chapter which may last for several months and that the
curtain is not being dropped on it tonight as if somehow the

gong were going and this were the end of the show. I think that,

has perhaps not been pointed out by opposition members when

4002

The Constitution

they have addressed themselves to the motion with which we
are going to have to deal later tonight. The Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Clark) himself said on October 2, and I
quote:

The significant debate will come when the resolution itself is brought directly
e ore t e ouse some time after the committee has made its report.

Mr. Beatty: It will not and never will be.

Mr. Smith: Those arenot my words; those are the words of
the Leader of the Opposition—“significant debate”—and that
debate will occur when the committee reports back; but hon.
members opposite will not have a chance to do anything unless
we set the committee up. That is why we have to set it up, and
the time to do that has certainly come.

With regard to the package and, first, patriation, everyone
who has spoken seems to agree that it is high time we do it. I
certainly agree. It has dragged on for many, many years. For
over 50 years efforts have not borne fruit, and I think everyone
would concede that every reasonable effort has been made by
this government in the last few months to come to a reasonable
agreement with the provinces. If that is not recognized by
certain members of the opposition, it certainly will be by
historians. I suggest it is by the public right now.

Let us consider the amending formula. I support the pro-
posa.l..I think it is reasonable, fair and within the Canadian
trtadition. It does protect provincial powers. We are not talking
a Otttt any realignment of the division of powers. There can be
no inalization of any division of powers within the next two
yearswithout unanimous consent. I cannot understand what
Premier Peckford could complain about in the next two years.

If after two years we cannot come to some agreement, then
we go. to the Victoria formula, and in clause 42 there is also
provision for a referendum. This is what seems to have the
official opposition in particular quite riled up. Hon. members
in the official opposition say that theoretically this could
destroy federalism aswe know it and that this could destroy
the country. Well, I. think we have to concede that if a power is
there, notwithstanding the fact that I think it is quite clear it is
only going to be used as a last resort, then it can be used.

Let us assume that disallowance can be used. If we are
going to talk theory, let us talk theory. To suggest that
somehow something new is coming on the scene which will
suddenly destroy federalism is absolutely ludicrous when we
look at the power of disallowance which has existed many
years in the country. Did it destroy federalism? Of course it
did not.

In his speech on October 6 the Leader of the Opposition
said, and I quote from page 3291 of Hansard:
And because this authority would not be limited, this central government could,
if it chose to, deprive the provinces of all their powers and for all times.

He went on to say:

Under this resolution, the central government could destroy what makes
Canada a federation. And if it did, I am afraid it would signal the end of Canada
as a country.

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

That is simply not correct. The power is not the government
at all, it is the people, and there is a pretty fundamental
difference. I think that the official opposition has totally
ignored the fact that the ultimate sovereignty from which all
governments derive their power is the people. I have much
more faith in the Canadian people than the opposition has.

Hon. members opposite talk about the tyranny of the
majority. In his speech the hon. member for Provencher (Mr.
Epp) repeatedly referred to the tyranny of the majority. Well,
I hardly think that a requirement that there be 51 per cent in
each of the four regions of this country is a formula designed t
to allow whimsical fads to be swept into a constitution. I think
that is absolute nonsense and is something I reject. I have
much more faith in the people of this country than people who
are makingthose arguments seem to have.

Let me make just brief reference to the charter. I support it.
There are some obvious things in there with which I do not
think anyone could disagree. We all believe in freedom of
conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion
and expression, freedom of the press, etc. I do not understand
why anyone could possibly get worked up about that, but there
are some other things which perhaps are not quite so historic
and which may be a bit more unique to Canada.

I believe in equalization. I am a member from central
Canada, from Ontario, from Toronto. I am one of those
Toronto fellows, and in terms of tax paid in areas of the
country, it is a statistical fact that Toronto has paid a dispro
portionate share of taxes in relation to its population. I do not
quarrel with that for one second. I agree with it and welcome
it. I support that because that is what this country is all about.
This country is all about sharing. That is what this government
is all about, that is what this party is all about and that is what
this provision is all about. That is why we have to get on with
it and enshrine it in a constitution so that it is beyond question
and not something which can be swept out by another govern
ment which might come in and which does not believe in it.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Smith: Another provision in the charter has to do with
mobility rights. This is something we had not talked about
until recent years. It is rather a new idea and a new concept
but I submit that mobility rights are needed because barriers
have unfortunately been springing up which are stopping
people from one part of the country from getting jobs in other
parts of the country. That is certainly not what I understand a
country to be about.

Today we heard the hon. member for St. John’s West (Mr.
Crosbie) defend that piece of Newfoundland legislation which
will deny jobs in Newfoundland to people from other part of
the country. We. can see the kind of protection of mobility
rights there would be under a government of which he was
part. That is the reason we have to secure the right of
Canadians to go to any part of this country and to have
employment in any part of this country. We need to do that in
such a way that it cannot be swept aside when some govern
ment may come along which does not like that provision.

October 23, 1980

We have heard some scathing attacks from the official
opposition on the package, but what is the alternative hon.
members opposite are talking about? I have read their
speeches several times. I have looked through the speeches of
the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Provencher,

the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) and other
official opposition spokesmen who have spoken in this debate.
They are all over the map. They talk about the Vancouver
consensus. They hold it up like the Holy Grail as if it were the
solution to everything. Let us have a look at it. It provides that
seven provinces which make up 50 per cent of the population
can, in conjunction with the federal government, effect an
amendment to the constitution. It says 50 per cent, and
although the hon. member for Provencher said he did not feel
too comfortable with that and he thought it should be two-
thirds, he said he would go along with it. Two paragraphs later
in his speech, however, he attacked our formula which requires
over 50 per cent in each of the four regions and said that that
is the tyranny of 51 per cent. Yet the opposition embraces a
formula which requires a fair 50 per cent of the population of
this country as represented by their provincial governments.

3 (I900)

An hon. Member: That is not the whole story.

Mr. Smith: You are right, that is not the whole story
because it gets worse. They then have an opting-out formula
which is not, to my understanding, within the tradition of this
country, with one province opting out of this and another
opting out of that. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), quite
properly, labelled that provision a checker board sort of for-
mula which would result in different parts of the country
having different laws. What does a country mean when you
have that sort of thing happening across the land?

The hon. member for Rosedale, who gave us a good speech
and told us some truths, spoke about the five principles of
Canadian confederation. Two of them were national union and
consensus. I submit that the opting-out provision runs counter
to the theme which he was developing. Why, then, does the
Leader of the Opposition think the Vancouver consensus is so
great? I will tell you why. He thinks it is great because, with
the opting-out provision, he does not have to choose between
premiers. He does not have to choose between Lougheed and
Davis and between all these Tory premiers across the country
who cannot get their act together. So it is an easy way out.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Smith: That is why they like the Vancouver consensus.
Consensus—what a joke!

If the House has been following the conference attended by
the premiers last week in Toronto, hon. members would realize
that it is literally laughable to talk about consensus. But that is
the route he wants to take. If that is leadership, they can have
it. That is not the sort of leadership that this country needs
and it is not the leadership that this government has been

COMMONS DEBATES

4003

The Constitution

giving. I think we need to have a constitutional framework
which will keep this country together.

Then, on top of that, they have this odd idea about a
constituent assembly, but we did not hear too much about that.
The only person who spoke about that was the hon. member
for Provencher, but he did not say what they were going to do.
“It would be a terrible thing if we had a provision in a
constitution which allows a referendum,” they say, but some-
how it is okay to set up a constitutional assembly, according to
them. Where do they get their mandate? I am not quite sure
about that, it has not been too clearly spelled out.

So I submit that the opposition does not have its act
together; it is all over the map on this and, in fact, there is no
alternative. We have one clear option which has been present-
ed, and it is a reasonable one, one on which we are going to
move, one that will carry and one in which we will all be proud
to play a part.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Smith: There is one final point I should like to make,
and that is that I for one happen to think it is possible to make
some improvements to the charter. I think that is the function
of the committee. Some hon. members might be aware of the
fact that I am chairman of the committee on the handicapped
and disabled. I happen to believe that the charter would be
improved if a specific reference to them were included in it. I
have spoken on this before and I intend to carry on with this
idea and hope to address the committee on that. It would not
be a new thing which would open the floodgates to many
minority groups because, in fact, a precedent has already been
established in the Human Rights Act. The reference in it to
the rights of the handicapped and disabled would improve even
further what I believe to be a sound and good charter.

After having had the opportunity to travel across the coun-
try with the committee and to listen to people speak, I can
assure you that Canadians from coast to coast, particularly
disabled Canadians, feel very strongly about their rights. They
do not really feel certain about them being guaranteed by the
various provincial governments of this land. We heard over
600 briefs and many of them spoke to this issue. Without
exception they support the concept of a charter enshrining
rights. I hope it will ultimately be expanded and made clear
that those rights refer specifically to disabled Canadians.

As I have said earlier, I am pleased to participate in what I ~

believe is an historic debate. I am proud to be here tonight to
take part in this debate because I think we are doing some-
thing that is historic, something that will be good for Canada
and which, I think, when completed, will allow us to get on to
other things.

Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr.
Speaker, I may find that I am a voice crying in the wilderness,
but there is a plea that I should like to make at this stage in
our proceedings and I want to make it as earnestly as I can.

We are just about at the end of this debate on the motion to
set up a joint committee to deal with the constitution, and the

4004

The Constitution

likelihood is that that motion will carry about six hours from
now and that the matter will be sent to the special joint
committee. My plea is that we have had enough contention,
acrimony and backbiting both ways, and that the time has
come for us to send this whole proposition to the committee in
a spirit of good will, with the plea that it approach the job with
the seriousness which it deserves.

Maybe I am dreaming something that cannot happen but I
would like to see this motion passed tonight without a recorded
vote as the means of saying to the committee, “We have done
our fighting, we have done our arguing, we have had our
contentions; now it is up to the committee to do the job on the
proposed resolution which needs to be done.”

I want to say that my colleagues and I are prepared to
support the amendment proposed this afternoon to give the
committee additional time to do its job, and I hope that the
government might consider accepting that amendment. It
might even be that with a little investigation it could be found
that the official opposition would be willing to let the motion
go to committee without a recorded vote if the amendment
were accepted.

I say all of this, Mr. Speaker, because I believe I reflect the
thinking of the Canadian people about the September confer-
ence, namely, that it was a crying shame that 11 grown-up
men sitting down together could not reach agreement on the
proposal for a new constitution, but instead broke up in a way
which has led to an increasing sense of division in the country.
I think there was hope on the part of the people of Canada
that the 282 of us—we are only 279 now since there are a few
vacancies—might be grownup men and women and might be
able to do the job where the premiers failed. But instead we
have had three weeks of pretty contentious debate ending
today under a vote with respect to closure. I regret very much
that we are doing it this way.

9 (I910)

. In my experience, every time Standing Order 33 is invoked
it produces a feeling of discontent, unhappiness and ill-will
around this place that does no good for the parliamentary
process.’ It is a rule that has been around for a long time. Its
conception and birth were highly questionable. It was brought
in in 1913 _by the Conservative government of the day because
it was having trouble getting a naval aid bill through Parlia-
ment. Because it had so much trouble with those filibustering
Liberals, it stopped the debate, brought in changes in the rule,
then went back to the debate and applied the new rules. We
often use the phrase about changing the rules in the middle of
the game. It was not just a phrase in 1913, it was an actuality.
As I say, the few times it has been used since it has produced
ill-will and unhappiness.

In particular, I remember the experience in 1956 in the
pipeline debate when it was applied four times. Four times we
sat here until two, three or four o’clock in the morning in what
was a dramatic part of the history of this Parliament but really
a very sad one. I can assert that we have never got over some
of the damage done to this place by the use of closure in 1956.

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, I980

We have had it a few times since then. It was used with
respect to the flag debate. On that occasion, like today, my
party was prepared to vote for the motion with respect to the
new flag, but we voted against the attempt to close that debate
by closure. It was brought in again in 1969. Closure was used
again that year to bring in those other debate-ending rules,
75A, 75B and 75C.

I believe members will agree with me that even the normal
relationships and greetings we give to each other in the lobbies
and around this building have been cooled today because of
closure and the kind of experience we are having. I feel very
strongly that if we had just negotiated a bit more, a few days
more, even a week or what have you, we could have closed this
debate without using the guillotine.

If I speak critically of the government for invoking closure, I
must say there is blame on the other side as well. Progressive
Conservatives members have tried to use arithmetic to show
they have not had as many speeches in the debate as the
Liberals, but they are the ones who refused to agree to any
proposal to bring the debate to a close voluntarily. We have
heard from them scathing denunciations of the package before
the House as though it would bring Canada to an end, as
though good will was completely absent from the minds of
those who drafted the resolution. We have had a great deal of
the kind of debate which does not enhance the reputation of
this Parliament or expedite its proceedings. All right, we have
had it. We cannot go back and undo it. Things have been said
which I hope some members are sorry for. It has been done,
but that is over now. It will end at one o’clock tonight or one
o’clock tomorrow morning. Is it not time for us to realize that 1
we are dealing with a terribly important issue, namely, the
basic constitution of this country, and that we should send this
matter to a joint committee, calling upon it in good will and in
good faith to try to come up with a document which will meet
the needs and the wishes of the country?

My leader has made our position very clear on a number of
occasions. He has pointed out that after all the years Canada
has been here, the 113 years or even the 53 years since an
attempt was made to Canadianize the constitution, surely
there comes a time when the matter should be taken in hand
and we should go through with it. We accept the proposition
that we should now try to go through with that job, but I think
it should be recognized not just as a job handed to us by the
government. It is something in which all sides of the House
should co-operate as helpfully and as constructively as we
possibly can. Not only do we feel there is a case for doing the
job now and getting it over with; perhaps the most common
remark I get from people in my constituency and other parts
the country is: “Why do you not get the job over with?”

In addition to that, we think there are some things in the
package which are good. Most of us believe in the entrench
ment of a charter of rights. Most of us believe that language
justice should be entrenched in our charter. We all say we
believe in the principle of equalization. These things really
ought to be part of a constitution. So why should we be

October 23, 1980

backbiting about these things or failing to get to the things
that may yet need to be done?

I am particularly proud of what the hon. member for
Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) has done, in his negotiations with the
Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the question of making very
clear the rights of provinces to control and administer their
natural resources, with all that that means.

Mr. Wilson: What about ownership?

Mr. Knowles: The ownership is there already, but as my
hon. friend knows, there have been court cases and decisions in
recent times which have cast some doubt upon the meaning of
that ownership. Then, of course, there is the whole question of
indirect taxation on natural resource products, interprovincial
trade and so on. My leader has done a good job in persuading
the Prime Minister to agree to that proposal. I hope it is
recognized that although this provides a balance which makes
the package more acceptable, or certainly less unacceptable, to
western Canada, nevertheless it applies to all the provinces of
Canada from British Columbia to Newfoundland. I am proud
of my leader for the job he has done in negotiating this matter
with the Prime Minister, but I also think—I may be cut down
for saying this–that a word of thanks might even be given to
the Prime Minister-

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Knowles: —for having the flexibility to discuss these
matters with the hon. member for Oshawa and to agree to
make the necessary changes. I think we have done a fairly
good job, a number of us, in pressing the point that section 42
of the proposed resolution needs to be looked at closely in
terms of the purpose for which it is to be used. I say quite
openly that I have discussed this matter with at least five
members of cabinet and I find they all agree with me. Each of
them has said that the government is willing in committee to
make any amendments necessary to put in clear language what
was intended. What worries some members about section 42 is
that it seems to be a method of amending the constitution
which is equal to section 41. The government says, “No, the
intention is only to use section 42 if there is a deadlock under
section 41″.

Now, some members on the government side are still saying
that the language is clear. I do not think it is, but the ministers
to whom I have spoken have said that if it is obvious that
section 42 needs to be amended to make sure it is used for the
means of breaking a deadlock, they will put that in there. I
welcome the fact that four or five ministers have said that to
me. I believe that all of us should accept the fact that this does
give a hope for some improvement in the package. As I said
the other day, I think we would be insane to bring home a
constitution which did not have a deadlock-breaking provision.
We could go on for 40 or 50 years without ever getting it
amended, without ever dealing with some of the other things
that I also think should be considered. In particular, Mr.
Speaker, even though we think we have done well—particular-
ly, our leader has done well—in getting the concessions on the

COMMONS DEBATES

4005

The Constitution

resource bit, and even though some of us think we have done
well in getting several ministers to agree to make section 42
applicable only if there is a deadlock under 41, there are still
other things that the committee ought to look at. My plea is
that we try tonight at one o’clock to pass this motion unani-
mously and send it to the committee so that the committee will
know that there is in Parliament good will, that it wants in
good faith consideration of some of the other things. There are
quite a few but I am going to emphasize three, one was
mentioned just a moment ago. In my view, the whole question
of the protection of the rights of women is something we
should still look at further. I know that the government says
that there is language in there about equal rights and so on,
and one of my colleagues will be dealing with this later
tonight. Court decisions have shown there really is not equality
and I would like in particular to see the committee look at it. It
is my feeling that if we keep on fighting each other with
nothing but contention and acrimony the committee will stiff-
en up, will tighten up and do nothing. As I said when I first
rose to my feet, my plea is that we send this to the committee
with good will, asking its members in good faith to deal with
othermatters, such as a formula for including women’s rights
in the constitution.

. (1920)

I say the same thing with regard to the rights of our native
peoples. They feel very strongly about this, as every member of
this House knows. They feel that the assertions in the proposed
resolution about the continued existence of the treaties and
rights that are there is not enough and that something more
should be done.

As I say, we are proud of the improvement that we won but
that does not stop us from saying that more should be won. It
is my feeling that we will not get any more changes if we just
tighten up and make this a battle from one side to the other.
Let us admit that we have had our battle-«three weeks of it.
Let us give it to the committee in a spirit of good will and ask
it in good faith, both sides, to ask the Liberals to look very
squarely at the pleas which will come for women’s rights and
native rights. I ask the House to say, through the way it votes
tonight, that we want these issues left open so that they can be
dealt with in the constitution if it is at all possible to do so.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Knowles: I was pleased a moment ago to hear the hon.
member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith) raise a point, which
was one of the three that I intended to deal with in this portion
of my remarks, namely, the rights of the handicapped people
of this country. They feel very upset that nothing seems to be
done for them in this constitution. Again, I would like to see
that done.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Knowles: As I say, Mr. Speaker, if we carry on in the
committee the way we have carried on here for three weeks, as
just a contest, a party vote, nothing will happen. It is too

4006

The Constitution

important to do that. We have had our fights. We have had
our contention. Let us let that drop. I plead that tonight we
pass this motion unanimously and send it to committee in that
spirit.

As I have already said, we are prepared to support the
amendment to change the date by which the committee is to
report. We will be doing so if it comes to a vote. Maybe there
can even be some negotiations between now and one o’clock
based on the plea which I have been making, that it is time to
deal seriously, honestly and in good faith with this issue. As I
say, I would like to see it go to the committee in that spirit so
the things which have already been agreed upon will be
amendments which the committee can put through and that
other things can be done as well. There may be others. It has
not been a good three-week period in Parliament but if we
send it to the committee in a proper way we can yet come up
with a good constitution and be proud of a job well done.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works): Mr.
Speaker, this is the third time I have had the opportunity of
speaking formally to the House. The first occasion was in
speaking to second reading of the Municipal Grants Act. At
that time I made the comment that I thought the quick
passage of that act was a good omen for the future of the
country, a good omen for the future of renewed federalism. It
demonstrated a willingness on the part of this level of govern-
ment to recognize the responsibilities of the other two levels of
government and it was a step toward co-operation between
governments.

On that occasion, which happened to be the evening of the

Quebec referendum, I had the opportunity to comment on the
significance of the referendum vote. I offered one caution, I

suggested that if we were to be successful in our thrust toward

a renewed federalism, there was a heavy responsibility on the
part.of the provinces to match the demonstrated will that
evening of this level of government. It had to be a will that
addressed not only the problems of Quebec but also the
question of bettering and encouraging other provinces into the
process of building a better Canada.

Unhappily, the provinces have failed to rise to the occasion,
as evidenced by the way in which certain of the provincial
premiers fell into the spider’s web woven at last month’s first
ministers’ conference by one of their members whose political
raison d’être has been and continues to be the setting up of his
province as a separate entity outside of Canada, albeit with the
retention of all the benefits of this confederation. The spider’s
web has continued to enmesh more of the premiers, culminat-
ing in the recent announcement by five in number, an
announcement which seems particularly ironic in light of the
fact that the premiers have expressed their intention to take
their perceived grievances to the courts, the same recourse
which they allegedly abhor in the context of the proposed
charter of rights and freedoms. It is interesting to note, Mr.
Speaker, that Canada’s elected first ministers have tried 13
times since 1927 to patriate, to bring reform to the British

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

North America Act. Our proposed resolution takes the best
from those attempts. It offers the Canadian people a doorway
through a stone wall created by the requirement of unanimi-
ty—unanimous approval of all of the ministers for constitu-
tional renewal and independence. Unfortunately, but predict-
ably, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) overreacts to
our proposal by calling for a made-in-Canada constitution.
What, might I ask, are we doing in this place right now, the
Parliament of Canada, the one great democratic institution
representing all Canadians, addressing the subject? We are,
Mr. Speaker, doing exactly what the Leader of the Opposition
asks that we do.

There has been alarmist talk about our proposal, destroying
the federal system in Canada and destroying the country. Any
attempt at undermining the orderly and rational development
of Canada as a truly independent nation does not come from
this side of the House. What we are seeking is not to destroy
the federation, but a “fetteration”, a hobbling of the Canadian
people by the unanimity rule that I have referred to, that has
kept us back these many years.

0 (1930)

Under our proposal the federal system remains intact. There
is no lessening of provincial powers to the benefit of the federal
government. In fact, in the long run the opposite may well be
the case. All we are intent on doing, once and for all, is to bid
farewell to the nineteenth century and to prepare this country
for the twenty-first century. The Prime Minister (Mr. Tru-
deau) describes our plans in the words of Premier Davis of
Ontario as, “The first sensible steps to renew our unity and to
revive our nationhood.”

As I mentioned earlier, and as many speakers on the subject
have noted, there have been numerous attempts over a period
of 53 years to modernize the Canadian Constitution. To a
degree that is understandable. No one expects to construct a
fine institution in a hurry. We realize that anything worth
while takes time. When we consider, for example, the ongoing
renovations to this superb building in which we are now,
gathered, the parliamentary Centre Block, which has been the
meeting place of the elected representatives of our country,
consequent upon the great fire of 1916, it is easy to understand
that the building of any institution, whether it is physical
ideological, social or political, does not happen overnight.

You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that modifications to the
Peace Tower are currently under way. It was built in memorial
to the contribution made by Canadians in the First World
War. The 53-bell carillon which has delighted residents and
tourists alike for more than half a century, was inaugurated,
interestingly, on July 1, 1927, for the diamond jubilee of
confederation. Ironically, the first major overhaul of the Peace
Tower is taking place 53 years after its completion, the same
time frame in which Canadian people have been trying to
initiate a major overhaul of their constitution. The renovations

October 23, 1980

are substantial and they are to be completed within 18 months.
We are talking about the installation of a new elevator and
accessories, as well as provisions for the handicapped people to
be able to enjoy—

Mr. Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the member who is speaking is a
minister of the Crown and he should be aware of the fact that
what we are debating is the proposal to revise the Constitution
of Canada. What possible relevance could elevators in the
Peace Tower or the carillon in the Parliament Buildings have
to the constitution remains to be proven. I suggest that the
minister has the responsibility at least to be in order.

Mr. Irwin: A point of order, Mr. Speaker—–

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Does the hon. member
stand on the same point of order?

Mr. Irwin: It is a point of order which arises out of the hon.
member’s point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Order. I think we would
perhaps be better served if we could deal with one point of
order at a time. I listened to the point of order raised by the
hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty)
and to the minister whose references to the carillon and the
Peace Tower, I think, were tying in with his comments related
to earlier matters which occurred in 1927 which involved the
Canadian Constitution. Sofar as I am concerned, the minis-
ter’s comments are, from what I have heard, perfectly in order.
Does the hon. member still seek the floor on a point of order?

Mr. Irwin: No.

Mr. Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the
recollection of all hon. members, including the hon. member
who rose on a point of order, the inscription over the western
archway of the Peace Tower which reads, “Where there is no
vision, the people perish”.

Our proposed resolution respecting the constitution is one of
vision. We recognize that if Canada is at long last going to
take its place amongst independent nations of the world, we
cannot do it by looking back to our colonial ties. We must look
forward to the day when alldecisions affecting our destiny are
enactedon Canadian soil and by a government elected by the
Canadian people.

The proposed resolution contains the vision of a people who
are guaranteed freedom of conscience, opinion, assembly, and
the right to vote. It entrenches the principle of equality before
the law for all Canadians, irrespective of sex, colour or reli-
gion. It confirms and supports the rights of Canadians to
move, to work and to live in any part of Canada, and to have
their children educated in either official language where num-
bers warrant. And it enshrines the principle of sharing or
equalization as past generations of Canadians, native and
pioneer, have shown in this vast country of ours that survival
as a nation depends on this spirit of generosity.

By no means, the least of these are those Canadians who
have paid the supreme sacrifice in times of war, as was so

COMMONS DEBATES

4007

The Constitution

eloquently and movingly pointed out by the the hon. member
for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) in his remarks in the House
last Friday. But hon. members need not look any further than
this chamber for examples of the length of time required to
complete any worth-while project. The work in stone and the
panels above the heads of hon. members here tonight are an
example of the time and care required physically or, as I have
indicated, through the process of law, to the attention of any
worth-while project.

The dominion sculptor, Eleanor Milne, and her staff have
been working for several years on these high relief panels,
coincidentally called the BNA series.

Mr. Beatty: That is pathetic.

Mr. Cosgrove: In making reference to this art work, I am
trying to illustrate that patience and the application of hard
work over a long period of time are the usual prerequisites of
any worth-while project. Similarly, I think that it is quite
propitious that the physical aspects of Parliament are undergo-
ing renovation, as witnessed by the work on the Peace Tower,
at the same time that we address the legal implications of
patriating the constitution.

Our proposed resolution contains mechanisms in recognition
of the fact that time is required to sort out the details, such as

in section 32 which provides for ongoing consultation between

the Prime Minister and the first ministers of the provinces,
until part 5, which deals with the amending procedure, comes
into force.

In addition to the riding I represent being the largest in
Canada in terms of population, it is composed of hundreds of
small businesses, many of which I was instrumental in attract-
ing to the area because of my conviction that we needed a
proper mix of work opportunities together with living and
recreation considerations.

Since the introduction of the resolution to Parliament in this
resumed session, I have received many comments concerning
it, a number of which have been small businessmen who are
supportive of expeditious action to bring some resolution to our
constitutional wrangling so that the government can deal with
other current concerns such as amendments to the Bank Act,
improvements to the postal service, the budget, energy issues
and so on. I made a point of interesting myself in the expressed
concerns of the small business community.

For example, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, an
organization representing some 600 community chambers of
commerce and boards of trade, more than 3,000 companies
and 70 trade and professional associations, reminded us that it
adheres to a principle voiced at one of its earliest meetings
more than half a century ago. The principle is, “To think and
talk in terms of Canada, putting aside all provincialism. If
Canada as a whole is prosperous, then individually and provin-
cially we will all share in that prosperity.” It was interesting to
note that in the first point of their submission on constitutional
matters, the chamber recommends:

4008

The Constitution
. (1940)

That Canada’s legislators do their utmost to ensure a speedy andefficient
discussion aimed at identifying issues clearly, before amending a constitution
which, on the whole, has served the interests of the Canadian people very well.

Mr. Speaker, the decision by some of the provinces to refer
our proposal to the courts hardly meets this call from an
important segment of Canadian society for a “speedy and
efficient discussion”.

As the Attorney General of Ontario has pointed out, the
current constitutional issue is a political, not a legal issue.

The Chamber of Commerce’s submission indicates support
for a federal power sufficient to ensure the free circulation of
goods and services, labour, and capital across the country, to
the end that all Canadians will be dealt with and treated
equitably wherever they may be in Canada.

I was happy to see that Mr. Sam Hughes, president of the
Canadian Chamber of Commerce, applauded the charter of
rights in our proposed resolution guaranteeing free movement
of labour within the country. I share his sentiment that it
would have been preferable to expand this concept of a
Canadian common market to include the free movement of
capital, goods and services, but I reiterate the Prime Minister’s
statement that our proposals are only the first sensible step to
renew our unity and revive our nationhood.

The chamber’s submission also calls for ongoing formal
consultation between the federal government and the provinces
to co-ordinate trade and other initiatives abroad better while
speaking with one voice in international affairs.

As I have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us
contemplates the. ongoing discussions between the two levels of
government as witnessed by section 32.

It was particularly gratifying to see a proposal from the
Chamber of Commerce relating to the maintenance of a
system of transfer payments designed to ensure the availability
of basic services in all regions of Canada. This has been
touched upon by other hon. members this evening.

This is enshrined in our proposed resolution in section 31
through the principle of equalization, which commits the
Government of Canada and the provincial governments to
promote equal opportunities for the well-being of all Canadi-
ans, to further economic development, to reduce disparity in
opportunities, and to provide essential public services of
reasonable quality to all Canadians.

I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not mention that
the submission by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce con-
tains recommendations which do not necessarily coincide with
the total philosophy of this government. But, as has been
indicated by hon. members who have spoken previously, once
the resolution is referred to committee and the opportunity is
made available for in-depth consideration, then we feel there
will be an opportunity for a genuine exchange of opinions.
That is the appropriate place for it, Mr. Speaker.

Another voice heard on the constitutional issue was that of
the Business Council on National Issues, an association of the
chief executive officers of some 140 major corporations across

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

Canada. In a letter to the Prime Minister dated September 2,
1980, the Council expressed the view that governments should
be restrained by the constitution from adopting legislation or
regulations that would have the effect of restricting, again, the
mobility of persons in pursuit of a legitimate livelihood; or of
unjustly depriving a person of the rights of ownership; or of
limiting a person’s right to have, where numbers warrant,
access to government services in either official language.

The letter also states, and I quote:

We do not underestimate the difficulty of achieving a new constitutional
understanding in a country as vast and complex as Canada, but we believe that
the time for accommodation is overdue.

We want to convey to you the sense of urgency and concern that we share,
concern that a continued lack of resolution of constitutional issues will in the
future, as it has in the past, cause us to lose opportunities for investment and
jobs.

Decisions have not been taken, investments not made, jobs not created, because
of the uncertainty and unpredictability of the economic climate in Canada.

That is the business community addressing every member of
the House, Mr. Speaker.

In a recent address the Canadian Manufacturers’ Associa-
tion president, Mr. J . E. Newall, said that the prime role of the
business sector–to produce goods and services in the most
efficient and productive way possible—-was being adversely
affected by a growing fragmentation of the Canadian common
market and by the delays and uncertainties caused by the
seemingly endless debate on the division of economic powers
between the central government and the provinces.

As Mr. Newall put it:

One critical objective of constitutional reform should be to strengthen Canada’s
common market. The provincial preferences may, when considered individually
and in isolation, give the appearance of provincial benefits. However, all produce
national inefficiencies. They produce retaliation from other provinces.

Earlier in my comments about the inscription on the Peace
Tower, Mr. Speaker, I referred to our resolution as a vision of
what Canada can be once we have embraced the principle of
self-determination in its entirety. In some ways, the conference
of first ministers offered the premiers a chance to be visionar-
ies, but they rejected it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all members present in this House, the
Canadian business community, and all Canadians, if they
share that vision of our Canada, to show their support, and
join in supporting the government in its resolution.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, this is
the first opportunity that I have had to speak as the member of
Parliament for Vancouver Centre. It is the custom of this
House that, under these circumstances, new members describe
for the record the constituency which they have the honour to
represent. Today I am forced to forgo this tradition because I
speak under the guillotine of closure. I speak under the
constraints of limited debate imposed by the Government of
Canada.

The people of Vancouver Centre will remember that. They
are Canadians who come from a rich and diversified back-

October 23, 1980

ground. They represent English, German, French, Chinese,
Japanese, Greek, Italian and Ukrainian stock. Many of them
are new Canadians who came here seeking freedom. Others
are senior citizens and war veterans. They will always remem-
ber that the first time they heard their new member of
Parliament speak on their behalf in the Parliament of Canada,
it was under a motion to muzzle the debate on the future of
their country.

Vancouver Centre is the very heart of Vancouver. Our
riding is often termed “Lotus Land” in honour of our lifestyle.
In China, where I was born, I remember the lotus as eternally
serene, warmed by the sun and blessed by the rain–like our
riding—rising out of the muddied waters. Mr. Speaker, at the
moment we in lotus land are finding that the waters are very
muddied indeed.

We have a Liberal government which is proposing to dimin-
ish the power of the provinces and increase the powers of the
federal government in the national interest. But this govern-
ment cannot represent the national interest, Mr. Speaker. It
has no elected representatives west of the Red River Valley. It
is, as The Globe and Mail describes it, a regional federal
government which is using extraordinary powers to stop the
elected representatives of Canada debating the future of
Canada.

We have a Liberal government that spent $6 million of our
money on television advertisements urging us to bring the
constitution home to Canada. But that same government this
week voted against the Conservative motion to bring the
constitution home.

We have a Liberal government which is urging us, in the
national interest, to have a “made-in-Canada” constitution.
But that same government is going to Westminster to ask the
British parliament to make changes in our constitution that
nine of our ten provinces do not want.

We have a government which is imposing on us, unilaterally,
changes in the way that we govern ourselves. They call it a
people’s package, yet this very same package obscures the
human rights of women, of natives and of minority groups.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, because I am speaking under gag rule,
we have a government whose Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)
invites us all to speak on a matter concerning the future of our
country, and who then invokes closure. When this government
brought in closure, only three members of Parliament from the
province of British Columbia had been granted an opportunity
to articulate the concerns of British Columbia. That is the
federal regional government’s concept of free and open debate.

You can see why, Mr. Speaker, from the viewpoint of lotus
land, Vancouver Centre, the waters are very turgid indeed, and
they h-ave been further silted by the actions of the NDP. The
NDP is taking credit for proposed amendments to the constitu-
tion which would give us less than we already have. The NDP
considers this progress.

COMMONS DEBATES

4009

The Constitution
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

3 (1950)

Miss Carney: The leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr.
Broadbent) is claiming a victory in the area of natural
resources. Let me remind hon. members what the government
House leader in the other place, Senator Ray Perrault,
describes as victory by the New Democratic Party. Referring
to the letter from the leader of the liberal democratic party to
his House leader on the opposition benches, Senator Perrault
says:

It is a reconfirmation. It is a restatement of a right which is already enjoyed by
the provinces.

Reconfirmation. Restatement. In fact, it is not even that. I
would ask the hon. member for Oshawa, if he owned a gold
mine, would he willingly exchange that ownership for the right
to manage it? Or, if he owned the rights to an oil well, would
he willingly exchange his certificate of ownership for a licence
to control its use?

The NDP have managed to give away an ace card for a low
card. In fact the NDP have dealt themselves out of the game
and they might as well cash in their chips on this debate
because they have lost their credibility with the country.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Miss Carney: The liberal democrats have joined forces to
force changes which will completely alter the nature of
Canadian confederation. Among these changes will be the
establishment of second class status for British Columbia.

Let me establish for the record how that secondary status
will apply. In the amending formula proposed by the Liberals,
any changes to the constitution must have the approval of 80
per cent of the population. And any change must be approved
by a province that has, at the time the new constitution is
proclaimed, a population of at least 25 per cent of Canada as a
whole. Ontario has 35 per cent of the population. Quebec,
whose population is declining, has 26.5 per cent. But British
Columbia has only 10 per cent to 11 per cent. That means
Quebec and Ontario can always veto a change in the rules. But
B.C. will never have equal rights, nor will any western prov-
inces, nor will the Atlantic provinces. The right to set the
terms of our confederation will lie forever more with central
Canada, and central Canada only.

Our problem here, Mr. Speaker, is that there are two
prevailing views of the national interest. In the west we have
historically viewed our country as a nation from sea to sea to
northern sea. But hon. members across the floor of this House
have consistently defined the country in terms of their own
self-interest. They have defined Canada as being the equiva-
lent of central Canada. We, in the west, have never accepted
this limited role of Canada. Our concept encompasses the west
and the north and the Atlantic provinces. And only when the
interests of the regions can be satisfied can we honestly say in
this House that we have met the test of the national interest.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

4010

The Constitution

Miss Carney: This defining of Canada in terms of the
self-interest of central Canada is evident in our tariff policies
which protect eastern industries and limit the growth of west-
ern ones. It is evident in our transportation policies which
discriminate against western products. It is evident in the
concept, proposed by the Liberals, of mobility of labour.
Mobility of labour is attractive in a province such as Ontario
where 10,000 people recently applied for 1,000 jobs. But in
Vancouver mobility of labour means the migration of 4,000
people a month to British Columbia. Mobility of labour means
that every $85,000 house is selling for a quarter of a million
dollars. It means that British Columbians are being priced out
of a chance to own their own homes in their own cities.
Mobility of labour means that native Canadians who need the
time to learn the skills to participate in job opportunities which
are opening to them will be denied that right. The freedom to
move should at least be matched by their freedom to stay.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Miss Carney: This country was built on the mobility of
labour. We used to call it simply “going west”. One hundred
years ago, my own grandmother, Brigit Casey, left this very
valley, not 16 miles from here, to go west to homestead and to
ranch. She and her kinfolk, the Tierneys and the McKennas
and the O’Keefes, did not go west to build a second-class
province as the government proposes. And their kinswoman
did not return to this valley as the MP for Vancouver Centre
to enshrine in our Canadian Constitution a secondary role for
B.C. or for any province of Canada.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Miss Carney: Thiscountry was built on the mobility of
labour. It was also built on fairness. You cannot enshrine one
concept, the freedom to move, without enshrining equality.

I have said earlier that this government has defined the
national interest in its self-interest because it has been of
benefit for it to do so. But I do not understand why the
government thinks that we, in the west, would accept the
secondary role. B.C. joined confederation as a Crown colony,
in its own right, in 1871. At that time we had choices. But
British Columbians then, and now, felt that their interest was
in the wider concept of a great confederation.

It is interesting to reflect on the tensions which existed 100
years ago between British Columbia and the Liberal govern-
ment of the day. It is widely known that, as a condition of
confederation, British Columbia was promised a railway. It is
not so widely known thatthe Liberal government of the 1880s,
which succeeded the Conservative government of Sir John A.
Macdonald, tried to welsh on that promise. Instead of a
railroad, the Liberal government offered B.C. a miserly $750,-
000. The dispute over the railway and the threats of secession
resounded in both Victoria and here in Ottawa. The trouble
shooter, Lord Dufferin, was sent to mediate this dispute in
1876. He wrote to the Liberal prime minister at the time
saying:

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

At this moment British Columbia is possessed by a frenzied sense, however
unreasonable, of injury and wrong.

We still possess that injured sense of wrong.

We had in the 1880s a premier of B.C., and a member of
this House named Amor DeCosmos. The man who called
himself the lover of the world, loved the concept of Canada.
He led the movement to bring the Crown colony of British
Columbia into confederation. Yet, as he sat in this House as
an MP, he heard his province described as greedy in defending
its interests. The Hansard debates of the time record that Mr.
DeCosmos said that he had heard from time to time in this
House the grossest insults that had ever been offered to any
people cast on the people of British Columbia. He said that
B.C. had been charged with endeavouring to gain something
from this dominion without giving anything in return.

Therefore, 101 years ago, in the forty-second year of the
reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, during the first session
of the Fourth Parliament of the Dominion of Canada convened
on February 13, 1879, the Debates of the House of Commons
record at page 1079 the following:

MR. DECOSMOS: I move for leave to introduce a bill, entitled an act to
provide for the peaceful separation of British Columbia, seconded by any
gentleman opposite who thinks proper to second it.

The motion was not seconded.

I refer to this action of 100 years ago because the separatist
movement in B.C. is still alive. In a recent poll of my own
riding, 75 per cent of the respondents reported that western
separatism, in their view, had increased. As onerespondent
said, “I feel less Canadian”.

I refer to this bill today to remind the hon. gentlemen

opposite that should they wish to pursue a course which would

result in inequitable treatment for British Columbians, a bill

similar to that tabled by Amor DeCosmos will inevitably be
introduced in this House. I cannot predict when that will 7,
happen, but the constitution of a country is a living document. it
It enshrines the terms under which we have agreed to live 5;.
together. It determines our rights as human beings and our
rights to property, as well as our basic freedoms as Canadians.
The people of my province will begin to realize eventually that
this constitution which the federal regional Liberal govern-
ment seeks to impose on us will relegate British Columbians to
second rate citizenship. They will never accept it.

Let there be no misunderstanding. British Columbia will not
renounce Canada. Canada, as defined by the hon. members
opposite, will renounce us in- the west. And when they do so, if 0
they do so, there will be no referendum in British Columbia.
There will be no apprehended insurrection. If the Liberal
government seeks to bring in this constitution and force us to

accept a secondary role, we will just go our way.

(2000)

In closing, let me remind you that history is on our side. The
bill for the peaceful separation of B.C. was not passed. The

railway was built. And in this spirit of fairness and of equity,
we urge that the hon. members opposite reverse their present
determination to proceed with the destruction of this country;

October 23, I980

[ Translation]

Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak this evening for a few minutes about this important
question of the resolution before us, a resolution whose aim is
to refer to a joint committee of the House of Commons and
the Senate an aspect of the constitutional question, namely,
patriation of the constitution, an amending formula, the
entrenchment of fundamental rights, certain rights concerning
education and some minority language rights.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I must say that it is regrettable
that the Progressive Conservative Party decided from the very
first evening when this debate was launched, to make it a
“divisive” debate. They complain that it is a “divisive” debate,
a debate which gives rise to strange emotions in the country,
but we can wonder why they adopted such an attitude if they
were so frightened of having a “divisive” debate. And today we
are faced with a situation where the government, after almost
three weeks of debate I think–perhaps it is not exactly three
weeks, but if it isn’t, it is only a matter of one or two days—-
decided simply to refer this resolution to a committee.

I can understand that the Progressive Conservative Party
does not like some parts of the resolution. I can understand
that, on the basic question, there are some things with which
they disagree. This is clearly their right, and if feelings exist in
the country that are really opposed to certain basic elements of
this resolution, it is their duty to say so, but I wonder why they
should try to hide opposition to these questions, which are so
important to the country, behind a criticism of the procedure
that the government is following, without making any proposal
concerning what other kind of procedure they would like to
follow. I have heard everything and I have listened to the
debates, l have not read all of them in detail but I have read
many of them, and I have heard many. I. wonder therefore why
the Progressive Conservative Party could not come to the
committee and put forward another procedure, instead of
simply telling us that a resolution like this will give rise to
strong feeling in the country, which could be a divisive debate.
Unless of course they want to make sure that we will never
have what the resolution proposes. After all, it is important to
patriate the constitution. TheProgressive Conservatives tell us
that they would be willing to patriate it, and after that to have
an amending formula which some provinces agree would be
the Vancouver amending formula.

But not everybody in Canada agrees on this amending
formula. Who is to say that this fine amendment is the
absolute truth? It simply appeals to certain premiers who
would like to have the right of veto on certain questions in an
amending formula. Why should the solution suddenly have to
be the one these few premiers propose? And what would we do
then about the question of the entrenchment of rights?

Mr. Speaker, it is said that this resolution can break up

Canada. The previous speaker said it exactly, namely, that this
motion of closure should be withdrawn because it could break

COMMONS DEBATES

4011

The Constitution

up Canada. We are told about threats of western separatism.
Mr. Speaker, in this situation we have to decide. As a Canadi-
an, and as a member of Parliament, I cannot debate a question
with Canadian members of Parliament—not provincial mem-
bers but federal members-~who tell me: “Be careful what you
propose, be careful how you vote, be careful what you do,
because the people I represent will perhaps want to separate.”
I cannot accept this blackmail, Mr. Speaker.

I have never accepted it. Where I come from, among
Acadians, we have people who are a kind of separatist, they
want an Acadian province. I have never come to the House to
tell Anglophones, when dealing with linguistic or cultural
issues, “Give us what we ask for because we are afraid of the
separatists!” On the contrary, I have decided to opt for an
attitude of political moderation, and I do not come here to tell
people, “You had better give us what we want because we are
going to separate.” Therefore, I say to my colleagues from the
west, whatever their party, that there may well be feelings of
separatism in the west. But the people of the west will then
have to decide; either they want to belong to Canada or they
don’t. But they had better not come and blackmail me like
this–

[English]
Mr. Blenkarn: You will probably fight against the country
too and you will throw them out.

Mr. Breau: I do not know what the hon. member is referring
to. I am saying that I cannot debate any question, including
the constitution, if a federal MP is going to tell me that I had
better be careful what I propose and had better accept what he
wants because, if not, his region may separate. Those MP3
may be expressing something that is correct, but they have to
make up their minds whether they are going to fight for the
country in their region or not.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Breau: When I fight a Canadian separatist in my
province—-

Mr. Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member knows there are certain courtesies in the House. One
of those has to do with a member who has just made his or her
maiden speech. At the best of times a member of Parliament
should not misrepresent the positions put forward by another.
That is particularly so in the case of a first speech, as was the
case with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss
Carney), who said nothing of the kind that is being attributed
to her by the hon. member now speaking.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Breau: Mr. Speaker, I am not referring at all to the
hon. member who just spoke. I am referring to a sentiment
which even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark)
expressed in his speech a few hours ago. I am not referring to
that hon. member at all. I did not know that it was her maiden

4012

The Constitution

speech, and if anybody takes it that way, I am not referring to
her at all.

9 (2010)

In any event, even if it was not her maiden speech, I would
not discuss this question attributing something to one member
in particular. I could have referred to the Leader of the
Opposition, and I did not. I am just suggesting that on these
kinds of emotional issues hon. members might be expressing
something which exists out there, but they on their own are
going to have to decide in their regions if they are going to
fight for Canada or not, because when I fight separatism in my
province I do not come here and blackmail anybody and say,
“You had better give me linguistic rights or my region might
become separatist”. That is not what I say. I fight them—-

[ Translation]

I oppose those people by saying that they are too narrow-
minded. I say to them that we are Canadians and we are going
to remain Canadians. That is what we say. Mr. Speaker, I
have great respect for the feelings of the people who have
spoken from all parts of the country on the constitutional
question and not only on the resolution. Important things are
going to happen in the coming months and in coming years. As
the Parliament of Canada, we are going to have to decide if in
future we are really going to have a federal government and
whether it will have power or not. When westerners speak
about the constitution, I think they are touching on a question
which deals not only with the resolution before us but also with
those constitutional questions, the questions of powers, which
go much deeper.

But, Mr. Speaker, even there, in dealing with questions of
energy, I have tried for a long time to understand what were
the aspirations of the west. About the energy question for
example, it will have to be decided that it is not only a matter
of agreeing on price levels but also on which government will
have the power. Some people, some political representatives
from western Canada, especially at the provincial level, say,
“Well, we cannot be sure that the federal government is going
to be able to have a good energy development policy in the
future.” Mr. Speaker, we cannot agree as a political basis for
this country, as a constitutional basis, to discuss the distribu-
tion of powers among the governments, to discuss the country’s
future on that basis. We cannot start saying because the
federal government has more members from one region of the
country than from another, that we will not be able to rely on
the federal government to act in the interest of all Canadians.
Here again, people are going to have todecide. I cannot debate
these questions of powers in the context of energy, or in the
area of the constitution, if people tell me, “Listen, you are
doing things that will perhaps give rise to separatism in the
west.” If this gives rise to separatist sentiment, the sole
salvation for the country will be if westerners combat this
sentiment, as my party has combated separatism in Quebec,
and as I combat separatism in my province. I have not asked

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

westerners, I have not asked people from Ontario or people
from Quebec to come and combat the separatist element in my
province. We are doing that ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, I wish the Progressive Conservative Party had
decided to make this debate one which did not give rise to
these divisions. It had the chance to do so. It could have made
this a positive debate, without delaying three weeks on a
simple resolution to refer something to committee. It could
have made positive recommendations as, for example, on the
question of a referendum, in the event of a lack of agreement
between the provincial and federal levels, to consult the people
directly in this area. What would they do when the situation
was so inflexible that the federal government and the govern-
ment of all the provinces could not agree on the amendment to
the constitution? A means is being proposed. I must say that I
myself do not necessarily like all these means, I do not say that
all these procedures are those that I would necessarily prefer,
but I am not alone in this House. The members of the
Progressive Conservative Party are not alone either. If we want
to solve the problems of this country by trying to have consti-
tutional reform, it is going to be necessary to decide some time
to patriate our constitution. Once we patriate it, we must agree
on a process for changing it. But why is it that every time the
Progressive Conservative Party–

[English] I
Mr. Blenkarn: Why did you vote against it, then?

Mr. Breau: The hon. member should listen to me; then he
would understand.
[Translation]

Whenever the Liberal party, or the Prime Minister, put
forward a means of changing the constitution, the country is
suddenly divided. However, I have heard many of their mem-
bers speak about different views of Canada. But why? How is
it that the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau), the
Prime Minister of this country, who has clearly explained this
to Canadians and to Quebeckers on several occasions, because

he represents those views. I can understand that the mentalities

of all the people who know Canadian law or who discuss
constitutional policy are not the same. We have different
pasts, we have different kinds of education, we are not
identical in Canada. It is they who preach diversity. But
do those gentlement in the Progressive Conservative Pa-rty
realize that whenever they oppose the Prime Minister’s pro-
posals for constitutional change, they immediately say, “Ah!
you are going to break up Canada?” Do they not appreciate
the fact that what is happening is that they are maybe
opposing a mentality or a way of wanting to change things in
Canada— When we see people for instance who criticize the

fact that the Prime Minister wants to codify things too much

in the constitution?
But, Mr. Speaker, those questions in Canada, in discussions

of constitutional law, are not monolithic. It is true that some

October 23, I980

publicists or other people propose to change things in this area.
Can they not realize that they are systematically opposing
those mentalities or those ways of changing things, for exam-
ple the entrenchment of language rights, which are things that
many Canadians want? When we speak of entrenching in a
constitution language rights or educational rights, there are
things that some people of different backgrounds like to see in
their legal documents, in their constitutional documents.
People may hold different opinions about the means of doing
this, but at some time these questions will have to be recon-
ciled. And I hope that the Progressive Conservative Party will
go before the joint committee to make positive proposals to
improve the resolution, if they really want to improve it, But,
Mr. Speaker, the country must move on these questions. In the
resolution or in the constitutional proposal, for Acadians there
are clearly things missing.

I said earlier that as far as the procedures and some of the
things that are being proposed are concerned, if I were doing
it, I would perhaps do it differently. But in a debate like this,
Mr. Speaker, we must reconcile our ideas. We are sometimes
going to have to find precisely what is the common ground on
which we can move. Moreover, I would like to see many other
things in this resolution. For example, it does not contain the
institutionalization of bilingualism in New Brunswick. Why?
It is because the federal government, contrary to what the
members of the opposition say, has not wished to hamper the
rights of the provinces.

We have said that this would be kept to a strict minimum
for educational rights. Is there a member in the House who
can honestly say that it is possible to respond to the aspirations
of Francophones in this country without at least entrenching in
the constitution their right to an education in their language?
What can we say of those fine people who throughout the
debate on Bill 101, asked the federal government to intercede
in the Supreme Court of Canada? I myself heard the Leader
of the opposition stand up in the House and ask the govern-
ment to oppose Bill 101 before the Supreme Court of Canada.
In this draft resolution we are doing something which runs
directly counter to the spirit of Bill 101, precisely to give the
Anglophone minority of Quebec and the Francophone minori-
ties in the other provinces the right to an education in their
language.

9 (2020)

[English]
Mr. Blenkarn: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a
question? It involves a matter which is material to what he is

saying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member
accept a question?

Mr. Breau: I will, at the end of my speech, Mr. Speaker.

COMMONS DEBATES

4013

The Constitution

[ Translation]

So this resolution contains the minimum. As an Acadian, I
would prefer to see the institutionalization of bilingualism in
the provincial services of my province. The Premier of New
Brunswick has repeated on several occasions that he would be
willing to do this. I therefore wonder why, then, he does not
convene the legislative assembly of New Brunswick and pass a
resolution in accordance with which he could ask the federal
Parliament to include the entrenchment of provincial language
rights in this resolution, to ensure more or less what is con-
tained in the present section 133 which is going to apply to
Quebec and Manitoba? It could apply to New Brunswick. I
would, therefore, like the Premier of New Brunswick to con-
vene the legislative assembly and pass a resolution. I am
convinced that the debate would not be very long, because he
says his party would agree. The Liberal party would certainly
agree in New Brunswick, and it would then be possible to
incorporate the entrenchment of language rights for New
Brunswick in this resolution, which would include, moreover,
educational rights, and this is important for us as an insurance
policy. This would not give us anything new right away,
because educational rights have been obtained politically.
There are still things to do. Clearly, there are some Anglo-
phone cities in New Brunswick which have a large Franco-
phone minority and which still do not offer an education in
French. But if the Premier of New Brunswick wanted to, it
would be possible to pass a resolution in the legislative
assembly which would institutionalize services in French and
in English in New Brunswick and to incorporate that in this
resolution.

I will end on this note, Mr. Speaker. The reason why this is
not done is precisely to avoid doing what the Progressive
Conservatives accuse us of. In this resolution, the strict mini-
mum for hampering provincial rights deals with educational
rights. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that in the hours that follow-~

[English]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Wellington-
Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty).

Mr. Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I have a question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Mississauga
South (Mr. Blenkarn) wishes to ask a question. I wish to point
out that the time allotted to the hon. member for Gloucester
(Mr. Breau) has expired, and the hon. member for Missis-
sauga South can only ask a question with the unanimous
consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.
Some hon. Members: No.

Mr. Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I believe there was unanimous
consent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair heard some noes. The hon.
member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe.

4014

The Constitution

Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr.
Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I want to say how
moving it was to be here in the House of Commons to hear the
maiden speech made by my colleague, the hon. member for
Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), this evening. It should have
been a moment of great joy, a tremendous opportunity and a
great pleasure to be able to make her first remarks in debate
as a member of the House of Commons, just as for so many of
us it should have been a period of happiness because, one week
from this evening, a number of us, including my leader, myself
and my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp),
our spokesman for federal-provincial relations, will be cele-
brating some eight years as members of the House of Com-
mons. So one would have expected that this would have been a
happy occasion for us. Instead, it represents for so many of us
the saddest days of our parliamentary career.

What we see today is a decision that Parliament be gagged,
that this institution, which we joined with so much pride eight
years ago, and which my colleague from Vancouver Centre
joined so recently, is to be rendered impotent by the govern-
ment majority.

Already earlier today a vote was taken to say that on the
most profound, essential and central matter facing the country
today, the unity of Canada, our very survival as a country,
Parliament is to be silenced. The Liberal members voted one
after another, without dissent, to silence Parliament.

Yesterday when the President of the Privy Council (Mr.
Pinard) gave notice of his intention to move that closure be put
into place, he did so after 24 hours of debate in this House of
Commons on this resolution; he did so after, out of 145
Liberals, 22 had spoken; he did so after only 19 of the
Progressive Conservatives, out of 102, had spoken, leaving 83
who had not been heard; and he did so after 5 members of the
NDP had spoken out of a total of 32, leaving 27 who had not.

This will be the fourth time in the last 25 years in which this
rule has been invoked to gag Parliament. Let us take a look at
those three other times. It was done once in 1969 when the
government decided that they wanted to change the rules of
Parliament, so they invoked closure to do that. They did so
after the recommendations of the standing committee on par-
liamentary reform had been tabled in June of 1968, and they
were debated until December, 1968, because the opposition
objected to rule 75C which would allow the government to
limit debate on each stage of a bill without agreement from
any other party. The matter was referred back to the commit-
tee in December of 1968, and it was retabled in the House on
June 20, 1969, and debated until closure was invoked on July
24. That was the last time that this rule was used, but you can
see at least the extent to which Parliament was given an
opportunity to be heard before the Liberal government moved.

When was the previous time? It was in 1964 in the flag
debate. Again the Liberal government voted to prevent Parlia-
ment from speaking any further. The flag debate was begun on
June 15, 1964, and concluded on December 15, 1964, several
months later. When the debate ended in December, every
Conservative MP, except for two, had spoken at least once,

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

three had spoken five times, seven had spoken four times, and
nineteen had spoken three times. In all, 92 Conservatives made
195 speeches during the debate. At that time 34 Liberals spoke
41 times, 10 NDP members made l7 speeches, eight Social
Credit MP3 delivered 12 speeches, and six Créditiste members
spoke 13 times.

The Liberals on that occasion moved to prevent Parliament
from debating the matter further, but you can get some idea,
Mr. Speaker, of what they thought in the mid-1960s about
limiting Parliament’s right to speak. At least members had had
a chance to be heard. We objected to the imposition of closure,
but at least on that occasion members had a chance to be
heard.

When was the first time in the past 25 years that closure
was invoked? It was in the pipeline debate which started on
May 17, 1956, and ended on June 5, 1956, on Black Friday, as
you will remember, Mr. Speaker. It lasted 15 House days from
the day when the bill was introduced until closure. Yesterday,
after 24 hours of debate on the constitution of this country, on
the national future of this country, the President of the Privy
Council announced that he was moving to gag Parliament. The
country was outraged in 1956, on Black Friday, when the
Liberal government of the day moved to gag Parliament after
15 sitting days, and indeed that government was defeated at
the next election. And yet today the government moves after
24 hours of debate in the House on the most fundamental law
of the land.

I listened earlier this evening as the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) complained about the
acrimony in this debate. He said that there was too much
anger and he said he hoped that later this evening members of
this House would agree to allow this matter to go to committee
without even a recorded vote. He said that he hoped we would
ask the committee of the House, where this bill will be sent, to
deal with the matter in a spirit of good will. If anger is not jus-
tified when members of the House of Commons find their most
fundamental right and responsibility taken away from them,
ruthlessly denied by the government majority, when would the
hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre feel it was justified?

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Q (2030)

Mr. Beatty: As someone seen by Canadians from coast to

coast as the prime defender of Parliament, when would he feel
it was justified to be angry? If there is no justification in being
angry tonight, when Canadians with very deep feelings about
the country see its future being threatened by the action of the
government, when would anger be justifield? When would the
hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre feel it was appropri-
ate that we stand up and be counted, that there be a vote, that
it not be sent to committee without a vote?

I have compared the decision to invoke closure in this debate
with the experience of the past. I have indicated my abhor-
rence and the abhorrence of members on this side at the
gagging of Parliament. Today in Question Period my leader,

House leader, and leach asked questions of the Prime
Minister (Mr. Trudeau), if at least he would not be prepared
to allow thecommittee proceedings to be opened to the people

of Canada, so that they could see it on nationwide television
and hear it on radio. We asked for the support of the Prime
Minister of Canada.

If Parliament was to be denied the opportunity to speak

further on second reading, if it was to be sidetracked into a
committee, could the committee proceedings at least be tele-
vised and opened. to the people of Canada? The Prime Minis-
ter of Canada refused. He said that he would not take a

in position in favour of opening up the committee proceedings to
the people of Canada. Why not? I think Canadians are
entitled to know why the Prime Minister,who has not both-
ered to be in the House this afternoon while this debate was
taking place after he invoked closure, felt he was not prepared
to put his support behind opening up the proceedings of the
committee so that Canadian could see it.

Perhaps one indication comes from the infamous August 30

Privy Council office memo marked, “For Ministers’, Eyes
Only”. I refer to page 49 which reads in part as follows:

A highly contentious measure may be best contained in a committee where it is
more readily managed by the House leader and his officers, and where easier
and more effective relations can be maintained with the press gallery, since

relatively few reporters will follow the proceedings.

Why? It wants to manage the news and to manipulate
public opinion.
Members on this side of the House would be interested in
seeing which government members will be on the committee

when it is finally struck. The next page of the memo of the
Privy Council office deals with the makeup of the committee.
It would be useful for Liberal members in the House tonight
who voted to gag Parliament earlier today to know what their
leadership is expecting of them on this committee. Page 50

reads as follows:

In committee the government’s position is likely to suffer. Attackers would be
louder and more numerous than defenders. Careful choice of government
members would be essential, and careful orchestration of hearings would be
needed to ensure effective presentation of the government’s position.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated
earlier that he expected the committee to act in good faith,
without a spirit of acrimony. He asked us to trust the govern-
ment. On what basis does the government present itself as
worthy of our trust? On what basis does theihon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre, and the silent members sitting behind

him, agree to go along with this denigration of Parliament and

with this measure which attacks the basic rights of members of
Parliament and inflicts damage upon the country? What was
it worth? What did they receive in the exchange to agree to

vote with the government on the basis of the assurance that the

provinces would have what they have today, or perhaps less in
the case of resources? What was it worth to the government?

Why was the government so anxious when it has a majority
in the House of Commons and can get its way any day it
wants? Why was it essential that members of the NDP
support them? It is a fair question. It is because the govern-

COMMONS DEBATES

4015

The Constitution

ment has no base of support in western Canada, the New
Democratic Party has largely been reduced to its western base,
and according to government spokesmen quoted in the press, it
would be useful to have western spokesmen defending what the
government is doing to western Canada in this package.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that he
was «proud of his leader for the deal he struck. Will he be
proud next week? Will the constituents of the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre be proud next Tuesday when the
government unveils the second aspect of its proposals, its
energy proposal? Energy is inextricably linked in the context
of today’s Canada with the wholeconstitutional debate. What
can we expect? Can we expect the good will, compromise, and
good spirit requested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North
Centre, or can we expect to see more of the same–more
attacks, more attempts by the government to pit region against
region, Canadian against Canadian to divide us?

Again the document of the Privy Council office gives us
some idea of what to expect next Tuesday night when the
Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) unveils his energy
package? It explained why it was essential the government
rush this package through the House and what impediments
could be put in the way of speedy passage. Page 43 reads in
part as follows:

The political climate in Canada is likely to be poisoned by a major energy
conflict throughout the fall of this year and at least the early months of next
year.

How will members of the NDP explain their support to their
constituents after next Tuesday?

I listened as the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party
(Mr. Broadbent) said on radio that he was deeply disturbed by
what the government had done in invoking closure. He thought
it was wrong. It is not credible to effect a pose of injured
innocence when one has been living in a condition of public
promiscuity.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Beatty: No one will believe it. So, we stand alone. Later
this evening members of the NDP will vote with their friends
in the government to move this matter into committee, not-
withstanding the deep-felt concerns of many of them and the
concerns of their constituents. I am prepared to stand alone.
Let it be recorded when the history of these events is written
that the Progressive Conservative Party was prepared to stand
for the conception of Canada we inherited, that we must be a
federal system, that this country must be built on more than
one man’s vision, that it belongs to 22 million Canadians. We
have a tradition and a heritage we inherited from our forefa-

thers and hold in trust for our children. Grievous damage is

done to our country when one man, with his acquiescent
majority, chooses to impose his will on the rest of Canada. We
stand alone but we stand proudly alone and we are not
ashamed of it.

The government argues it is essential that action be taken
precipitately and immediately because, according to the Prime
Minister, it is a national disgrace that our constitution resides

4016

The Constitution

in Westminster today. He said that we are colonials. Accord-
ing to him, the fact that we have had the same constitution for
113 years is proof that we failed; it is proof of constitutional
failure. The fact our constitution has lasted for ll3.years
despite all assaults is proof of how magnificently this country
has succeeded, how well the constitution was written by the
Fathers of Confederation 113 years ago. Yes, it is in need of
modernization. No one opposes that. Let us modernize it here
in Canada. Yes, we favour bringing the constitution to
Canada. Let us do that. My leader moved a motion yesterday
which indicated that we should move immediately to bring the
constitution home and make the changes here in Canada, not
in Westminster.

If the Prime Minister were here tonight I would ask him to
answer one question. If it is a national disgrace, if we have to
hang our heads in shame because amendments are made by
Westminster and it is urgent that we take precipitous action,
why is it acceptable for him to ask Westminster to legislate his
proposed major package instead of it being done here in the
House of Commons? Where is the logic? How can it be a
disgrace in one instance but not a disgrace if Westminster is
doing his bidding?

In the proposals before the House tonight the Prime Minis-
ter is proposing two amending formulae. One is unanimous
agreement and the second is the Victoria formula, neither of
which would have enabled him to change the constitution in
the form he is proposing tonight. He is saying that we will go
back to Westminster one more time, we will go through this
degrading routine about which he is complaining. We will ask
Westminster to make the changes and then we will not allow
anyone else to do the same thing ever again because it is
degrading. How can members of this House with integrity not
be angered by that? How can they not feel deeply that a
grievous injustice is being done to our country?

Q (2040)

We have heard members on the other side accuse us of
giving encouragement to those who would destroy the country.
We abhor the use of closure in this debate because of our deep
commitment to this country, because we feel profoundly that
this country must not be damaged through the actions of one
man, that Canadians have a right to be heard on this motion
and that the representatives of Canadians have a right to be
heard, not gagged.

We rise tonight to speak because we think it is essential that
changes be made in Canada to our constitution, but not by a
foreign country. We rise tonight because we believe it is
essential that this country go forward with constitutional
change on the basis of good will and compromise. If the Prime
Minister attempts to justify what he is doing to the country
tonight on the grounds of its being essential to promote unity
let me ask members of this House to give an honest answer to
this question: is Canada more united tonight as a result of the
actions of the Prime Minister and his colleagues, or is it more
divided?

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

Mr. Beatty: What the government has attempted to do in
trying to impose one man’s opinion on this country, to reshape
Canada along the visions of one man, it is to divide Canadians,
to pit region against region. We will see more of that next
Tuesday night when the energy package is unveiled.

But members of this party, which is the party of confedera-
tion, the party of Sir John A. Macdonald, stand now and we
will stand at one o’clock tomorrow morning, to vote to say that
we believe Canada is more than one man’s vision and that it is
essential that action not be taken by this Prime Minister which
will lead to grievous damage to this country, which we all feel
so deeply about.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minis-
ter of Regional Economic Expansion): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me this evening to be able to speak to the
proposed resolution on the Canadian Constitution and the
amendment of the constitution, which is before the House at
this time. The government has moved in this direction to bring

back the constitution, to put this proposed resolution before

the House, to undo a road block which has prohibited constitu-
tional reform for 53 years in this country. The federal pro-
posal, if adopted by both Houses of Parliament, will bring the
constitution home with a Canadian charter of rights and
freedoms. It will, within two years’ time, allow this country to

amend the constitution with the co-operation of the provinces
and Parliament. If it cannot be agreed to in that period of
time, then another amending formula must be reached, either
with the approval of Parliament and the legislatures or the ,
approval of the Canadian citizens, a majority of the voters in

each region in the four regions of Canada.

When this matter was put before the House we anticipated
disagreement, but I did not think for a moment we anticipated
the unpredictable response which has come forward from

members opposite, and from the provinces in this country. The

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has stated that we

should take this matter to the Supreme Court as’a test case. In
fact seven of the premiers of this country are going to do just

that, they are going to take this question before the Supreme

Court.

Of those seven premiers, who are we dealing with here?
First of all we are dealing with Premier René Lévesque of the
province of Quebec, who is criticizing the federal government 5,
for moving unilaterally when, only six months ago, he moved
unilaterally to try to take one of the provinces out of
confederation.

Who are we dealing with but Premier Sterling Lyon
Manitoba? He also wants this put forward as a test case. This
is the man who, less than a month ago, did not want to see a

charter of rights and freedoms included in the constitution
because he said it would give the judiciary primacy over the

elected legislatures.

Who are we dealing with but Premier Brian Peckford of
Newfoundland? It was he who, when it was suggested by the
Prime Minister he take his claim for control over offshore

23, 1980

“resources to the Supreme Court, stated that this was a political
matter and not a legal matter. I suggest to Premier Peckford

and to members opposite that there is not a more political

matter than the question we are dealing with at the present

time. They are prepared to take this matter to the Supreme
Court, using as a precedent the Supreme Court’s decision in
l979 against a proposed change in the selection process of the
Senate about which the Supreme Court ruled on Bill C-60.
This would have given the provinces some power of selection
over senators. It prohibited such authority. It prohibited, over-
ruled and struck out Parliament’s right. It overruled Parlia-
ment’s right to pass appropriate legislation, and said that
Parliament was acting contrary to section 91(1) of our present
constitution.

In this present situation we are not dealing with a Canadian

bill nor are we dealing with proposed legislation. We are

dealing with a proposed resolution and, as such, we are not

talking about Canadian legislation. We are proposing a resolu-

tions which will be taken to the British parliament asking them
to amend one of their own acts. Certainly, no one can suggest
that the Supreme Court of Canada would have control over an
act of the British parliament. But other than the legal ques-
tions–

An hon. Member: We knew that.

, Mr. MacLellan: Thank you, I knew you would. Other than
the legal question there is a political question, which is so very
important to the premiers who are now advocating taking this
test case to the Supreme Court. I suggest the provinces’
position in forcing this question on the Supreme Court of
Canada will not only damage. the credibility and the influence
of the Supreme Court but will be damaging as a direct result
to all of Canada. ‘

Mr. Kempling: What a weak argument!

Mr. MacLellan: To push this on the Supreme Court would,
in fact, be the same situation as existed in the United States in
1856 when the Dred Scott case was presented to the U.S.
Supreme Court for political purposes only. It was 40 years
later–not until the case of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896-
before the Supreme Court regained any kind of authority and
any kind of reputation in constitutional matters. This is a
situation where the provinces are asking the Supreme Court to
do their work for them, to make a political decision and to
make that political decision in a situation that is very emotion-
ally strung. If the Supreme Court does do this they could be
looked upon by large segments of this country as the villains. I
do not feel that the Supreme Court should be put in this
position.

As to the question of whether this proposed resolution is

necessary, I say that it is, particularly with regard to the
charter of rights and freedoms. We need not look any further
than the mobility rights provision. What can be more funda-
mental and necessary to this country than this fundamental
right to move and to take up residence in any province and to

COMMONS DEBATES

4017

The Constitution

seek a livelihood there without discrimination based on provin-
cial boundaries? Yet this right is being threatened by these
very same provinces. They are placing their desire for power
above the welfare of the citizens of this country.

For example, Quebec has banned approximately 3,000 east-
ern Ontario construction workers from working in that prov-
ince. The province of Newfoundland has made out a registry
of workers in the offshore oil industry so that they can give
priority to Newfoundlanders. The province of Nova Scotia has
passed a petroleum resources act whereby the government can
step in and regulate who will be given jobs in the offshore oil
and gas industry of that province. It is incredible that such a
thing could happen in this country.

At a time when the provinces should be working closer
together to solve the problems of this country, they are driving
wedges betweenthemselves. It seems that the only thing which
the provinces seem to have in common is the fact that, in their
disagreement amongst themselves, they see the strength of the
federal government as a threat to their desires for more power
and authority. It is all to the detriment of the country as a
whole.

It is not this proposed resolution which is a danger to this
country, but the attempt by the provinces to balkanize this
country. We cannot allow the commerce of this country to be
severely handicapped by the restrictive practices being put
forward by the provinces. For example, the Alberta Petroleum
Marketing Commission will not put the Ontario-based com-
pany, Petrosar, on their list of approved purchasers. New-
foundland cannot export its electricity to the United States
through Quebec. The province of British Columbia is giving 10
per cent preference to purchasers and suppliers within the
province, while giving other provinces only a marginal advan-
tage over foreign suppliers. This will not make for a strong
Canada, nor is it the Canada which people envisioned at the
time of confederation.

I would like to comment on a couple of other provisions
which are very important to me as a member of the Atlantic
region. They deal with the provisions of equalization and
regional disparity. We have heard the term equalization used
numerous times in this debate. It is a term which has been very
much maligned. It has been said that equalization should
mean equalization payments. To do that would feed the para-
noiac tendencies of the provinces. The term equalization is
much more than equalization payments. Equalization pay-
ments refer to the services which are provided by the
provinces.

There is such a large federal package which is owing and
which should be forthcoming to the people of Canada in the
form of equal shares. Transportation, pensions, and disability
compensation are areas of assistance in which a country of this
nature and this wealth should be able to give to its citizens as a
right.

I would also like to refer to section l(c) which refers to the
providing of essential public services of a reasonable quality to
all Canadians. Anyone who would say that such a section is
not necessary should, I suggest, look at the present practices of

4018

The Constitution

CN and its subsidiaries, such as Canadian National Express,
which provide services in this country that are inferior to the
services which they provided 40 years ago. _How will the
regions of Canada outside the major metropolitan areas be
protected in their expectation of better services from such a
company unless it is put in the constitution as a right?
Obviously, the right does not exist at the present time. With
regard to regional disparity, almost every region of this coun-
try at one time or another has been or can expect to be
economically inferior to another region. Prosperity is a very
fleeting thing. It will not remain in any one area indefinitely.

I do not say that prosperous areas should not look to and
work for the time when they will be less prosperous. I have no
objection to the fact that some areas of this country are more
prosperous than others. All I am saying is that this prosperity
should not interfere with the attaining of regional economic
sufficiency by other regions of this country. It is very impor-
tant to me, as a member from Atlantic Canada, that this
matter be foremost in the thinking of any constitution by
any government. No region, least of all Atlantic Canada, is
looking for a handout. All any area is looking for, I am sure, is
an investment in its future. That is certainly the position of
Atlantic Canada.

Areas which are not as fortunate economically as others can
experience difficult times, not only the infrastructure of the
community, but the individuals of these communities. In a
community which has fallen upon economic hardship and
which is declining, it is the people who suffer. These people
have worked all their lives through the depression and the wars
up to the present, and they are not able to work any more due
to the fact that they are aged, they suffer from ill health, or
the area in which they live is economically depressed.

Many of these people do not have the wherewithal to recoup
the savings which they lost and to regain their self-sufficiency.
They may have spent most of their lives paying the mortgages
on their houses, building up a small savings account, and
collecting a few other things. In times of economic stress their
homes are worth considerably less. I think it is important that
we be mindful of this situation. When we talk about the
building up of monetary reserves, personal fortunes, and de-
veloping economic potential, we must not forget the people
who have already worked and who have attained savings. They
have not accumulated fortunes, but it is that money upon
which they have come to rely.

When talking about the fortunes and money that will be
accumulated in the future in this country, let us not forget the
money and the fortunes which have already been accumulated
and upon which many people in this country depend.

Mr. MacKay: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member accept a
question?

Mr. MacLeIlan: Yes.

Mr. MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon.
member whether he is going on record at this time as a
member from Atlantic Canada as saying that the proposal that

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

we are debating tonight will really improve the economic
prosperity, the freedom of the Atlantic region, its resource
base, and its hope for the future? Is that what the hon.
member is telling the House?

Mr. MacLellan: Yes I am.
. (2100)

Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, the entrenchment of a charter of human rights and
freedoms in the Canadian constitution is, in my view, and in
the view of the New Democratic Party, essential. I. also
applaud the initiative taken by my leader to have the provin-
cial ownership and control of natural resources entrenched in
the constitution.

Mr. Blen-karn: They are already there.

Miss Jewett: I am so glad the hon. member intervened, Mr.
Speaker, because the Premier of British Columbia, Bill Ben-
nett, has been saying for the last several years that the New
Democratic Party, federally and provincially, intended to take
away such protections as now exist of provincial ownership
resources. He went all over the province saying that the NDP
was going to take away such protection as existed of provincial
control of resources. But now, when the New Democratic
Party will not only not take away what has been there but has
taken the initiative to ensure that provincial ownership
control of these resources is entrenched, and therefore funda-
mentally safeguarded, the Premier of British Columbia does
not know what to say. Indeed, on this score the Premier of
British Columbia passes all understanding.

An hon. Member: Like the NDP.

Miss Jewett: Furthermore, the suggestion made earlier
tonight by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss
Carney) that somehow or other a particular amending for
mula, the Victoria formula, and not any other such as the
Vancouver consensus, might damage British Columbia is, it
seems to me, entirely erroneous.

In the first place, for the first two years after the constitu
tion is patriated, there must be unanimity for any amendment
to take place, and unanimity includes British Columbia.

In the second place, the Vancouver formula that the Con
servative party seems so fond of, would not necessarily favour
and, indeed, could abolish, some of British Columbia’s most
important or cherished interests if pursued by other provinces
in a direction that B.C. did not find desirable.

I gather that the premier is now slowing down a bit and
realizes that what is before this House, so far as it concerns
British Columbia, is of benefit.

As we all know, however, and as has been spoken of many
times, there are deficiencies in this proposed resolution one of
which affects a group comprising 52 per cent of the population
right across this country. The most alarming deficiency in the
resolution and the one I want to talk about tonight and make

October 23, 1980

specific recommendations on, is the absence of any guarantee
or even mention of women’s human right to equality.

The absence of any mention of women’s human right to
1 equality in the proposed charter of rights and freedoms was
brought to the attention of the government as long ago as
midsummer in an excellent paper written by Professor Bever-
ley Baines of the law school at Queen’s University, which is 67
pages long, and in another paper prepared by Mary Eberts, a
distinguished constitutional lawyer in Toronto, and in a
number of shorter papers prepared for the conference on
women and the Canadian Constitution that the Canadian
Advisory Council on the Status of Women had scheduled but
which, unfortunately, could not be held, for the first weekend
in September.

I The government has lots of opportunity to know why its
proposed section 15, ridiculously named non-discrimination
rights, was of no benefit to women. Yet the government did
nothing. ‘

An hon. Member: Shame.

Miss Jewett: The minister responsible for the status of
women does not yet know that there is a problem and the
government lawyers–who unfortunately are not the Beverley
Bainesand Mary Eberts of this world–

Mrs. Mitchell: Are all men.

Miss Jewett: That is true. Those who are preparing the
work on the constitution are all men. They do not understand
the problem either.

. Fortunately, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status
of Women, every one of them a patronage-appointed Grit, had
the guts a couple of weeks ago to stand up and say that, as far
as women are concerned, this package will not do. For the first
time in the many years that the Liberals have been appointing
people tothat council, they showed their independence.

Mr. Blenkarn: Are you going to vote for it?

Miss Jewett: I should like to put on record now an excerpt

from an October 8 press release issued by the Canadian
Advisory Council’ on the Status of Women, which reads as
follows:
Canadian women should know that their rights are not protected by the federal
government’s proposed charter of rights,’ said Doris Anderson, president of the
Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, at a press conference in
Ottawa today. Unless wording of the charter is revised to guarantee fundamen-
tal rights for women, they will continue to risk the kind of discrimination so
often experienced in the past.’

Clause 15(1) of the charter under discussion reads:

Everyone has the right to equality before the law and to the equal protection of
the law~-

This wording is inadequate because in every single case in
the 1970s when practically the same wording, which is con-
tained in the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights, was being interpreted
by the courts, the Supreme Court did not find that women

were equal in the law. The Supreme Court either interpreted

the “before thelaw” clause to mean “in the administration of

COMMONS DEBATES

4019

The Constitution

the law”, or else it tried to find some other principle which, in
effect, would deny women their equality.

The two most important cases, of course, are the 1973
decision in the Lavell and Bédard case where two Indian
women had lost their status because they married non-Indians.
As we all know, section l2(l)(b) of the Indian Act states that
Indian women who marry non-Indians lose all their claims as
Indians. This law does not apply to Indian men who marry
non-Indians. In that case the Supreme Court decided that the
words “before the law”, that now also appear in clause 15 of
this charter, only referred to the administration of the law and
not to the law, itself. In 1978 in the famous Bliss case, and
basically without going into the details of it because of short-
age of time, the court decided that no inequality was being
suffered by Stella Bliss in the non-payment of unemployment
insurance to her, because the law had resulted in a denial of
benefits only to some unemployed pregnant women and not to
all of them.

Unless the proposed charter is rewritten, these two decisions
will stand as precedents. Nor is it good enough to say, as I
understand some government advisers are saying, that once
these words are entrenched everything will be all right,
because the courts will then say, “it is entrenched now and we
have to handle it differently.” That is probably the most
ludicrous argument one could imagine. Once precedents are
established, courts very rarely change their interpretation.

More important, with the exception of one Supreme Court
Justice, at no time have the courts felt that the Canadian Bill
of Rights could not overrule other statutes. In all these cases,
all justices, with one exception, treated the Canadian Bill of
Rights, the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights, as though it were
entrenched. In this connection, the famous Drybones case has
never been overturned. Thank goodness, we now have bright
young women teaching constitutional law in the law schools of
Canada, who bring these facts to our attention.

.1 (2110)
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Miss Jewett: The same is true of the protection of the law
clause. The only change in section 15 from the Diefenbaker
Bill of Rights is the addition of the word “equal”. So it is now
equal protection of the law. That again will not be of very
much help, if indeed any help at all. It is a copying of
American terminology and a tendency to think highly of
American jurisprudence as far as the interpretation of equal
protection of the law is concerned. I think this is well taken if
one is looking at their interpretation of cases regarding race
inequality. But if we look at the interpretation of that clause as
far as sex inequality is concerned, we see that it is of no help
whatsoever to women.

I must say the Quebec charter of human rights is more
enlightened. It does not use the words “before the law” at all.
The phrase in French is “en pleine égalit锝.

Perhaps that is a phrase we should take into consideration
when we are revising the wording in committee.

4020

The Constitution

The courts have striven manfully to find some principle to
give-~

Mr. Knowles: That is the trouble.
Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Clark: We all make mistakes.

Miss Jewett: On the contrary, manfully, and I mean “man-
fully”. The courts have striven manfully to find some principle
to give substance the “before the law” clause. They have
developed five different principles. I mentioned one particular-
ly, the one saying that “before the law” meant in the adminis-
tration of the law we were equal. The courts have developed
four others. None of them is helpful to women. None promotes

a woman’s human right to equality. What the courts need and

desperately want is guidance. The message must be very clear
from this Parliament, and in the Constitution of Canada, that
to use the same words will do no good. A message must be
clearly given to the courts by the use of new, different and
stronger words, that from now on we do intend women to be
treated equally.

If I may, I would like to put on the record now proposed
wording. I am not a lawyer, and I have no doubt there are
deficiencies in this wording. However, I have made an attempt
at least to give expression to what I feel might be a clear
message to the Supreme Court and other courts, that what we
really want, in a positive and constructive way, is protection of
women’s full rights to equality.

I would begin by calling this section not non-discrimination
rights because that title refers only to the second subsection,
but rather call it the right to equality. By the way, I am now
referring to others who will be included in this section as hon.
members will hear in a moment.

I would like to see in the first subsection the following:

All persons, men and women alike, shall be equal in the law and before the law
without unreasonable distinction based on national or ethnic origin, age or
religion.

I stress “equal in the law.” I hope hon. members get my
point. “Before the law” has not given us equality. It must be
changed. “In the law” is a logical, clearcut change.

In the second subsection, and I hope other members will
agree, I would like to see the following:

Race, sex or other immutable characteristic shall never constitute a reasonable
basis for distinction except as provided in subsection 3.

The vital ones are “immutable characteristic”.

The third section I propose I have taken from the Human
Rights Act. I think the affirmative action in that act is the
best. My proposed third subsection would read:

Nothing in this charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to
authorize any program or activity that is designed to prevent disadvantages that
are likely to be suffered by, or to eliminate or reduce disadvantages that are
suffered by any group of individuals when those disadvantages would be based
on or related to race, sex or other immutable characteristic of those groups of
individuals.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

Miss Jewett: Finally, in my proposed section 15 I would like
to see words to the effect that:
Equality is” a positive goal to be sought, particularly for women and other

disadvantaged peoples, and that evening-up is a necessary process to the
achieving of equality.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Miss Jewett: I hope that all members of the House of
Commons, not just all of the women members, although I hope
all 14 of us will be together on this as much as we were a few
months ago in trying to move for the total equality of Indian
women, will join together to make substantive and fundamen-

tally important changes and totally restructure section 15 of

the proposed charter.

Unless we do this now, and I am anxious that we get to
committee to do it, we will be 100 years more before we get

these changes made.

Women in the United States have been fighting since 1924
to get an equal rights amendment in the American constitu-
tion. If we bring back the constitution with section 15 as it is
now, given the interpretation by the Supreme Court of
Canada, we will not, as women, genuinely be able to claim ,

equality in our society. The likelihood of all of the legislatures

getting together with the federal government and amending
that section after it has been brought back is somewhat

remote.
It is not good enough to say on this, and other vital issues,
that we will do it later. The time to do it is now.

Mr. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, since the lion. membenfor New
Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) has some time left,

would she permit a question?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would the hon. member for New
Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) accept a question from
the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North~Delta (Mr.

Friesen) ?

Miss Jewett: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member indicated, and I

agree with her, that the courts are not very good institutions”:
for reform, which is precisely the argument the head of the

Civil Liberties Association has made. Therefore, entrenchment
is not an enhancement to people’s rights. Why does the hon:

member plan to vote for entrenchment if this is a deterrent to
reform? If there are so many flaws in this proposal, why is it
such a civilized document? I

Miss Jewett: On the last point, to be quite frank, my
indictment includes all you guys, too. You have never reador
studied the wording of the proposed charter nor have
members on the government side. Most of you have never
really studied or read any of the cases wherein that wording

was interpreted detrimentally to women.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With all due respect to the hon.

member, her remarks should be addressed to the Chair.

October 23, 1980

3 (2120)

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Boekstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minis-
ter of Transport): Mr. Speaker, since the draft resolution was
tabled in the House we have been engaged in an historic
debate that will bring out the fundamental principles on which
our parliamentary and federal democratic institutions are
based. All during the constitutional talks of the debates in the
House, we have been accused by certain provincial premiers
and members of the opposition of seeking to destroy our
system of government. They have accused us of wanting to
reduce the powers of the provinces and increase those of the
federal government.

Now that we have tabled a motion for closure in order to
refer the resolution to a joint committee for further study, we
are being accused of abusing our parliamentary and democrat-
ic principles. I would ask how these same members of the
“opposition can oppose a resolution encompassing the funda-
mental principles on which the democratic values of our
parliamentary system and our federal institutions are based.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder how, in all good faith toward their
constituents, these elected representatives can oppose a resolu-
tion which would entrench in the Constitution the fundamental
rights and freedom to which every Canadian citizen is entitled.
And finally, Mr. Speaker, I wonder how these same repre-

-sentatives can deny those who elected them, their fellow

Canadians, the rights and freedoms associated with mobility,
of working wherever they wish in the country, the right to
instruction in their mother tongue, or any other right of
freedom belonging to them as citizens of a sovereign and
democratic federation.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Progressive Conservative
members are toying with the fundamental and individual
rights of Canadians. They are manipulating the resolution and
motion for closure for their own political good, with no respect
for the electorate or for the House. And then they accuse us of
wishing to cut off debate without giving them sufficient oppor-
tunity to express their opinion on the motion tabled in the
House on October 6.

Mr. Speaker, if in the two and a half weeks they have been
unable to mount an opposition to the motion tabled by the
Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien) it is because they did not
know how to, not because they had insufficient time. We on
this side of the House realize the importance of this resolution.
We have decided that it is time to refer this resolution to a
committee for further study. And that is why we have tabled a
motion for closure in the House. In deciding to invoke this
historic closure procedure, our purpose was not to cut off
debate but rather to studythis resolution more carefully in
committee and give the House a_n opportunity to turn its
attention to other pressing issues.

COMMONS DEBATES

4021

The Constitution
[English]
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus on some of the

comments which have been made over the course of the last
few months and in the constitutional debates in the House.

Throughout these talks and debates, we have heard cries
from certain provincial premiers, and from members opposite,
that the federal government is alienating western Canadians.
Just the other day, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)
openly stated in the House that western Canadians were
feeling deeply alienated. Well, I am a western Canadian. I
represent a riding in Manitoba which borders on the Provench-

er riding represented by my hon. friend opposite, and I certain-

ly do not sense that deep feeling of alienation.

Rather, I would suggest that some western Canadian
premiers who are not really speaking for the majority of their
citizens have been alienating themselves from their own
regions and from their own ridings.

I personally applaud our government for the concessions it
recently proposed in the way of resource control. I truthfully
believe that these concessions will be welcomed by western
Canadians and are much in line with what they have been
seeking for many years, in terms of guarantees.

The last decade has been one of prosperity for the western
Canadian provinces. Once almost entirely dependent on
agriculture, the prairie provinces have experienced new forms
of economic growth which have enabled them to diversify and
industrialize their economies around new resources. These new
developments have greatly changed the economic and political
balance of confederation in a way never yet experienced in our
history. This change should not lead us to western alienation,
an image members opposite are forever conjuring, but to a new
partnership between the regions and provinces in a unified
country. I believe this attitude should be welcomed by all
Canadians.

Because of the economic boom in western Canada, we as a
nation are today much stronger, much more able to cope with
international tensions such as those which prevail in the world
oil market. Just as the national policy of 1879 strengthened
our country and enabled us to counter external political and
economic encroachments, our newly-found wealth in hydrocar-
bon resources has, on the one hand, served to reaffirm this
union, and on the other, has led to a much better redistribution
of wealth throughout the country.

Interprovincial migration from eastern to western Canada
has been remarkable. I think that all westerners should wel-
come those fellow Canadians who come to western Canada in
search of employment and the opportunity to start a new life
in a region where such opportunities are plentiful. There is a
lot to be said about the entrenchment of mobility rights in the
constitution, and especially on the part of provinces experienc-
ing financial difficulties.

If economic growth in the west brings about a movement of
people to that region, then, no doubt, some of these new
settlers will be from Quebec, in much the same way as the
French Canadians came to the west, more than a century ago.

4022

The Constitution

I believe we should guarantee their rights to the full apprecia-
tion of their language and culture, and allow their children to
have access to French language education as they would have,
had they stayed in Quebec.

The converse is also true. When we in the west hear of a
friend or neighbour being transferred by his company into
Quebec, we expect that province to reciprocate and allow that
family to obtain an English education in that province.

. Speaking of new wealth in the west, some provincial politi-
cians in western Canada appear to think this new wealth has
been forthcoming for decades and has been withheld forcibly
by defensive eastern provinces. To these politicians, it appears
as though this new wealth will finally allow them to get even
with their eastern counterparts. It almost appears at times as if
we are experiencing an historical grudge match. It is especially
distressing when one considers that it was a crisis in the world
oil markets which so influenced the way certain western
Canadian politicians were to reassess confederation.

In a country as large and as geographically diverse as
Canada, it is not extraordinary that we should come face to
face with this problem referred to so often as regional discon-
tent. However, we all have to ask ourselves how profound this
problem really is. Do Canadians really feel that way about
their regional interests surpassing their national interests, or is
the situation being exaggerated by provincial political leaders.

Canadians have managed to build a nation inspite of all
these regional barriers. Canadians by birth along with immi-
grants have opened up the land in western Canada, not to
challenge eastern Canada or the federal institutions, but rather
to contribute to the building of a nation. Today, I firmly
believe that the grandchildren and great grandchildren of

these early settlers still believe as strongly in this country as

did their ancestors.

Q (2130)

[ Translation]

Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding in Manitoba which has
traditionally been bicultural in character, a riding which has
its place in history as the fortress of French language and
culture in western Canada, a riding which has been in exist-
ence since the province of Manitoba joined the Dominion of
Canada.

When Manitoba became a Canadian province, French
Canadians represented a significant proportion of its popula-
tion. The school system was divided into two sectors to accom-
modate both the Protestant and Catholic groups. French was
the language of the instruction in the vast majority of Catholic
schools, and the Manitoba legislature recognized both -lan-
guages. The French-Canadian population constituted at that
time a homogeneous community in which it was possible to
live one’s life in French on a daily basis and participate fully in
our culture.

At the centre of this community was the church and the
family, and French Canadians in Manitoba could gather round

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

these two institutions so as not to be assimilated by the
growing Anglo-Saxon population. With the wave of immi-
grants and Canadian colonists from Ontario to Western
Canada, drawn by the national policy of Macdonald in 1879,
French Canadians were soon to be reduced to minority status
and swept along on the tide of Anglicization. In 1890 the
Manitoba legislature was to abolish French as an official
language and set up a public and English-speaking system of
non-denominational schools. French Canadians found them-
selves, in 1890, deprived of the rights conferred on them by the
Manitoba Act.

After a series of battles in the Supreme Court and the Privy
Council in London, and a series of interventions by the federal
government, French Canadians received a few privileges.

I am speaking today in defence of language rights and the
right to education in the language of the minority because of
my experience in Manitoba as a student, as a parent and as an
elected member of a school board. I experienced the problems
that French Canadians went through to receive their education
in French.

In Manitoba, for example, the history of French Canadians
has been one of fighting for their right to be educated in their

own language. I can recall as a student having to hide our
French grammar books whenever we had a visit from the

Department of Education inspector. Mr. Speaker, this was an

example of the rights of French Canadians in Manitoba.

And our premier in Manitoba continues to say that his
government can ensure that the Franco-Manitoban minority
will be well protected in his province. I wonderhow Premier
Lyon would be able to convince one of my constituents, Mr.
Georges Forest, who had to go as far as the Supreme Court of
Canada to fight a mere unilingual parking ticket, the product

of a discriminatory provincial legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote one of the greatest
political leaders this country has known, Sir John A. Mac-

donald who said, in 1865, during debate on the possibility of
creating a Canadian confederation, and I quote the original
text in English:
[English]

The delegates from all provinces have agreed that the use of the French
language will serve as one of the principles on which confederation will be based.

[Translation]
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this whole question of real equality
between the two founding peoples is not a new phenomenon. I
think it is time to pay tribute to our forefathers by entrenching
in our constitution the historic rights of all Canadians.
[English]
I was born in Manitoba and I have lived in Manitoba all my
life, but first and foremost I am a Canadian. It might be
thought that it was not necessary to say so in this House, but I
am a Canadian of parentage whose maternal language was
neither English nor French. I am from a lesser minority,a

minority within minorities, and I have experienced what that
means. I know that if the rights of Canadians are not protectedby the two main official language groups, then the other
minorities will suffer as a consequence.

~ I do not believe we can count on our provincial governments
to protect us in that fashion, and if we are going to wait for the
constitution to evolve from unanimous agreement, I do not
think I will live long enough to see that day. We have our
national anthem, we have our flag and we are mature enough
to have our own constitution.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Bockstael: I mentioned the hon. member for Provench-
er. He knows that back in 1957 we were struggling to have our
rights in school, I for the people of St. Boniface and he for the
Mennonite population in Manitoba. We knew we could not get

them, but I worked with people like Thiessen and Wiebe in an
effort to make sure we would get those rights. The premier of

the province was trying to help us, but the majority would not
give them to us. Then we experienced the administration of

Premier Edward Schreyer. He took us a long way by bringing
in laws which would help the minority have its linguistic rights
respected. We are still struggling for those rights and it is

laughable to see the Premier of Manitoba saying, on television,

“I am looking after the needs of the minorities; they are
satisfied”. That is not the case.

Today I am speaking from the heart. Hon. members oppo-
site say the debate has lasted only 24 hours, but since October
6, when we started early—and nine days before we were
supposed to—all we have seen has been obstructionism and
moves to slow down the resolution and its reference to commit-
tee. Yesterday we saw the funniest about-face I have ever
contemplated in this House. Hon. members opposite now have
been presented with the solution.

They were against it; they did not want to do it. They were
in favour of patriation and the principle thereof. They were in
favour of human rights and the principle thereof. They were in
favour of the formula of equalization and the principle thereof.
But they did not like the way we were proceeding. They felt we
should take a different approach—that this was the wrong
time and the wrong place. Then yesterday the Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Clark) told us that he had the solution. “We
will do it in one shot, it will not take long and we do not even
need a committee”. He said, “We will do it right here this
afternoon; let’s go”. That is because hon. members opposite
have read the will of the Canadian people. The Canadian
people want their Constitution.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Bockstael: As I said earlier, hon. members opposite are
posturing for political reasons. They are holding the govern-
ment back from doing its job, and we have to do it now. We

should get the resolution into committee, deal with it seriously

and get on with it.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

COMMONS DEBATES

4023

The Constitution

Mr. Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I wonder
if the hon. member would permit a question.

Mr. Bockstael: Yes.

Mr. Clark: While I naturally disagreed with some of the
hon. member’s concluding comments, I was interested in his
proposal that French language and English language rights in
education should exist for anyone anywhere in Canada. The
hon. member was making a particular reference to people who
might move from Quebec, for example, to my constituency in
rural western Alberta or from my constituency to Quebec. As I
understood him, he was saying that in all cases they should

have the right to schooling in the language of the majority
language region they left. I wonder if the hon. member intends
to introduce an amendment to the resolution to make the
resolution have the effect he says he seeks.

Mr. Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I used the
words “in all cases”. Having been a school trustee and recog-
nizing the existence of economic common sense, I know that it
should be where numbers justify. That is the way I feel.

Mr. McDermid: Who decides the numbers?

Mr. Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would
the parliamentary secretary permit a second question if there
is a moment of his time left?

Mr. Bockstael: Yes.

3 (2140)

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): The hon. member for
Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) on a point of order.

Mr. Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I will put my question in English.
As somebody who was also born in Manitoba, I wonder if the
parliamentary secretary, who spoke of the Manitoba school
question, is aware of the fact that the Manitoba school act-
which was an unjust act, I quite agree with him–was enacted
after two demagogic speeches in Portage la Prairie in 1889? I
am sure he is aware of those speeches. Does he not think that
section 42 is precisely the sort of instrument that a dema-
gogue, like Dalton McCarthy or Joseph Martin, who gave
those speeches in Portage la Prairie, would love to have in our

if constitution so they could do the same thing to a minority as

the Manitoba Liberal government did in 1890 to the French-
speaking minority?

Mr. Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, I agree with our leader that
section 42 is a system to unblock a bottleneck. It will be
invoked in that sense because we have evidence of 53 years of
bottlenecks with the provinces.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. John Gamble (York North): Mr. Speaker, I am one of
the fortunate and privileged members of the House. I have still
20 minutes in which to address the House and express my
views with respect to a matter of supreme national concern.

4024 COMMONS

The Constitution

All of my colleagues in the House, and I include those who do
not happen to belong to the party to which I belong, do not
have that right or privilege. Accordingly, I am very specially
privileged indeed. Some of them have brought it upon them-
selves. Looking at the scant numbers of government members
in the House, I can see that perhaps it is not important to them
to bother to attend here to address this matter in the way most
members in my party wish to do. There are 21 Liberal
members in the House today to deal with this issue.

One of the most essential factors with which I am confront-
ed as I look at this resolution is that according to the govern-
ment this is not the forum where issues of a primary nature
concerning all Canadians should be dealt with. It is to be
somewhere else, and I wonder where that other place is. Is it to
be in London, to which city the government has dispatched
two of its ministers to make proposals concerning what the
constitution of Canada should be? I would have thought it
should have been here, and I would have thought that mem-
bers of the House who had anything to say on this essential
issue would want such an opportunity. Unfortunately, how-
ever, we are to be greatly disappointed.

Let us then go to the issue that confronts us with respect to
the resolution before the House which gave rise to closure, and
let us immediately dismiss some of the irrelevancies that have
been raised. It is very clear that the party to which I belong
has a firm and fixed view that the Constitution of Canada
should be patriated. We also believe there should be a formula
for amendments in the future. That formula has been
described as “seven out of ten.” I will not go beyond that,
other than to mention that indeed there is no doubt that
members of this party believe fundamentally in a bill of rights.
It was a former prime minister from this party who introduced
Canada’s Bill of Rights which still stands. It may well be that
there should be an amendment to that Bill of Rights changing
section 2 so as to give the bill as it currently stands primacy
over general laws in Canada. But we are dealing with some-
thing that is substantially different and upon which closure has
been brought, that is, the concept that the charter of rights
and freedoms which will affect all Canadians should be placed
beyond the control of the House of Commons.

Today we heard a statement from the hon. member for
Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) which might initially have
stunned some of the members. It was to the effect that should
this resolution be passed, the Supreme Court of Canada, the
highest court in the land, will no longer be that. What
fundamental difference does that make to me as a member of
Parliament? Am I indeed robbed of some great right? True,
that would happen, but it does not concern me. The fact that
this will no longer be the high court of justice for Canada is
not as significant as the effect it would have upon the demo-
cratic process in Canada, because what we are doing here will
destroy democracy.

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Gamble: The hon. member who has never looked at the
resolution laughs. That does not surprise me. What we have

DEBATES October 23, 1980

here is a proposition which will place in the hands of the
Supreme Court of Canada—not the one that is here today that
we all know, but the one that will be there 100 years from now
and whose members we do not recognize because they have not
yet been appointed–the right to determine the laws of Canada
and legislate those laws because the process of legal interpreta-
tion includes legislation.

For a perfect example of that process we need only look to
our southern neighbour where the laws passed in a constitu-
tional form have been changed over the years as a result of
judicial interpretation. The natural result of that, they say, is
that there has been progress. The court has made those
changes necessarily. But the fact is, there is a danger in
adopting the process they have adopted to our situation with-
out the safeguards they enjoy. There is not a judge of the

Supreme Court of the United States who is not appointed

without the sanction and approval, after due scrutiny, of the
Congress of the U.S. There is no provision for such scrutiny in
this resolution. In the United States, lower court judges are
elected by the people. The people, directly or indirectly, con-
trol the administration of justice. Our system, simply put, is

that one man, the Attorney General of Canada, will make the
appointments. Whom does he appoint? We do not know, but I

will tell you what the people do not know–that once appoint-

ed, no one can ever get rid of them. The people can get rid of ~

my friends across the way, they can get rid of me, they can get

rid of all of us, but they-cannot get rid of the judges, and it is

the judges who will legislate in Canada if this resolution is

passed. The public should be made aware of it, but the
government members opposite do not bother. They talk about
the rights of the minorities. I heard the comment of the
Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan). He is in the House tonight.
“The minorities must be protected,” he said. That is true, but
so must the majority. Who is protecting the democratic pro-
cess? Who is speaking for the system that has evolved and
from which we derive our right to be here and from which the

people derive their right to get rid of us? No one does, because
it does not concern them. That is the fundamental problem
which the Liberal government does not address because it is
something they do not want the public to know, and the sooner
they can get this matter before the committee where it can be
whisked away in the dark, the better they will like it.

Having commented upon the one fundamental problem
which exists with regard to the concept of the resolution, let us
now take the lid off the general garbage can and look at the
trash that is contained therein. We are told by speaker after

speaker for the government that, as a consequence of the
adoption of this resolution, Canadians will be able to move.
from one part of Canada to the other, find residence and seek
gainful employment. We have heard this evening from an hon.
member on the government benches that he is aware of a piece
of legislation of an obnoxious nature in the province of Quebec
which precludes construction workers from the province of
Ontario taking jobs in Quebec on construction projects, con-
tracts which have been won by Ontario construction firms

Section 6 is held up as an answer to the problem and as a

October 23, 1980

panacea. One should read that section. Section 6.(2) allegedly
grants relief, but one should read on to see what section 6.(3)
indicates. It provides that none of the prohibitions set forth in
subsection (2) shall be rendered unenforceable unless the
purpose was primarily a discriminatory one designed to dis-
criminate against the former province of the intended appli-
cant for a position or job. The hon. member who raised this
issue should have studied the law of the province of Quebec.
He would have discovered that in fact this is the very justifica-
tion the government uses to offend the principle this is sup-
posed to correct. Section. 6 protecting mobility rights is a sham
and a fraud. It will not protect Canadians, and they should be
made aware of that.

9 (2150)

The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael)
expressed pleasure that after the passage of this resolution and
the enactment of these provisions into our constitution,
Canadians moving from one province to another might insist
upon their children being educated in the official language of
their choice. The great difficulty under section 23 with respect
to Canadians moving from one province to another is that if
they do not have school age children at the time of their move,
they have no rights at all. The children are required to be in
school. If a child is four or five years old and not yet in school,
his parents might as well forget about that possibility because
that child does not qualify. There is no protection there.

Interestingly enough, the real abuse to which members
opposite have not directed any attention is that section 23.(l)
establishes entrenched second-class citizens in this country.
The hon. member for St. Bonifacesaid he did not belong to the
English majority or the French minority group in Canada. He
indicated that he came from some other background. I wel-
come him to the underprivileged group because that is what he
would be if he came to Canada from a country such as Italy
where he did not speak either English or French; his privileges
and rights would immediately have vanished. If this provision
is passed in its offensive form, he would not be able to go into
any province of this country and have his children educated in
either English or French because he would have no rights. It is
abhorrent that the government dared to present a proposal
containing such unparalleled bias against new Canadian citi-
zens. Once a person becomes a Canadian citizen, I believe he
orshe is entitled to all rights and privileges—not just some of
them—which accrue to a Canadian citizen.

I cannot and will not support the entrenchment of prejudice
and discrimination’ in the Constitution of Canada. I am
appalled at the audacity of the Government of Canada in
bringing forward a package containing such abuses. One won-
ders how the government ever contemplated the passage,
without complaint, of section 41 of the resolution. Simply put,
section 4l(1)(b)(i) creates a special class of province. It is a
class of province without identification in terms of the name of

that province or of those provinces which at any time before

the issue of a proclamation according to any previous general
census had a population of at least 25 per cent of the total
population of Canada. It so happens that the only two prov-

80090-33

COMMONS DEBATES

4025

The Constitution

inces which qualify under that subsection are the provinces of
Ontario and Quebec. All other provinces are specifically iden-
tified by name. With respect to rights in connection with
constitutional amendments, the other provinces need a com-
bined population in» their respective areas of at least 50 per
cent of the total population of their area. The guide determin-
ing when the population count is to be taken with respect to
what are referred to as the Atlantic and western provinces is
the latest general census. Ministers opposite have created the
grandfather of all grandfather clauses. They have created a
privileged set of provinces in Canada which will never lose
their right to refuse to consent to an amendment to the
constitution.

I come from the province of Ontario, one of those privileged
provinces. If I were to follow the example of some hon.
members on the government side of the House from Quebec, 1
would sit down and keep my mouth shut. Apparently that is
appropriate. But there is not a thinking resident in the riding
of York North who would support such an abuse, who would
be prepared to accept forever special treatment denied his
fellow countrymen.

There is a drum sounding in western Canada. It is sounding
discontent. The echoes of that drum have been heard in the
House this evening and earlier. The government has heard it
but will pay no attention. The government will not hear until
that muted sound becomes a roar of thunder and descends on
its head with a vengeance. They will not listen because they
believe people are bluffing. The people of Canada want fair-
ness and equity. They want to be treated the same regardless
of where they live. If they are not, the slight inconvenience the
government recently experienced in the province of Quebec
will seem tame by comparison to the anguish it brings upon
itself and the entire country. I urge the government to think
carefully about second class provinces and about the need for
fair play and equity. I urge them to reject what has been, upon
examination, nothing but a statute of frauds perpetrated upon
Canadians. It is not a statute of fraud in the usual legal sense,
where fraud is to be prohibited,” but a statute of fraud in the
sense that it is to be encouraged and promoted and advanced
at the expense of Canadians.

Q (2200)

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Gamble: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned with matters of
grave national interest and Irise to speak hoping that in some
small way some of my colleagues in this House and on the
government side may pensively reflect upon what they are
doing to Canada, recognizing that by taking the steps they are
taking this evening they may cause irreparable harm to this
institution and to this country. Accordingly, I ask them to
reflect carefully upon what they do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

4026

The Constitution
[Translation]

Mr. Raymond Savard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be
participating today in the debate on the constitution. A
number of members have already spoken in the House and
have expressed their desire to -see their freedoms protected in
our constitution. Today all of us can cherish the dream of
giving the choice to the people of this beautiful and rapidly
growing country and of opening the way to the realization of
their hopes.

At the time of the Quebec referendum, the Prime Minister
told all Canadians that when the referendum was over, we
were going to patriate the constitution. Today, Mr. Speaker,
our Prime Minister wants to carry out his promise, and we are
being called traitors, sheep and all sorts of other names. I
would like to say that I am proud to be a Canadian and to
serve a Prime Minister who stands upright and who wants to
build a future for the entire nation, to give it freedom of
conscience and of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of the
press and of information, freedom to live at liberty in a
Canada where every citizen may move about without hin-
drance. We should not forget the billions of people who would
give anything to have the freedom we enjoy in Canada.

I cannot understand the negative attitude of my friends on
the other side, who are inventing all sorts of excuses and who
seem to want to destroy this beautiful country. It is for this
reason that I am making my contribution today. As a Canadi-
an and as a spokesman for my fellow citizens, I wish to express
to the House their feelings and their desire to see their
individual rights and their language rights guaranteed every-
where in Canada, along with their basicand democratic right
to have their children educated in their mother tongue. It is
the duty of all hon. members to place the rights of Canadians
before those of the state. And it is for these reasons that I
appeal to all Canadians to help usto entrench all these rights
in the new Canadian-constitution.

Mr. La Salle: You will have to convince Mr. Ryan!

Mr. Savard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention an
example which some of us experienced during the Quinquen-
nale de la francophonie in Winnipeg. I had an experience
during my visit to that area. I saw people who were very proud
of speaking French but who, unfortunately, for fear of losing
their jobs, were obliged to speak English. The-same thing
happens in the universities. Students attend courses in French,
but as soon as they leave the university they go back to
speaking English. .-

I was looking at a television program recently on the twen-
tieth anniversary of French television in Winnipeg, in which
we were shown how French teaching in the school would cease
the minute the inspector came into the classroom. As far as I
am concerned, I find this situation deplorable and unaccept-
able. Francophones ask neither favour nor privilege, but

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

merely the right to be treated as full partners and not as
second-class citizens. They have the right to live and to develop 1
in all the provinces of Canada.

I should like also, Mr. Speaker, to mention the magnificent
work of our Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien) and his
performance during his meeting with the ministers. In my
view, he is quite right in saying that we must follow the work
of Mr. Diefenbaker and Mr. Thomas, for it is worthy of
mention. But when I hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Clark), I am afraid, and I am sure those two great men are
turning in their graves.

Let us consider the right to economic mobility for our
citizens across the country. What will happen to the right to
life and liberty if we cannot move to or settle, work or invest in
the province of our choice? Without this freedom, will our
system become like those of totalitarian countries? As we
know, the citizens of communist countries do not enjoy these
rights; they don’t even exist. In Russia, travel from one state to
another requires a permit from the central government. Per-
sonally, I say that Canadians, in our country, have no intention
of adopting this way of life, and on their behalf, I insist that
this freedom, the right to mobility, be retained, because
Canada is afree country from sea to sea.

With regard to economic union, Mr. Speaker, such union is
important to the wel_l-being of all Canadians, in addition to
providing our vast and varied country with one of the highest
standards of living in the world. The different regions and
economic sectors must complement one another in order to conserve their resources, for without their mutual co-opera-
tion, Canada will become a country dependent upon other
industrialized countries. Although the constitution in its 113
years has not kept pace with developments in society, I find it
quite normal that the provinces should claim certain powers; if
each one took only its share of the pie, it would be ideal. It is
also normal that our government should retain those powers
that affect the national interest and that concern the country
as a whole. The new constitution should encompass this con-
cept, while adapting to the evolution of the society to come.
This action on the part of the government is justified, because
there is no alternative. We have made a commitment to the
people of Quebec, and we must now carry it out. We mus
have an amending formula binding the central government and
all the provincesof Canada.

[English]

The Anglophones in my province have always had the
opportunities and right to live and work in their language.
They should have those rights guaranteed in our constitution
and their example should be made to all the other provinces.
The rights and dignities of Francophones across this country
should be held as dear as those of Anglophones in Quebec.

October 23, 1980

[Translation]

As we can see, the federal government has no intention of
taking any power away from the provinces. During the recent
discussions, the provinces wanted to negotiate these rights. I

say that these rights are not negotiable. They belong to the

men and women of Canada, and we must leave them what is
theirs. It is now time to repatriate the constitution, with an
amending formula, including every guarantee of the rights
binding the federal and provincial governments, and to have a
greater willingness to listen to those around us and to under-
stand their needs. There is a need for greater generosity
toward others. These factors are all equally important to the

‘ unity of the nation. Surely this is easy to understand. This is

what we want for Canada. According tothe opposition, it is an
artificial Canada that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)
envisions and would have us accept. Canada is a reality, and
the hopes of Canadians are equally real.

The dream I spoke of earlier is one shared by all Canadian
men and women–that of having all the freedoms and all the
basic rights that we are believed to possess already in Canada.
The provincial premiers are also agreed that we possess these
rights. I can repeat the Prime Minister’s question: if we have
them now, why would they not want to entrench them in the
constitution?

Last week, Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively as a member
of the Opposition said that the Prime Minister was planting a
time bomb in the very heart of the country and was opreparing
to demolish the Canadian federation. Well, I refuse to accept
such a statement, which I consider an insult to the people of
Canada, because the Prime Minister is one of the greatest men
of Quebec and of Canada, regardless of what the opposition
may think.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is one of our own, and no
one can deny that, through his efforts, the position of Franco-
phones has greatly improved. What is there to say about the
adoption of the Official Languages Act, about the integration
of Francophones at all levels, of the public service across
Canada? Through the force of his ideas and the firmness of his
convictions, he has won the hearts of Quebeckers and has led
them toward the kind of renewed federalism that is envisioned
in this proposal. ‘

Q (2210)

[English]

The hour of decision has arrived. After 53 years, we are
about to take the historic steps of bringing our constitution
home, and giving all Canadians the rights, not privileges as
some premiers would have it, that they deserve. That will be
our legacy to future generations of Canadians, and that is why
I will proudly vote in favour of the government’s resolution
before us tonight.

COMMONS DEBATES

4027

The Constitution

[ Translation]

Politicians have now been trying to patriate the constitution
for 53 years and all have failed. Now isthe time to decide. We
are going to take that decision and for the first time in our
history the freedoms and fundamental rights of Canadians will
be enshrined in a Canadian charter. We owe it to ourselves to
patriate the Canadian constitution made in Canada by
Canadians. We have the power and the duty to do so.

[English]

Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, I par-
ticipate in this debate with a degree of sadness and regret
having regard to the fact that we have just had thrust upon
this House one of the most repugnant and most destructive
devices ever perpetrated on the democratic process. I am
deeply saddened, because the debate that has taken place in
this chamber for the last 24 hours interspersed over a couple of
weeks or so is perhaps the most important historic debate I
have ever witnessed in my 12 years as a member of the House.
Itis with a great deal of regret that I see it cut off prematurely
having regard to its importance and the fact that some mem-
bers who wanted to speak will not have that opportunity.

The government’s action is the result of a move that is
ruthless, arrogant and, I believe, cowardly. Parliament is now
succumbing, as the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)
has said, to the tyranny of the majority. The excellent debate
we have had so far is coming to an end. There have been many
excellent speeches made in this chamber. It is perhaps the best
debatel have ever witnessed in my 12 years here. Many of the
speeches have been delivered with deep conviction, deep feel-
ing and in a sincere manner. But the government’s actions
have turned the debate into one of bitterness and division; the
atmosphere has become poisoned.

It seems to me there is a pattern in the way in which this
government has approached constitutional reform. It is treat-
ing this House in the same way as it treated the premiers. It
has ignored the warnings and the legitimate grievances which
have been expressed by members on both sides of the House.
The government has ignored the participation of the members
who have spoken with such deep conviction and with such deep
feeling. This government, it is very clear, thrives on confronta-
tion. This is not in keeping with the Canadian tradition or the
spirit of confederation.

I feel very badly and very deeply about this kind of atmos-

phere, and it should not be prevalent when we are dealing with
such a basic fundamental and important issue. We must ask
ourselves, “Why the haste all of a sudden?” We hear from
members opposite that the process has been ongoing for 53
years and suddenly, hang, it comes to an end. Several members
have quoted from the infamous secret document that was
leaked, the document that was for ministers’ eyes only. There
are a couple of points contained in that document which
should be put on the record. The first deals with the concern
the government felt _over the provinces taking the matter to
court. Their considered opinion is summarized in a couple of
points which I would like to put on the record:

4028

The Constitution

A provincial reference to a Court of Appeal would probably take one and a
half to two years from the time of initiation until it was finally disposed of on
appeal to the supreme court. While there could be advantages in such a delay
there would be some potential disadvantages; the province could frame the
reference question without our agreement and . . . could focus solely on whether
the procedure IS in accordance with the Canadian conventions rather than
whether the patriation measure adopted is legal. Also, while the ultimate
supreme court pronouncement would be postponed by this process, there would
be the additional risk of an earlier, possibly critical, provincial court judgment.

They are almost assuming that it would spell trouble if the
matter got into the courts. The document goes on:

There would be a strong strategic advantage in having the joint resolution
passed and the U.K. legislation enacted before a Canadian court had occasion to
pronounce on the validity of the measure and the procedure employed to achieve
it. Thiswould suggest the desirability of swift passage of the resolution and UK.
legislation.

That is. what they are afraid of and there are other motives
as well with which I will deal. I want to say in all sincerity that
there was deep division within the country when this debate
started and that as a result of the actions of the government
over the past 24 hours, there is more division today. I say this
with great regret. There is frustration, tension and some very
intense feeling which has now been transferred into outright
angen

The government is ignoring that feeling. I was surprised at
the comments of the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Transport (Mr. Bockstael) who downplays the
feelings of the west. Mr. Speaker and my friends in the House
of Commons, that gentleman is fooling you because he is not
really reflecting accurately the views of western Canadians as
I see them, and I travel western Canada quite a bit. That view
is not shared by a very distinguished Canadian, a former
plremier of the province of Alberta who serves in the other
p ace.

0 (2220)

Let me refer to some of his comments. He expresses the
misgivings he feels about the way in which the Prime Minister
(Mr. Trudeau) is proceeding with respect to patriation. At
page 920 of Senate Debates for October 22, Senator Manning
is reported as follows: _ _

I do not question the Prime Minister’s belief that he has chosen the right and
responsible course, but he is wrong–terribly wrong–and he is risking unneces-
sarily the danger of tearing confederation apart. I

That gentleman knows a bit about this country, Mr. Speak-
er, and he knows about the west. This matter has also been
referred to by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie),
the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr.. Speyer) and several
members from the Atlantic, as well as the hon. member for
York North (Mr. Gamble). Over the past summer these
members travelled the west and sensed the feelings there. They
sensed that, in general, westerners feel that many of their
grievances have been ignored and that there are further injus-
tices ahead as a result of the government’s action.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to understand the
position of the New Democratic Party. I believe they have sold
their soul in an attempt to garner some short-term political
gain. As well, I believe they have betrayed their constituents in
western Canada, because in my view,the resource issue is now
fuzzier than ever. It is unclear. It is de facto ownership taken

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

away. I believe the New Democratic Party has played into the
Prime Minister’s hands.

The result will be interpreted in the west as once again
relegating them to the colonial status of 50 years ago. That is a
significant number, because rights were gained through the
passage of the Natural Resources Transfer Act of 1930 after
long struggle and intense deliberation.

It was as a result of the passage of that legislation and other,
subsequent, legislation that the ownership of resources was
transferred to the provinces, as to the other provinces in
confederation. It seems to me that the actions of the Prime
Minister and the Leader of the NDP(Mr. Broadbent) consti-
tute a backward step with respect to a very important, vital
and fundamental element as far as western Canada is
concerned.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Mazankowski: Premier Blakeney is not buying the
package. In my view, the New DemocraticParty is ignoring
that area of Canada which really rejected the Liberal party.
People there declined to vote for the Liberal party, fearing
something like this could happen. Those constituents who
voted NDP in the last election will now have to swallow a
Liberal policy.

The government and the New Democratic Party should not
ignore some other facts which I want to place on the record.
They should not ignore the fact that the minister in the other
place who speaks for the province of Alberta does not support
the amending formula contained in this resolution. Instead, he
supports the Alberta position–the Vancouver formula. That is
the position this party has adopted.

They should not ignore the fact that seven or eight provinces
do not support the proposal, as is evidenced by the proposed
court actions. They should not overlook the fact that day
day as this debate goes on and Canadians become more
familiar with what is contained in the package, constitutional
experts, editorialists and well-informed Canadians are openly
expressing reservations about it. Notwithstanding this, the
government has accelerated the pace at which it intends to
proceed.

Why is there such concern in the country, Mr. Speaker? In
my view there is concern because the proposal sets out to
change the fundamental nature of Canadian confederation.
Dr. Timothy Christian, a professor of constitutional law at
Alberta University has referred to the package as a change
which will move Canada closer to the American model. He
states that the concept of binding referendums is a radical
departure from parliamentary democracy.

What are some of the further concerns that bother me and
other Canadians, Mr. Speaker? Substantive changes are pro-
posed in the division of powers between the two levels of
government. An amending formula is proposed which is not
acceptable to the majority of provinces and, as has been
pointed out on a number of occasions by speakers on this side,
different classes of provinces are established for all time. The

October 23, I980

equality of status is gone. As the hon. member for Rosedale
said, the provinces of the west can never become first-class
provinces. This is regrettable because it disregards the reality
of the current growth trends.

An hon. Member: You are reading the section wrong.

Mr. Mazankowski: The hon. member says I am reading the
section wrong. Well, there must be a lot of other Canadians
who are reading the section wrong, if that is the case. I do not
see anygreat wisdom coming from the hon. member, who tried
to get up on a phony point of order today.

In my view it establishes different classes of citizenship.
Clause 42 has been alluded to on a number of occasions. It is a
club, and not merely a device for dealing with a deadlock.
Hon. members opposite would be advised to read it over and
over again. It empowers the federal government to remould a
nation through federal manipulation. This arouses suspicion,
Mr. Speaker. It prompts one to ask what the motives of the
government are. Is the Prime Minister serious when he says he
believes that the presidential system of government, like that
of France, might be the best for Canada? Is that his motive?

I have referred to provincial resource ownership. There is a
great deal of uncertainty about that issue, Mr. Speaker. And

Awhat about Canada’s first citizens–~-treaty rights, claims,

Indian women? That area is certainly not clear and the
Indians have not been consulted. The guarantees are less than
clear. I should like to quote from an article in The Journal of
St. Paul, Alberta, on October 15. It begins as follows:

If, indeed, the federal government patriates the British North America Act, as it
proposes to do, without consent of the Indian people and without entrenching
Indian treaty rights in a new constitution, it is guilty of a serious breach of trust,
according to Eugene Steinhauer, President of the Indian Association of Alberta.

Later, the article continues:

The Indian nations of Alberta have taken the position publicly on numerous
occasions that they are opposed to patriation of the BNA Act unless the Indian
people are guaranteed that their treaty rights will be entrenched in the new
constitution.

The treaties which were signed in good faith between the Crown and the Indian
people more than a hundred years ago recognized the aboriginal peoples of this
country as nations’, Mr. Steinhauer says, and these treaties were agreements by
which these nations peacefully surrendered many thousands of square miles of
land in exchange for small parcels called “reserves”. These parcels, and the right

to self-government, belong to the Indian people “as long as the sun shines, the

river flows and the grass grows.’

Referring to the innocuous clause 24 of the proposed charter
the article goes on to say:
This is a deliberate sidestepping of what should be a strong and positive

statement reconfirming our treaties,’ Steinhauer says. Our rights must be
clearly defined.’

I certainly support that statement, and I am sure my hon.
friends do as well, Mr. Speaker.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Mazankowski: What about the ownership of property,
Mr. Speaker? When the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien)
introduced this resolution he said he was completing some of

COMMONS DEBATES

4029

The Constitution

thework started by the late Right Hon. John George Diefen-
baker to enshrine the Bill of Rights into the. constitution.

Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a very glaring omission in so far
as the charter of rights versus the Bill of Rights is concerned.
In the charter of rights I do not see any mention of the right of
an individual to life, liberty, security and the enjoyment of
property. That is not in the resolution before us. And why, Mr.
Speaker? Does that mean we can look forward to the whole-
sale expropriation of land in this country? Maybe. We know
what some of the philosophical musings of the Prime Minister
were in earlier days. Is the real thrust of the Prime Minister
emerging in this package? These are very serious questions,
Mr. Speaker.

An hon. Member: And there are no answers.

Mr. Mazankowski: I am sure that most Canadians do not
realize that the right to enjoy ownership of property is omitted
in this so-called entrenchment of human rights.

Q (2230)

What about the right to life? That certainly should be basic
and fundamental to a charter of human rights. Surely the right
to life is the primary and basic human right on which all other
rights depend. Without this right we can have no others, for a
human being deprived of his life is deprived forever of all his
other rights. The first duty of the state must therefore be the
protection of human life, a duty which it owes to every human
being before all else. Surely recognition of this, if Parliament
is serious about preserving basic human rights, should involve
immediately steps to end the legalized murder of unborn
children in this country, about 60,000 of them annually.

I come now to the protection of minority language rights,
English and French. What about new Canadians who do not
have proficiency in English or French? Will they get any
special rights under this proposition? The Minister of Justice
(Mr. Chrétien) said that Canada is a country of minorities. He
told us that this package would protect and guarantee the
rights of minorities. How will new Canadians, who know
nothing of French or English, be protected in this particular
area? When we look at the composition of this country and the
reality of Canada, we find that the population of the six
eastern provinces is composed of British and French to the
extent of some 80 per cent. The population on the prairies is
composed of about 51 per cent who are of British and French
origin. In more detail, 44 per cent are British, 7 per cent are
French; 15 per cent are German and 10 per cent are Ukraini-
an. As well, there is a host of other minority groups. That is
the reality of western Canada, Mr. Speaker. In my view, this
proposition creates two classes of citizens.

When we set out to divide basic human rights, one thing
becomes obvious. In the process of attempting to codify or
define freedoms, you start limiting those freedoms. Our
common law has allowed ourtraditions and customs to crystal-
lize. To suggest that basic human rights are not already
recognized in this reality is an overstatement of the fact.

4030

The Constitution

In conclusion, if we want to preserve basic human rights, we
must preserve this institution of Parliament because Parlia-
ment is a guardian of human rights. If we preserve this
institution, we will preserve our human rights, but what we are
doing today is destroying the role of Parliament.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
0 (2230)

Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime
Minister. and Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to participate in this debate in which we are asked to consider
a resolution addressing the patriation of our constitution and
including in its provisions a charter of rights and freedoms,
entrenchment of the concept of equalization and an amending
formula. As such, this resolution marks a turning point in
Canadian history. I believe it provides a basis for progress in
the future.

On Monday, October 6, 1980, the Minister of Justice (Mr.
Chrétien) on behalf of the government introduced this historic
initiative in constitutional reform, an initiative which will
move Canada the final step on the road to self-rule and
independence. It will finally break the constitutional log jam
which has plagued Canada for far too long.

[ Translation]

The Minister of Justice and Social Development (Mr.
Chretien) has provided an opportunity for every member to
take up a great challenge. It is for us, the members of this
Ilouse, to take up this challenge. We must combine the best
ideas ofyesterday with those of today, and use them to build a
foundation for our future. I sincerely believe that the future of
this great country actually depends on the success of our
current efforts. These efforts and initiatives will point the way
for renewal of the basis of our nation, and will bring new
vitality to our institutions.

[English] Q

. Not since those dedicated men took such momentous deci-
sions 113 years ago has the clear need for action by the
national government, in the interests of Canada and of all
Canadians, been so obvious. While we would all prefer that
that action be based on consensus among all levels of govern-
ment—and I think I speak for all members of this House when
I say this–~such consensus is not at hand nor is it reasonable to
expect that it can or will be in the foreseeable future.

An hon. Member: It is possible.

Mr. Evans: Therefore, the choice is for unilateral action or
for no action at all. I contend that the latter alternative is
clearly unacceptable to Canadians.

Let us look at the nature of the unilateral action which-has
beenproposed. The resolution we are considering is composed
of a joint address from the House of Commons and the Senate
to patriate our constitution in some form. In the course of
preparing such an address, a joint committee made up of
members of both chambers of Parliament and from all sides of

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

those chambers will be struck to consider the resolution. The
committee will have the power to appoint subcommittees, to sit
whenever necessary and to gather information from a variety
of sources. At the conclusion of these committee hearings
recommendations will be made to the House and the Senate
for further debate.

The mandate and the timetable for this committee are clear
Yet there are those who claim this procedure is not only a plot,
but, indeed, a sinister attack on the federal system. In my
view, the procedure we are following is neither of those things
Rather, it is a clear reaffirmation of our parliamentary system
of government. It assures that the constitutional choices which
face our nation will be made in Parliament by the representa-
tives of all Canadians. They will be made by parliamentarians
exercising their responsibility to the people of Canada. Far
from attacking the federal system, the actions proposed by the
government indicate an understanding of the federalism of our
founding fathers. They indicate a concern for the future of
Canada, a realistic view of government and an understanding
of Canadian institutions.

As will be gathered from my remarks, I take exception to
the view that Canada is a “community of communities” or an
association of ten provinces whose governments are not only
co-equal but, in a very real sense, superior to the national
government. According to this view, the national government
must not do anything with which the provincial governments
disagree, and indeed must do anything the provincial premiers
agree among themselves ought to be done.

Carried to its logical conclusion, the national government in
such a Canada would be no more than a central secretariat to
implement the biddings of the provinces. We would no longer
be a federation but, rather, a loose grouping of several more or
less sovereign states.

I reject this view of Canada, Mr. Speaker, as did, I contend,
the Fathers of Confederation. Nothing could be further from
the conception of the Canada which emerged from Charlotte-
town in 1864.

[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, our federal system was designed to enable the
national government to take responsibility for the welfare of
all Canadians. This objective is clearly defined in our constitu
tion, which gives the central government power to act in order
to maintain peace, order and good government. I might add
that the central government even has the power to disallow
provincial legislation. Confederation does not mean a weak,
loose union, as some provinces and some opposition members
believe; on the contrary, confederation means more than the
mere sum of its parts.

Q (2240)

[English]

The purpose of this confederation as conceived by the
Fathers of Confederation was to establish an overriding na-
tional presence in northern North America with the ability to
ameliorate disputes among the members of the union. It is this

October 23, 1980

heritage which all of us in this House have solemnly sworn to
protect and to foster. It is this heritage which the resolution we
are considering acknowledges. However, while our political
-system was based on principles of accommodation and amelio-
ration, I believe these principles have tended to become
blurred over time, to a large degree as a result of decisions

taken by the Privy Council in London prior to the establish-

ment of the Supreme Court in Canada, decisions which

dramatically altered the confederation of our Canadian

~ founders.

I sincerely believe we must move now to establish an alter-
native to unanimity as the decision rule for resolving funda-
mental national conflicts; we must move now to re-establish
the fundamental principles upon which our confederation was
founded, we mustmove now to arrest the drift towards region-
alism and alienation which threatens the national interest. I
sincerely believe that if we fail to do these things, if instead we
opt for inaction in the name of immediate harmony, we will
certainly see the dissolution of Canada in the future.

Never before, since 1867, have Canadians faced such an
obvious choice. We can either act now to establish effective
means to modernize and maintain the currencyof our system,
or we can watch the system break down under the weight of its
current inflexibility.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has postulated

that we run the risk of breaking up this country by affirming
the resolution put forward by the Minister of Justice. Yes,

unilateral action is potentially divisive. Yes, there is a risk of

discord.

However, if this is the case; how could the Leader of the
Opposition, as he supposedly does, and as I believe he does, put
the motion yesterday to unilaterally patriate and, not only
that, but to impose an amending formula without any discus-
sion between the government at the federal level and the
provinces?

What is the basis of the risk that is at the bottom of the fear
of the Leader of the Opposition. Is it unilateral action? Is it
the imposition of an amending formula? That cannot be the
basis of the fears of the Leader of the Opposition. His motion
put forward both unilateral action and an amending formula.

The resolution before the House calls for an amending
formula of unanimity for two years, during which time discus-
sions can take place between the federal government and the
provincial governments. We can come to an agreement on an
acceptable amending formula. At the end of that time,’the
Victoria formula is there. If it is- not agreed to among the
provinces, the provinces can put forward an alternative. Those
two alternatives can be placed before the people of Canada for
their decision.

That is a much more reasonable and conciliatory approach
than simply to say, because of what is assumed by hon.
members opposite, that the Vancouver consensus is what all
the provinces want, therefore we will impose it on them. That
does not seem to be a reasonable thing to do. Therefore, I have

COMMONS DEBATES

403 l

The Constitution

to say that it cannot be the amending formula that is the cause
of this great risk of dissension.

I looked at the speeches by the Leader of the Opposition, his
opening speech and the speeches he made involving questions
of privilege and so on. I ask myself: is equalization the basis of
the risk? I noticed in the statement made by the Leader of the
Opposition he said equalization was, in fact, a desirable thing.
If it is so desirable, I -wonder why it was not included-in his
motion yesterday. I believe the Leader of the Opposition
sincerely thinks equalization should be in the constitution.

I therefore have to assume from his statements that equali-
zation is not the basis of the risk which is going to tear this
country apart. If it is not unilateral action, not the amending
formula and not equalization, there is only one thing left. That
is the charter of rights. I would have liked to have heard more
discussion on the charter of rights, if that is the basis of our
difficulty. If it is, why, in the last two and a half weeks, have
we heard so little discussion on the charter of rights per se and
where the problems are.

The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) made
some interesting points this evening. He brought forward some
rational observations. Hon. members opposite have seen me
sitting in the chamber listening attentively to what they have
to say. However, I have not heard a great deal of discussion on
the charter of rights, which I have to conclude is the basis for
the disagreement. Universal imposition of a charter of rights
has to be the basis of the great risk which is going to tear the
country apart.

I find some other difficulties. This evening the hon. member
for Vegreville indicated his knowledge that the Indian people
oppose unilateral patriation without guarantees of their funda-

.mental rights. How could the hon. member for Vegreville last

night support the motion put by the Leader of the Opposition
to patriate the constitutional unilaterally without having those
rights entrenched in the constitution?

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. McDermid: We will put them in when we get it back
over here.

Mr. Evans: The hon. member says they will put those rights
in when we get them back here. The hon. member for Vegre-
ville made the point that the Indian leaders have said they do
not want patriation at all unless those rights are in the
constitution, guaranteed before it comes back. But knowing
this, saying he supports that view, he supported the motion last
night of the Leader of the Opposition.

We believe the resolution before this House is a course of
action that holds far less risk than the alternatives proposed by
the opposition of either no action or actions which would
ultimately further regional separations. The government pro-
poses unilateral action but this action is not divisive in itself
since it does not affect the distribution of powers between the
federal and provincial governments. It does provide, at last, a
clear means for resolving our future disagreements and for
clarifying our past disagreements which have been with us for

4032

The Constitution

many years. As such, the government proposal minimizes the
long-term risk of conflict and political paralysis.

It is clear that nation-building is neither a smooth nor easy
process. Nor is it furthered by giving -in on all fronts to
regional demands in a search for harmony. Nation-building is
fraught with trials and challenges, and, to succeed, these
challenges must be accepted and trials faced. Neither inaction
and indecision nor mindless Capitulation can long be tolerated.
Time is certain to bury those who refuse to face these funda-
mental facts of life.

0 (2250)

If the Fathers of Confederation had adopted a wait-and-see
attitude or a negotiate-forever stance, I am convinced that we
would not today have the privilege of holding Canadian citi-
zenship. If the fathers of confederation had adopted “a prov-
ince-building at the expense of nation-building” attitude,
Canada never would have been formed in the first place.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition that we have no choice
but to renew our constitution now, and that in view of the clear
impasse which we face as a result of the current unanimity
rule, the federal government has no choice but to act unilater-
ally and decisively.

In the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau):

Now it is our time to repay our inheritance. Our duty is clear: it is to complete
the foundations of our independence and of our freedoms.

After all, if it is not the role and responsibility of the
national government, the government in which all Canadians
are represented, to take action in the face of a clearly per-
ceived need, then I ask hon. members opposite and hon.
members on my own side, what is the role of the national
government? I reiterate that decisive action in the national
interestis indeed the role of the national government as
pertceived not only by ourselves but also by our founding
fathers.

Much has changed since 1867, and the distribution of
powers has shifted dramatically from this initial conception,
butit is important in this debate to understand clearly that the
initial conception of the distribution of powers between govern-
ments in Canada perceived the very real danger of political
paralysis. To ignore the current fact of this paralysis would be
to deny the wisdom of our founders.

The federal government has the responsibility and the duty
to act in the national interest. The resolution before this House
is consistent with this responsibility and duty. It is important
for all of us to embrace the principles in this resolution. I
sincerely believe that the risk of losing Canada is not presented
by this resolution. Rather, it is presented by a continuation of
the status quo.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River): Mr. Speaker, in all my life
I have never seen so much hypocrisy as we have seen from the
other side of this House. Hon. members opposite have been
talking about being loyal to Canada, but not one of them, not

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), would stand up today
when “O Canada” was being sung. When two Liberal mem-
bers did stand up, they were beckoned to sit down. In other
words, the party over there has become a bunch of Trudeau
clones. Whatever Trudeau says, that is what they do. The
people of Canada are catching on to this hypocrisy.

Another case of hypocrisy which is sickening to the people
of Canada is that hon. members opposite get up now and
praise the late Right. Hon. John Diefenbaker. When he was
alive they insulted him and did everything they could to hurt
him. They persecuted him. They thwarted his efforts. Now
that he has passed on they are praising him. Such hypocrisy is
sickening.

Hon. members opposite talk about having high principles.
The other day when my hon. friend, the hon. member for
Calgary East (Mr. Kushner), introduced a resolution asking
that we support Terry Fox and those who are suffering and
dying of cancer, the Liberals said no. They turned it down. I
say, shame. They made a mistake that day. The hon. member
gave them another chance. He introduced it a second time in
order to help Terry Fox help the people who are dying of
cancer, but the Liberals again said no. What high principles?
What kind of outfit is this government which does not even
want to help the cancer people of this country?

Besides hypocrisy, I have never seen anything more like a
dictatorship than what we see on the other side of the House. I
joined the Royal Canadian -Air Force to fight against
totalitarianism. I did everything I was told to do for three
years. I never thought I would have to come back and fight
totalitarianism in the House of Commons in Canada. How-
ever, that is what we are doing. We hear many fabrications
and half-truths. We see efforts to fool the people of this
country. It is no wonder hon. members opposite want closure.
The people are getting their eyes opened, and if they had
another week there would almost be a revolution in this
country. There may be even now, because people are hearing

half-truths from the government from the Prime Minister

down.

During the election campaign the Prime Minister and
Stuart Smith, the Liberal leader in Ontario, went from town to.
town telling the people of Ontario–endeavouring to brain-
wash them—that the oil and gas of Alberta belong to all the
people of Canada. They forgot to say that the gold of Ontario
belongs just to the people of Ontario. They forgot to say that
the hydro of Quebec belongs just to the people of Quebec and
that the timber of B.C. belongs just to the people of B.C. They in
defiled themselves by telling something which is completely
contrary to the BNA Act. They said that these natural

resources in Alberta, gas and oil, belong to all the people of
Canada. They had to be elected by fabrication.

Here hon. members opposite talk about honesty and truth-
fulness. It is no wonder the people cannot believe the Prime
Minister. It is no wonder they have no faith in the Prime

Minister.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

October 23, I980

Mr. Taylor: With regard to half truths, the Prime Minister
goes to the press and says this package he is presenting is the
result of what the people of Quebec wanted when they voted
against national sovereignty. That is a complete fabrication.
Even Claude Ryan, the Liberal leader of Quebec, will not go
along with that. He will take this government to court if the
government of Quebec will not. Hon. members opposite stand
up and ask the people to believe them. We cannot believe a
thing the Prime Minister of Canada says.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Taylor: There are some hon. members opposite, includ-
ing the hon. member from Manitoba, who tried to fool this
House today that the people of western Canada are not
thinking seriously about these things. I wonder why 600 people
showed up at a separation meeting in Red Deer the other
night. I wonder why the people of Manitoba, Saskatchewan
and B.C. are organizing separation movements. One of them
claims it has l3,000 members. They are completely fed up
with what the Liberals are giving them in western Canada.

I want to give one example. Bob Giles was the editor and
publisher of The Watchman, an Argenteuil paper, in the
Argenteuil-Two Mountains constituency. He was thepublisher
and editor of the family business there that was started more
than 75 years ago. Mr. Giles and his paper supported the
Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox)
after his first nomination as a candidate to contest that riding
right up until Mr. Giles left the province of Quebec. He was
writing editorials against separation. He went out to Alberta in
1977 and became the publisher and editor of the Strathmore
Standard in the Alberta Bow River constituency. Since that
time he made a study of the alienation he saw all around him
and the reasons people were becoming disgruntled with the
federal government. He found out what it was all about. He
became disenchanted with the present Prime Minister and the
Liberal government. The other day he even purchased a cap to
show that he was no longer going to support the Liberal
government. He wants fairness in this country, and he is
wearing a cap like the one I have in my hand now. On it it
says: “Western Republic of Canada”. He is not breaking away
from Canada. We would not let the Prime Minister drive us
out of this country. But Bob Giles is wearing this cap. I am not
wearing it yet, but if we have much more of this totalitarian-
ism, I will be the next one to put it on.

People in western Canada do not want—nor do they ask
for–any special deal or special consideration. Their long-fes-
tering anger has been aggravated by the refusal of the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources
(Mr. Lalonde) to give Alberta a reasonable price for its oil and
gas and by the Prime Minister and Stuart Smith endeavouring
to brainwash central Canadians by telling them that Alberta
gas and oil belong to all Canadians, which is a complete
fabrication and a denial of the BNA Act.

80090- 34

COMMONS DEBATES

4033

The Constitution
3 (2300)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised the people of
western Canada–and I was there and heard him at the
western resources conference—that he would correct the
unfairness about freight rates. Freight rates are at their apex
in this country. We pay the highest rates going west and we
pay the highest rates going east. The Prime Minister made a
promise to the people of western Canada when he said that
there was no reason why one quarter of the population should
not have a fair deal. He promised them a fair deal in freight
rates but he has done nothing about it. By dilly-dallying and
leaving the grain transportation in the mess it was in 1979, he
is ruining the farmers. He ruined our oil industry by establish-
ing an export price for oil a few years ago. He has set back the
industry four years. No wonder we are still paying millions of
dollars for imported oil. Most of it is owing to the very actions
of the present Prime Minister.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Taylor: Bob Giles, once a strong Liberal, now has taken
a stand the other way. He wants fairness in this country. The
only way he can get it, he thinks, is to establish a republic in
western Canada. He asked me to give this cap to the Secretary
of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) with his
compliments in the hope that the minister will take it to the
next cabinet meeting and show the Prime Minister what he is
doing to Canada. He is breaking up Canada, he is dividing this
country.

Mr. Speaker, I will not simply stand and say, “yes, yes” the
way the Liberal members are doing, because I see the country
being broken up.

An hon. Member: That is right!
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Taylor: In 1968, the Prime Minister promised the
people a just society, and he gave them the War Measures Act.
In 1972, he promised them a new society, and he gave them
record inflation and unemployment. In 1974, he promised no
wage and price controls. He ridiculed the then leader of the
opposition, the Hon. Robert Stanfield, and then he imposed
wage and price controls, though not as it would have been done
had Mr. Stanfield been elected. In 1980, he promised no
increase in gas prices, and he gave them an increase. Every-
body who goes to the pump knows that.

What about our natural resources? All we are asking for is a
fair deal. We went through the depression years. I went

hungry and I saw my mother go hungry in those years. I made

up my mind, growing up with all that wheat in the fields and
all that abundance, that there is no reason why men and
women, boys and girls should be hungry in the midst of plenty.
I made up my mind that I would do everything I could to
make sure that no other Canadian would have to suffer that
way. Then we found oil—not with the help of people in eastern
Canada but with the help of Americans. Now things are
looking a little better. Because we are doing well, we get

4034

The Constitution
ridicule from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources

and from the Prime Minister. They are angry because we are’

building up the heritage fund to make sure we never have to go
back to those times again. They want to destroy our industry. V

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Taylor: They say we do not share. We have shared with
every other province equally. In addition to that we have
shared’$l7 billion by selling our oil and gas at a lower price to
Canadians than the world price. I wonder if anybody who has
gold in Ontario did that, or those who have hydro or those who
have timber. We have paid the full price for our machinery.
We have paid through the nose every time. You want us to
continue to give and give. No wonder hundreds of people are
wearing this cap. I want to tell you that if you continue this
kind of thing, you will break up Canada and you will not have
Canada to govern. You had better think it over pretty
carefully.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Taylor: This fabrication and this hypocrisy is all we get.
Here we have the Prime Minister and the Leader of the NDP
telling the people that they are giving them something. Let us
look at the BNA Act. It says that all lands, mines, minerals
and royalties belong to the provinces. They already own them.
Then look at the letter which the Prime Minister sent to the
Leader of the NDP which warms the heart of the Leader of
the NDP who then cuddles up to the Prime Minister. This is
what the letter says:

–confirm the jurisdiction of the provinces with respect to exploration, develop-
ment, conservation, and management of non-renewable natural resources-

There is nothing about ownership there. This is less than we
have now under the BNA Act.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Taylor: Who are they trying to fool? They must think
the people of Canada are illiterate. The people of Canada are
not illiterate. There is another thing in that letter which
warmed the heart of the New Democratic Party Leader. I am
referring to the words “subject to full federal paramountcy” in
the letter. They still want to have their hand in there to do
what they like, even in that letter. No wonder Mr. Blakeney
will not fall for that kind of thing.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Taylor: The people of Canada will not be doing it
either. There is another thing I want to say. They do not even
say. what they want to manage. Is it management of prices or
is it management of drilling? Mr. Trudeau does not say
anything about that.

Some hon. Members: Order!

Mr. Taylor: His answer to a question today showed us the
totalitarian concept of our Prime Minister. The Leader of the

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, I980

NDP asked the Prime Minister if he would nationalize the oil
industry, and Mr. Trudeau’s answer was “no, not at this time.”

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I should like to call the
attention of the hon. member that it is not the practice of the
House to refer to members of this House by their names. They
should be referred to either by their constituencies or their
ministries.

Mr. Taylor: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the New
Democratic Party and the Leader of the Liberal party are two
of a kind. What was the answer of the Prime Minister? It was
“not at this time”. I tell the people of Canada: beware, because
he will not say he will not nationalize. What he says is “not at
this time.” In his own book written a little while ago called,
“Federalism, Nationalism and Reason—by Pierre E. Tru-
deau”—I have to say his name because that is what it says on
the book—

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Taylor: He wrote:

Thus when a tightly knit minority within a state begins to define itself forcefully
and consistently as a nation, it is triggering a mechanism which will tend to
propel it towards full statehood.

Here he is planning for that day. He spoke to the Montreal
students about a French republic. He said it would be better
for us to have a French republic. If he wants a French
republic, why will he not stand up and say so? I have nothing?
againt a French republic, but why is the beating around the
bush and trying to sneak it into the constitution for the British
parliament to pass?

Then we heard a few other things the other day about there
being no other alternative. That is nonsense. The premiers of
this province are ready and willing. We could have had
agreement, as Senator Manning said in his speech in the
Senate the other day. If the package had not been put there
with all the pet theories of the Prime Minister, there could
have been agreement. He did: it deliberately so they would not
reach agreement. He is not fooling anyone. He did not want an
agreement. He wanted to be a hero. But nobody thought he
would try to sneak it over to England and have it passed by the
British parliament’. Oh, he is so embarrassed when he goes
over there to ask for an amendment. The other day the
Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien) felt so bad that tears
almost streamed down his face because they had to go to the
British parliament for an amendment. But where is that
embarrassment now when he is asking for a whole package of
amendments? The Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister
(Mr. Trudeau) have each said there are no changes in the
powers. I want to say that there is a change in the powers.
They are projecting themselves into provincial jurisdictions.
That is exactly what they are doing. The BNA Act puts
education under provincial control, and the government is
deliberately projecting itself into provincial jurisdiction. Edu-
cation is a responsibility of the provinces. The regulations
indicate that-parents have the right to send their children to
schools of their choice, whether English or French.

October 23, 1980

(2310)

I sent a questionnaire out to the householders in my constit-
uency. One question I asked was: Are you in favour of
guaranteeing in the constitution the right of a minority group
speaking either French or English to have their children
educated in the language of the minority? Sixty-four per cent
of the replies indicated they were not in favour of putting this
into the constitution. The second question was: Do you consid-
er it sufficient to trust each province to provide such facilities
where the need exists? Seventy per cent said, “Yes, we are
prepared to trust each province”. Putting that in the constitu-
tion will be counterproductive. It will make people who believe
today that the government is forcing French down their
throats, say, “There, I told you; they are even asking for an
amendment to the BNA Act”.

Let me tell the House what the province of Alberta is
already doing. It is providing full services for children of
French parentage from Grade I to university, wherever the
numbers require it. The provincial department and the school
boards are co-operative, the private and separate school boards
are co-operative. They provide education for Ukrainians and

Germans.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the
hon. member but his time has expired.

Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate this evening in this most important
debate. We have all expressed our respect for this institution.
When we think about this institution, we recognize that it
involves the adversary system. But when one witnesses what
was presented in the House tonight and all other remarks
made by members of the official opposition respecting this
important matter, one wonders about the adversary system.

With respect to the hon. member for Bow River (Mr.
Taylor), the most charitable comment one could make is that
he coloured the issueof the constitution very well, indeed. I
say “coloured” and not “covered” because he did not address
himself to the issue before the House tonight.

Some hon. Members: Shame!
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Harquail: I immediately agreed with the hon. member
for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he invited
members of the House to speak about the issue at hand. He
invited hon. members to speak about the constitution, not what
we have witnessed here—innuendo, name-calling and mis-
representation of the worst kind. That is what we have seen in
the -House of Commons. There is one word for that type of
demagoguery. It is despicable. That is the word for it.

We could get into the same type of response. If we want to
pretend that this institution is supposed to work that way–
that we do not discuss bills or the issue before us, that we
attempt to mislead Canadians, we can do so, especially with

COMMONS DEBATES

4035

The Constitution

the advent of television. Hon. members opposite have not
explained that this is not a bill, that it is only a motion, that we
will refer it to committee and it will come back.

Some hon. Members: It is not a motion.

Mr. Harquail: It is a resolution. We are moving motions
with respect to the resolution.

Mr. Epp: It is not a resolution.
Mr. Harquail: They do not tell Canadians—
An hon. Member: You do not know what it is.

Mr. Harquail: They do not tell Canadians through the
media that there will be a continuing debate and freedom of
expression in this House, which is what this very institution
stands for.

Mr. Clark: When? How much?

Mr. Harquail: I have the privilege of doing that tonight. I
am able to express myself without their interruptions. This is
what the House of Commons is all about.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Harquail: The right to be heard is the basic, fundamen-
tal principle of the House; members opposite should take some
lessons–

Mr. Clark: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order–
Some hon. Members: Sit down!

Mr. Clark: I wonder if the hon. member who is speaking
would answer the following two questions for me.

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Clark: How is the right to speak guarded by the
imposition of closure?

Mr. Lalonde: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Clark: How many days of debate will be guaranteed in
this House of Commons after a report from committee?

Mr. Harquail: Canadians gave the gentlemen who just
spoke a great right when they gave him the title of “Right
Honourable.” I should think that he would want to think
before he speaks and give some respect to that right.

Mr. Clark: Answer the question!

Mr. Harquail: I will answer you in the way you should be
answered. When I have finished my time in which to speak, I
will be happy to–

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With all due respect, the hon. member
should address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr. Clark: Please.

4036

The Constitution

Mr. Harquail: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. This institution is
what debating is about. If I were to debate with the right hon.
gentleman, I would suggest that he should speak with the hon.
member for York North (Mr. Gamble) who has some sugges-
tions about his performance in recent times, if I remember
correctly.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Harquail: That is what concerns the right hon. gentle-
man. That is what preoccupies the right hon. gentleman,
especially with the type of advice he received tonight. That is
why he is concerned, that is why he is grabbing for straws. He
has been on every side. I could not imagine any other position
he could take on this issue. He has been on every side of the
waterfront. That is what he has been doing. He does not say
that. we came back here early, that we reconvened the session
earlier than planned. He does not mention that.

An hon. Member: A 24-hour debate.

Mr. Harquail: They are on this 24-hour kick. Do they think
they can mislead and fool Canadians?

An hon. Member: Not as well as you can.

Mr. Harquail: Do they think they can fool Canadians as the
House leader for the official opposition tried to do this after-
noon? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre tried to
twist what Madam Speaker had said in this honourable cham-
ber and tried to tear away the respect we all have for the
Chair. is that what it is supposed to be all about–anything at
all costs? Is that the position being taken by the opposition?

Mr. Clark: It is your policy.
Mr. Harquail: With respect to the constitution–
An hon. Member: You have no respect.

Mr. Harquail: We all believe in a good foundation. Usually
one starts with a foundation. I would have thought premiers,
Canadians and parliamentarians here would want to co-oper-
ate to bring the constitution back here. We have our Canadian
flag and we have our national anthem, O Canada. For the last
53 years of federal-provincial conferences we have seen delay-
ing tactics. First we got the flag, more recently we got O
Canada, and now we are getting down to discussing the
constitution. I think that explains the situation very adequately
for Canadians. Because of the adversary system, they feel they
must fight every issue–the flag, O Canada, Canada itself and
the constitution—just for the sake of being able to say that
they have been a good opposition. Especially when it is as plain
as the noses on their faces, can they not see the light and
understand what Canadians want?

Q (2320)

Mr. Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Members on
this side of the House will agree to say nothing further during

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

the hon. member’s speech if he will agree to say something to
the House.

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Harquail: Mr. Speaker, that intervention is typical. It is
a waste of the time of the House and it is not fair. At one time
the hon. member was, I believe, the parliamentary secretary to
the House leader and I would have thought he would have
picked up a little in the short time he was in that position. You
do not raise frivolous points of order and take up the time of
another speaker to do it. I respectfully request him not to do
that.

What are we witnessing here? There is a section in the
Criminal Code which talks about inciting. I submit that some
of the comments which have been made in recent days, and
especially today, by previous speakers on the opposite side of
the House, fall dangerously close to inciting Canadians—
spreading fear about the threat and danger of what is going to
happen to Canada.

An hon. Member: You cannot incite with the truth.

Mr. Harquail: I would like to read from a recent letter to an
editor signed by a Canadian from Jasper, Alberta. It says:
I have been visiting Ottawa for some weeks and have followed carefully the
political speeches of the various party leaders. .
Since my home is in western Canada and I am reasonably familiar with the

views of our fellow citizens out there, may I say that the artless naiveté of Mr.
Joe Clark with respect to the possibility of western Canada separating from the

rest of the country on account of the constitutional question is pure

hallucination.

That is the truth. The letter goes on to say:

Where would we go on our own? We are in no way prepared to defend
ourselves in case of a war. Would we wish to be gobbled up by the United
States? We know that the American states have much less independence and
rights than have the provinces of Canada.

And these will be protected when we patriate the contitu-
tion, protected to aneven greater extent. The writer of the
letter goes on to say:

It is little wonder that Canadians quickly got the low-down on our Joe and
dumped him promptly.

I read that magnificent letter of Prof. Arthur Lower of Queen’s University:

and I agree with him completely. Truly, “If you, Mr. Prime Minister, succeed in
holding us together and preventing the provinces destroying us, no name in
Canadian history will go down in greater honour than yours.”

And the letter is signed by J . R. Dietrich, of Jasper, Alberta.

An hon. Member: Which newspaper?

Mr. Harquail: I am prepared to say where I received the

information. It was in The Citizen.

We have all travelled across this country and we all have a
very deep sense of pride in being Canadian. Part of my work in

the last six years has taken me to the west. I have relatives

and, yes, I have friends there. They are true Canadians, they.
are in a majority and they are not talking about separation.
They are talking about the future of this country; that is what
they talk about because they are sincerely dedicated to keeping}.,..,
the country together. That is what I support. That is what I

like about westerners; they are not afraid to say they are proud
to be Canadian. Whether you are in British Columbia, Alber-
ta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba, that is what Canada is all
about.

I would like to say something with respect to the all-impor-
tant aspect of entrenching rights, which is one of the main
questions in this debate. I live in northern New Brunswick,
which borders la belle province de Québec, on the banks of the
Restigouche River, and I went to the school board so that my
sons could learn the second language. And, yes, some 15 years
ago I was told: No, but we might allow you to put them in an
immersion course; we only need 16 students and if we could
just borrow your son he would round out the members for the
class. I had no intention of accepting that. I wanted my sons to
go into a pure French class and to really get the feel of the
second language, the French language. I am happy to tell you
that because of my perseverance I won my case with the school
board and all my sons have gone through the elementary
classes—right up to grade 7–in French, not in an immersion
class but in a pure French class. And my three sons are
beautifully bilingual today. That is what I believe in.

[Translation]
When I was young I did not have the opportunity to learn

French, the second language of our country, because our

schools were English.
Mr. Speaker, for a long time in my public life I have

supported the position of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr.
Trudeau) in so far as the Acadians of New Brunswick are

concerned. Yes, I will defend the Acadians of New Brunswick!
Yes, I will defend the basic rights of the French language in
the constitution! That is my position, without reservation!

[English]

That is why I am very pleased to have the privilege of
standing in my place tonight to say that this is what I have
offered and told my people we would work for—not only for
the rights of language, but for cultural, educational and all the
other fundamental rights which we have been talking about
and which are so very important to the future. That is the
aspect which is important to the future survival of this country.
We do not have to go around drumming or dreaming up some
imaginary story in order to spook or scare Canadians about
what is going to happen in this country.

I implore all members of this House toshow some respect
for this institution, to try to see the other members’ points of
view. Many of us have had the opportunity to travel outside
Canada.” I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, are aware of the
feeling you have when you return to Canada, where we have
freedom, where we can walk the streets without fear for life
and safety. That is the greatest aspect of this country and one
we should preserve and protect. I do not need to delay the

House by enumerating all the countries where you cannot do
that. I just wanted to draw attention to it tonight because I

have had occasion to travel in other countries and am so
delighted to get back to Canada. When you see people getting
down to kiss the very soil, you recognize that that is the feeling

COMMONS DEBATES

4037

The Constitution

you have when you come back to this great country. We know
the reasons why we are proud to be Canadian. It is because of
the rights we have and because we are willing to take up our
responsibilities and accept our duty. We intend to see to it that
once the constitution is back we will have free debate.

Mr. Speaker, we see the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Clark) saying, one minute, that he agrees we should bring
back the constitution. The next minute he is saying he doesn’t
like the way we are approaching the situation. He should make
up his mind.

Let me conclude with a quotation from the Institute of
Research on Public Policy. It says:

The problem has been that in recent years the traditional economic links
between the Canadian provinces have been eroding. In my opinion that erosion
could, if not reversed, threaten our very survival as a nation.

If we are to succeed in our quest for a strengthened nation and a renewed
Canada then we must begin by making a commitment and a conscious decision
not only to rework constitutional arrangements but to build solid economic
relationships among the regions of Canada. We need a new set of economic and
political relationships which can accommodate our existing strengths across the
country—in the maritimes, in Quebec, in Ontario and in the west-in such a
way that we reinforce each other in a genuine partnership that creates a stronger
and more united whole and a more united country.

In concluding, I hope we will not abuse the rules of this
House and not abuse the television coverage that is going out
to the people in such a way that the only word that can be
applied is “misleading”. It is misleading in almost every aspect
on all fronts with respect to the subject matter which we have
been debating since we returned from the summer recess.
What I would like to see is a sensible, realistic approach to the
responsibilities and the work which we are called upon to do

here.
. (2330)

While we are talking about rights–and it does not matter
whether I take the time on a question of privilege or a point of
order or on another occasion–what about the question of
television within this House? As a result of television, this
House is no longer what it once was. In many instances, it is
now a television studio. One of the deals was that we would not
have editing or abuses of the service of bringing the message to
Canadians which they are perfectly entitled to receive. Now
members opposite want to extend television beyond the House
into other areas. But that subject might best be left for debate
at some other time. I cannot recall that during the short time I
have been here we have debated the pros and cons of televising
the debates of this House or agreed that we would allow people
and the media outside the chamber to play with the debates.
That is not my understanding of the original plan. We will
have a chance to come back to this matter another time.
However, it is an example of people treading upon other
people’s rights and of people misleading other people. It is
divisive and a great threat to thiscountry and it is something

which I, in the coming months and years, will work to correct.

In the meantime I would like to express my appreciation to
at least some of the members who have courteously allowed
me to express myself in this free, democratic institution. I
would hope that as we go on to the work in committee and as

4038

The Constitution

we come back to this chamber, each and every member will
have had the opportunity to express himself, or herself,
through that cherished, precious right of freedom of speech
which relates to the very work we are doing in terms of the
constitution and all the work we will carry out once the
constitution is brought back in terms of the amending formula.

Mr. Clark: Mr. Speaker, returning to my point of order—
and I know the hon. member would not want to mislead the
House or the public—I would remind him of his undertaking
to reply to my two questions at the end of his remarks. I would
like him to explain to us how freedom of speech is guaranteed
by the imposition of closure. Second, and this matter is of very
real interest to all members of the House, he spoke about the
opportunity for full debate once the matter is out of commit-
tee. Will the hon. member tell us now how many days and
weeks of full debate in the House of Commons the Govern-
ment of Canada is prepared to guarantee once theproposal
comes back from committee? The hon. member claimstto be
interested in the right of parliamentary debate, so these points
should be of interest to him, and I know he wanted the
opportunity to respond.

Mr. Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my apprecia-
tion to the Leader of the Opposition for giving me the opportu-
nity to speak once again. I would like to explain to the
Canadian people that we have rules in this House. Standing
Orders 75A, B and C have on many occasions been misquoted
in a misleading fashion. Standing Order 75C has been referred
to as closure. It was never closure. This is closure, but all those
other times we were not on closure. With respect to the other
question, I would have thought the right hon. member would
have learned the lesson as Prime Minister to respect his House
leader. Our House leader answers for our party and he will
give indication to members opposite about the decisions by
government, which has been elected to govern, as to how much
time will be allotted for the debate and when we will debate,
and I suspect the right hon. gentleman respects that.

Mr. Clark: That means we will have closure again.

Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr. Speak-
er, it is with feelings of pleasure and regret that I stand in this
House tonight to speak on the constitution and the future of
Canada. The regret is that I have only 20 minutes to speak. I
hear hon. members opposite saying that all they need is
another westerner. We just heard the hon. member for Resti-
gouche (Mr. Harquail) talk about the freedom of this House
and now some members are saying that all they need is
another westerner. I can tell hon. members opposite that we in
western Canada feel that we are a part of Canada. We are
proud of Canada and we intend to tell the people of Canada
about our feelings and how we want to stay in Canada.

Members are allowed only 20 minutes to speak on the
Constitution of Canada. The future of our country, the future
of my children, my grandchildren and my great grandchildren
will be decided by members who will speak for a brief 20

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

minutes. We have had only 24 hours of debate. Some of my
hon. friends on this side will’ not have an opportunity to speak
this evening. Many of them will be denied that right because
of the gag rule, because of closure, because of the stifling of
free speech which has been imposed upon this House.

Yesterday the House had the opportunity to debate and vote
on a motion proposed by my party which would immediately
patriate, immediately domicile in Canada, the Constitution of
Canada. It could have been brought home with an amending
formula agreed upon by the ten premiers of Canada and then
debated in this House until we had a Canadian constitution for
Canadians. We all know what happened. We have not changed
our ideas about Canada. We have not changed our ideas on
getting the constitution home, but the government voted
against our proposal.

Not only did the government vote against it, but so did
members of the New Democratic Party. The loudest objection
which we heard yesterday from members of the government
was that our proposal would allow some provinces the right to
opt out if there was a federal intrusion on their jurisdiction. It
would have allowed them to decide whether or not they would
like to be included in a federal instrusion on their jurisdiction.
They said that was not right.

The people of Canada not only elect members to the House
of Commons, but they also elect members to the legislatures
and they, too, are Canadians who represent their people and
they, too, have a right in Canada. When I entered this House a
year ago, I had many things in mind. I entered it with a great
deal of respect for all members but particularly for those of
long service. Some of those whom I respect have a legend
which goes before them. One such member is the hon. member
for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who is known as a
great citizen and an upright supporter of the free speech.

Yesterday when this government imposed closure on us, that
supposedly hon. member whom I respected did not stand when
it came time. He sat in his place and allowed the House of
Commons to be gagged without uttering a word. The people
from Saskatchewan, Kindersley-Lloydmiiister constituency
which I represent and the people from all the other constituen-
cies, which are represented by members of my party and
members of the New Democratic Party, have a belief in
Canada and want to stay in Canada. I was pleased when the
Prime Minister made the announcement that the constitution-
al resolution would be represented in the House. The hon.
member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and the hon.
member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), though we are not
of the same political party and have several differences of
opinion, expressed the feelings, the desires and concerns of
their constituents.

The hon. member for Prince Albert is quoted in the Prince
Albert Daily Herald of Friday, October 3, as saying, “Prime
Minister Trudeau’s move to patriate the British North Ameri-
ca Act is a study in cynicism”. He said that the Prime
Minister was trying to patriate without provincial consensus,
that he ignored the issues and that a provincial consensus was

needed if the federal government was going to continue to .

October 23, I980

pursue its options. I agree with the hon. member for Prince
Albert, Mr. Speaker, but I regret that I have not heard him
speak on this very important matter in the House. I would like
to think that he will continue to represent the wishes of his
constituents.

The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom)
stood in his place in this House and in a fine and eloquent
manner spoke of the pitfalls and inequities that he saw in the
resolution. As to sections 42 and 46 concerning the amending
formula he said it was not proper that under this resolution the
right could be given through an amending formula and taken
away through a manipulative referendum which denied the
basic partnership and essence of federalism. That is what he
said in this House. I hope members of his party continue to
talk that waybecause I believe they truly represent their
constituents. That is what we hear. That.is what the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre was saying when he said
we should set aside our differences. I agree with those two
members of the NDP but I should like to ask whether there
are other members who feel that way and who may not have
spoken in the House. Only one member from that party spoke
on the resolution today. As I understood the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre, he was speaking on an amendment or
a point of order.

Mr. Knowles: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. Does the hon.
member not realize, with respect to our stand on closure, that
we voted against it today solidly? Does he not realize that I did
make a full 20-minute speech today, including our attack on
closure? The hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam
(Miss Jewett) made a full 20-minute speech and we have
another one to come. Would the hon. member not like to get
his facts straight?

Mr. McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I certainly retract my remarks
about the matter on which the hon. member for Winnipeg
North Centre was speaking, but sometimes we hear 20-minute
speeches from the hon. gentleman on other matters. I do
apologize to the hon. gentleman.

The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen)
spoke as well, and I referred to his speech earlier today. In

effect he was saying, “My leader said that we support in

principle most, if not all, of the items in the resolution,” but
then he went on to say, “with regard to resources taxation.”
He then quoted the former premier of the province of British
Columbia, Mr. Barrett, as saying:

British Columbia is prepared to share all the oil and natural gas rights granted
to it by the constitution if the Government of Canada would put under public
control all of the oil and gas in the country.

That is very nice, for the people of British Columbia. Then
he added the comment that it appears the NDP are willing and
want the province to maintain jurisdiction over natural
resources. that is, unless the federal government would promise
to nationalize all the natural resources–then they would give
it all to them. I am sure the people of British Columbia would
be very interested in that proposition.

COMMONS DEBATES

4039

The Constitution

This Liberal-democrat coalition will be bringing in a sup-
posed amendment which is not acceptable to any but the
Prime Minister and the leader of the New Democratic Party.
It is not acceptable to the premier of Saskatchewan who was
quoted today as saying that this move has made it more
difficult for the provinces to bargain. There was a big hul-
labaloo about the right to indirect taxation. But most of the
resources from Saskatchewan are not exported to other parts
of Canada, Mr. Speaker, they are exported outside the borders
of Canada. So indirect taxation does nothing in those
circumstances.

Mr. Blakeney has already found a way to get around
indirect taxation by imposing an income tax at the wellhead
which has diminished, and will continue to diminish, the
search for oil in our province. In that way, the potential of this
country to become self-sufficient in oil will be jeopardized.

We speak of Canada as being more than just a federal
government. Several members–and not just members of my
party—have spoken about this resolution. One province
accepts it; two are not sure and seven are considering action in
the courts. Senator Manning has spoken out in the other place
against the resolution and the political minister for Alberta in
the other place, the Minister of State for Economic Develop-
ment (Mr. Olson) is reported in the Vancouver Sun of October
11 as follows:

Economic development Minister Bud Olson, the lone Albertan in the federal
cabinet, said Friday he does not favour Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s
constitutional amending formula.

The senator told student Liberals at the University of Alberta that his “personal
preference” is for the Alberta amending formula.

So it is not just members of this party who oppose the
motion, Mr. Speaker. We want to know why we have to
change the system under which we have been governed. We
want to know by what right the only acceptable viewpoint is
that of the Liberals. More than that one viewpoint must be
represented.

Let us examine what that Liberal viewpoint represents in
Canada, Mr. Speaker. There is a total of 282 seats in this
House and at the present time there are a number of vacan-
cies. The government has 143 members and a majority of 33
seats. The province of Quebec has sent 72 members to the
government benches-~

An hon. Member: Seventy-four.

Mr. McKnight: —-and over 86 per cent of Liberal members
are from the central provinces, Quebec and Ontario. Only 20
Liberal members come from the eight other provinces com-
bined, two of them west of the Ontario-Manitoba border. So
what about rural Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British
Columbia, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories?

An hon. Member: There are NDP members.

Mr. McKnight: I hear a member on the government side
saying it is all right because the NDP supports them. I should
like to tell hon. members opposite that from the information I
have and the speeches I have read in this House, I gather that

4040

The Constitution

not all NDP members support the government. I commend
them for that and for speaking out for their constituents.

We have heard a great deal about the intense emotions
involved in this question and we have beeniaccused of using
scare tactics and inciting, when all we are trying to do is gain
the attention of this government.

. I think everyone recognizes that the premier of my province
IS. a very conservative individual, a quiet man who goes out of
his way not to overstate a case. As a matter of fact, I think the
premiers of western Canada have gone out of their way to
understate the feelings and strong concerns of the people of
western Canada. In an interview, Premier Blakeney was asked:

How do you sense the mood of the country now and how dangerous is this
continuing acrimony, do you think, in terms of national unity?

He replied:
Well, I think the mood of the country is building into a confrontational mood.
Q (2350)
Later on in the interview Mr. Blakeney said:

-we have a situation which is beginning to be more than disquieting. In fact, it
begins to be dangerous.

The question was then put to him as follows:

Dangerous to the continuous existence of Canada as we know it now?

The answer given by Mr. Blakeney was:

Yes, I mean dangerous to the continuous existence of Canada. I don’t want to
overstate that–

Referring to the constitutional talks this summer, later in
the interview, Mr. Blakeney said this:

With respect to the agreement of the package there was a rough and ready
agreement by the premiers on all of the items in the constitutional package—-

I ask hon. members what does this tell us? It tells us that
there was agreement among ten provinces. But who could not
agree? The federal government could not agree, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Trudeau could not agree. The “incredible sulk” could not
agree. He wanted to sulk and go away in his corner so that he
could write his own constitution. The premiers did not break
up that conference, The federal government did.

There is more to what has been said about the problems in
western Canada. I noticed the hon. member for Restigouche
was reading from a newspaper. Now I would like to read an
article written by Mr. Stan Roberts, ex-Liberal MLA for the
province of Manitoba, who is presently executive director of
Canada West Foundation. He said:

Trudeau was acting tonight as though he was president of a unitary state.

Now you know why he is an ex-Liberal MLA for Manitoba,
Mr. Speaker. The article continues:
Ottawa’s initiative can do nothing but increase separatist’s sympathies in the

west, he warned. This will fan the flames. lt’s like pouring a little of our
wcll-known Alberta crude on the fire. ‘

But the hon. member for Restigouche took great pride in
reading a letter which appeared in a newspaper in Ottawa,
supposedly written by someone in Alberta. I have a letter
which appeared in the Edmonton Journal which was written

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, I980

by someone from Penticton, British Columbia. I think some of
my NDP colleagues would be interested in it. The letter reads:
A great destiny awaits Western Canada if it severs the Gordian knot but unless
we do rise to the occasion we will forever remain central Canada’s milch cow,
forever under its political and economic control, eventually, perhaps, to be ruled
by Emperor Trudeau in a totalitarian state.

If we search through the newspapers, Mr. Speaker, I am
sure that we could all find letters to editors stating some of the
views that we have put forth.

I say to members opposite, and to the Government of
Canada, that we are trying to make you understand. We are
trying to have you help us. We want your help. We want you
people to help us, as I tried to make clear in my own way when
I stood in this House and asked the people of Quebec to stay in
this country because we wanted them. We wanted them then
and we want them now. We want to stay with them as
Canadians. But, Mr. Speaker, we need your help and the help
of members opposite. I stood in this House and condemned a
long-time friend because he is leading a unionist party of
Canada that has, as its goal, the breakup of Canada. I did not
enjoy condemning a friend. I know how the people of Quebec
felt when they had to condemn friends. But I will stand in this
House and condemn the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and
his party if they break up Canada because I hope that some
day my daughters and sons will be able to come to this House
of Commons and have the opportunity to represent their part
of Canada in a nation of Canada as we know it, and as we
continue to want it.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker,
as I enter this debate tonight on this motion, I think back to
the part of Canada where I was born. I remember the old
people saying that some day in Canada we would have a flag.
They also said that some day our constitution would be
patriated to Canada.

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Whelan: Some day it will be brought to its rightful
home. Needless to say I never thought that I would be part of
the institution that would debate the flag issue. I can remem-
ber that debate. Mr. Speaker, we used closure then. I can
remember some of the people on the other side of the House

crying. _
Mr. Dick: After five weeks.

Mr. Whelan: I remember the wild stories of what was going
to. happen to this country of ours. I was part of that decision’

and I was proud. I am proud every day that I walk by the
House of Commons and see Canada’s flag flying on top of the
peace tower.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

,Mr. Whelan: I will be just as proud that I am part of .
bringing the constitution to its rightful home in Ottawa. Some,
of us have travelled around the world. We are the big helpers;

October 23, 1980

to the developing countries. Every now and again we hear the
little remark that we are still a colony.

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Whelan: We hear people say that we do not have our
constitution at home. Here we are, the great mature country
called Canada, and we are scared of something—I do not
know what it is–of fear itself is about the only way I could
describe it. But I do not understand some of the things that are
being said about bringing the constitution here and about the
way it is being done.

One can look at the records and see how often prime
ministers and leaders of this country, of every political faith,
Conservative and Liberal, ever since 1921 have tried and tried
to bring the constitution to its rightful home, where it has
never been, and failed because they could never come to an
agreement.

I hear this talk about closure. I think it is so funny when
that group over there talks about the rights and privileges of
Parliament. My God, Mr. Speaker, they loved Parliament so
much they were not going to let us use it last year because they
kept us out of this place so long.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Whelan: Never in our history since confederation from
the time an election was called until the House of Commons
reconvened, the lovers of freedom and the lovers of democracy
on the other side of the House did not even want tolet us use
this great institution. They wanted to run a country without
Parliament. It was the longest time since confederation–

An hon. Member: That is not true.

Mr. Whelan: Now these are the people, the great freedom-
lovers of Parliament. One of the members earlier–I forget his
name and his riding—he talked about Alberta. He talked
about us being a group of dictators and he said all kinds of
horrible things. I could not help but think about an article I
read in the paper the other day. It concerned one member of
Parliament in Alberta who was brave enough to disagree with
that great democratic institution called the Conservative party
of Alberta. What did they do? They threw him out.

Some hon. “Members: Oh, oh!
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Whelan: They threw him out because he disagreed. He
could no-longer be part of that great democratic party, the
Conservative party of Alberta under Peter Lougheed. He
could no longer stay there because he disagreed. Was it
because they had a minority position? They don’t have any
opposition. They now have one more member inthe opposition.
I believe that brings them up to six in the opposition, so he is
going to sit as in independent. I bet he is happy. At least he
can say and do what he wants. He can be free and
independent.

COMMONS DEBATES

404 l

The Constitution
o (2400)

We use the British parliamentary system. We hear them
talking about closure. Who has used closure most in Canada?
The Conservative party. Who has been in power least? The
Conservative party.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Whelan: Closure has been used in the House of Com-
mons I8 times, ten times by the Conservatives and eight times
by the Liberals. Just imagine if they had been in power as long
as us. They probably would have used it 100 times, if you went
by the percentages.

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Whelan: What a phony group, what a phony group! The
hypocrisy of it! There must be a better word to describe them
than that. There probably is in the other official language. I
have been criticized for travelling around Canada. I am prob-
ably the most travelled Canadian, the most travelled par-
liamentarian. I have been in an elected position since I was 21
years of age. That will be 36 years I have been in an elected
position, either on school boards, municipal councils or as a
member of Parliament.

An hon. Member: That’s 25 years too long.
Mr. Whelan: Why do I stay in the House of Commons?
Some hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Whelan: Mainly because of the democratic function
that takes place. They re-elect me all the time and keep
sending me back.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Whelan: The other reason I run is because I have
become so fearful of that group over there and what they
would do to this country. Just imagine. When we go across the
country and talk to Canadians or around the world and talk to
other people, what do they say? You are from Canada, the
people who are the best housed, the people that have the best
way of life in the world, the highest standard of living, the
highest standard of earning of any people in the world. There
are more people living on the same plateau in Canada than
any other country.

Canada is the envy of the world. I was recently in British
Columbia, the Fraser Valley, Chilliwack, Abbotsford and
other places. I visited farmers and other ordinary citizens of
that area. The people there come from many different parts of
the world, so we talked quite a bit about the constitution. They
talked about Canada, because they are just ordinary people
like their Minister of Agriculture. They told me that when
they came to Canada, if anyone had told them they were going
to a province named Alberta, Ontario or Quebec, they would
not have known where they were going, though they knew they
were going to Canada. They said they do not understand what
is going on, they do not understand this debate. They told me

4042

The Constitution

they want us to get it over with, finish it, andbring the
constitution back to Canada.

That was in Chilliwack, Dauphin, Ste. Rose du Lac, Russell,
Yorkton, Margo, Kamsack and Regina. When I was in
Regina, they had a walk-up microphone poll. Even that
showed they were in favour of what we are doing.

Mr. Hnatyshyn: They must have talked to the only three
Liberals there.

Mr. Whelan: It was a fairly high percentage. I have a
brother in Regina.

Mr. McKnight: What’s his profession?

. Mr. Whelan: I will tell you his profession. He is in the
insurance and real estate business.

An hon. Member: What party does he belong to?

Mr. Whelan: He is retired from the New Democratic Party,
by force.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Whelan: I want to tell you this. He was a minister in
the present government of Saskatchewan. He is no longer a
minister there. He said to me “Gene, don’t you forget this. I
am a Canadian first and I will fight to help you. I will
volunteer. I won’t charge you one penny”.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Whelan: He said, “I will do anything I can to make
sure this Canada we know stays together”. We have heard
people talk about poverty. I can remember in Canada when we
did not have medicare, hospitalization and so on. The member
who just spoke talked about what we are going to do to this
country. There were nine of us raised on mothers’ allowance, if
you can imagine what that was like during the dirty thirties. I
remember that. In what other part of the world could one
achieve one of the highest positions in the country with that
kind of a background, besides Canada?

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Whelan: My ancestry is what? Irish, French, Welsh,
and Indian. I have a Hungarian sister-in-law, a Roumanian
brother-in-law, a German brother-in-law, a Finnish sister-in-
law, a wife of German-Yugoslav ancestry and I live in an
Italian neighbourhood.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Whelan: There is no other country with the make-up of
people that we have who have built this country from sea to
sea, 4,000 miles. We have people from all over the world
building and sharing together to make us the envy of the
world, this country of Canada. Now some of them would have
a community of communities, I believe they call it. That is not
what we want in Canada. We want the Canada that we know

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

and love. We want the Canada which that guy Jean Chrétien
fought so hard for in the referendum in Quebec.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Whelan: I can remember when that minister came to
the House. He only spoke one language. He does much better
than I, he now speaks two. When he came here, he used to
practice his English. One day he said to me, “Eugene, I want
to have lunch with you so that I can practise my English”.

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Whelan: I said to him, “Jean, you are welcome but it
won’t be English, it will be Whelanese you hear”. He is the
minister we all admire. He fought like no one else in the
Quebec referendum. Now they are trying to say that the
Minister of Justice, who is leading the battle here, has
changed, the man who took that strong stand in Quebec for
Canada. They say he has changed. They know that is not true.
He is the same strong Canadian he always was.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Whelan: When talking about television in this chamber
today, members opposite said they want television in commit-
tee. The chairman of the agriculture committee then told me
that his committee is also entitled to television coverage. I
agree. There is nothing more important than food production
and agriculture. We saw a display in the House today that I
am sure would not have taken place if we did not have
television in the House of , Commons. They stood up and sang
“O Canada”, the former prime minister with his hands in his

pockets.
Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Whelan: The former prime minister stood up with his
hands in his pockets. Television will show that. What a show!
He did not even sing the words to “O Canada”.

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

0 (0010)

Mr. Whelan: I can remember my first trip to western
Canada when I was a teenager. We went to western Canada.
For what? To help. That was the time they used to get young
easterners to go on excursions. It was to help harvest the
wheat. It was an experience I never forgot. I spent four and a
half days riding on a train to go, of all places, to a beautiful
part of Canada, Alberta. My address was High River, Alberta.
My brother visited the former prime minister’s father in that
town. Even then I did not find Alberta any different, from
Come By Chance. Port Hardy, Vancouver Island, Nipawin.
Kamsack, Wetaskiwin or wherever. Canadians are not very
much different from each other. They want the basic things of

life.

Mr. Andre: So why treat them as second-class citizens?

October 23, 1980

Mr. Whelan: They want shoes on the baby and bread on the
table. They want a form of security. That means some kind of
job so that they can earn their own way in Canada. They can
do that by sharing, not by saying “greed” or “We want more
than the rest of you.” They cannot do that by saying, “We do
not want to share the way we build Canada” or “We do not
want to be in a position where perhaps we are better off and
share with someone who is not so well off.” For instance, what
good is the heritage fund piled high?

Mr. Andre: You are pilingit high right now.

Mr. Whelan: On the farm we have piles, and we know that
if we do not spread it around, it does not do a bit of good.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Whelan: The same is true in our society with money.
You cannot corral it in one part of the country and not
distribute it properly in the rest of the country. That is not the
way Canada was built. We shared these things to build a
country which is—and I know I am repeating myself—the
envy of the world. Our way of life is the envy of the world. We
are the best housed and the best educated. We have the best of
the whole world.-Some talk of another Utopia. If there is a
better part of the world, I want to go and see it some day. I
could describe Canada, as a new Canadian in my area
described it the other day. He was watching television and
listening to his children talk about the debates they read,
young educated people who are more fortunate than their
dads. He was an immigrant from Italy, and he said to me,
“Gino, I would like to make a comparison. The world is one
great big roast beef, and Canada is the best slice of that roast
beef”. I have heard no one here describe it any better than
Biase Di Pasquale, a neighbour of mine who is proud of his
accomplishments in this country. He is so proud that he trusts
the people who have been in power longer than the other party
in Canada. He trusts his Gino because he knows his Gino.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Kilgour: Mr..Speaker, the minister has a moment or

f two left. I wonder if he would permit a question.

An hon. Member: Let him finish. You have been interfering
all night.

Mr. Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I understand that I have about
three or four minutes left. I go as Minister of Agriculture to
World Food Council meetings, the FAO and the OECD in
Paris. At any world food meeting respect is paid to Canada. I
know it is not paid to me because of who I am. It is because of
what I represent. I represent that country called Canada which
is looked on not as a huge military power or a huge power
which is trying to impose some political philosophy on anybody
else butas a country which enjoys the most freedom of any
country in the world.

Ours is the country which is much envied. People want to
come here and be part of this country called Canada. Yes, I
am proud to be a Canadian, and I will do everything I can to

COMMONS DEBATES

4043

The Constitution

make the people of Canada understand what this debate is
about. It is about bringing our constitution to its rightful
resting place. I will do my best to explain in the humblest of
language because I do not think anyone uses more humble
language than I do. I do not know how to use any other
language. About 95 per cent or 90 per cent of the people of
Canada are something like your Minister of Agriculture, Mr.
Speaker. They have had rough lives. They have had tough
lives. They do not have that much education, but they do
appreciate Canada, and they want it to stay as it is.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in the
debate on the constitution, especially since many of my col-
leagues who would wish to speak have had that right denied
them by the imposition of closure. I object to the government’s
refusal to hear what my colleagues have to say and to the
unjust limitation of debate on an issue of such basic importance
as the constitution.

Along with other New Democrats I agree with the need to
bring our constitution home. I would be happy to see a charter
of rights- and the principle of equalization enshrined in our
constitution. Coming from British Columbia, I am glad that
New Democrats were able to get the Prime Minister (Mr.
Trudeau) to agree to provincial control of resources. Six years
ago I saw how the federal government prevented that right and
how it hampered the economy of British Columbia under
Premier Barrett because it refused to grant that right. Prov-
inces need these rights so that they can develop their own
economies without being hobbled by Ottawa.

However, while I support many of the features in the
constitutional package, I join with my colleagues in deploring
the inadequacies in the charter of rights and its failure to
recognize the rights of women and natives.

I wish to direct my remarks particularly to the charter’s
failure to recognize and enshrine the rights of Canada’s
Indian, Inuit and Metis people. If we look at the charter we
see that it lists in great detail the rights the government
considers important. We have inherited many of these rights
from centuries-old traditions. They are so deeply interwoven in
the fabric of our society that perhaps they do not need to be
enshrined, but they are enshrined, and they are spelled out.

Other rights, such as those relating to language, are new and
not yet universally accepted. Again, these rights are spelled
out in detail.

However, when we come to native rights, what do we find?
We have a fuzzy non-statement about non-rights. Section 24
of the charter of rights says, and I quote:

The guarantee in this charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be
construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in
Canada, including any rights or freedoms that pertain to the native peoples of
Canada.

That is all there is, “any rights or freedoms that pertain to
the native peoples of Canada”. George III did better than that.
In the proclamation of 1763 he said, and I quote:

4044

The Constitution

—it is just and reasonable, and essential to our interest, and the security of our
colonies, that the several nations or tribes of Indians with whom we are
connected, and who live under our protection, should not be molested or
disturbed in the possession of such parts of our dominions and territories as, not
having been ceded to or purchased by us, are reserved to them… as their
hunting grounds.

Mr. Malone: We want George III!

9 (0020)

Mr. Manly: We know what George III said. The Indian
people of Canada want that proclamation attached to the
constitution as a schedule. Recognition of aboriginal rights
was one of the causes of the American revolution because
protection of Indian lands rankled those Americans who were
already afire with the idea of manifest destiny. The American
Declaratio_n of Independence objected to the action of George
III in raising the conditions applying to new appropriations of
lands.

We all recognize that George III was not an original
thinker. He was simply following what had been standard
practice for European nations since their first encounters with
North America. Claims of sovereignty by European powers
were really claims to be able to treaty with local Indian
nations for. the land. It was generally accepted that Indians
had aboriginal rights to the land that could not be arbitrarily
denied. Three possible methods were established for obtaining
title to land. The first was by occupation of vacant lands.
Recent studies of hunting, trapping and food gathering pat-
terns across Canada have shown that in spite of the vastness of
our country, almost every part of it was used by the native
people. There was no empty or unused land in Canada.

The second way was by way of what was called the just war.
I do not know of any just war by which Indians in Canada
were vanquished and lost their rights or their land. The third
method was by purchase with consent of the owners. In many
parts of Canada the Crown did enter into treaties with the
native people. The Indian peoples granted certain rights to the
Crown and in return they were promised certain rights. As
recently as July 5, 1973, Queen Elizabeth II told the Indian
people:
You may beassured that my Government of Canada recognizes the importance
of full compliance with the spirit and terms of your treaties.

The rights of Metis people were also recognized in these
treaties and also in the Manitoba act of 1870. Thus, across
Canada, native people have both aboriginal rights and treaty
rights which, at different times, have been recognized and
guaranteed by.the Crown. But the proposed charter of rights
glosses over this by. talking about “any rights or freedoms that
pertain to the native peoples of Canada.” The charter lists
other rights in specific detail. It denies native rights by vague
generalities. Because of their minority position in our society,
native people have a greater, not a lesser, need to have their
rights enshrined. :

The government has argued that we need a charter of rights
because we cannot entrust rights to the changing whims of
legislatures. I ask you: What people have suffered more legis-
lative infringements on their rights than the Indian people?

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, .1980

Amendments to the Indian Act passed by this House of
Commons over the past 100 years have hampered the Indian
people in every facet of their lives. Freedom of religion was
interpreted to mean freedom to decide which church would
send in missionaries, and I speak of the former missionaries in
Indian villages. Traditional religious and cultural practices,
such as the potlach, native dancing and dancing societies, were
forbidden. .

Earlier in our century, the act required Indians to get
permission from the Indian agent to go to exhibitions, rodeos
and dances. They needed permission from the superintendent-
general to collect money for their organizations, a way of
discouraging those organizations from pressing the govern-
ment in connection with land claims. Indian people lost their
status without their consent. In other situations, people were
given Indian status and included in band membership with a
share in the meagre resources of the reserve without permis-
sion of the band involved.

Theseare some of the things Canada’s Parliament has done
to the rights of Indian people. They know full well, therefore,
that they cannot depend upon legislatures to maintain their
rights. These rights must be recognized and enshrined in the
constitution.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Manly: The Indian people today still remember the
1969 white paper which would have stripped them of all their
rights. This 1969 white paper was the catalyst which brought
them together with a great many organizations and helped
them to advance to the level of political involvement in which
they find themselves today. But as they look at the proposed
charter of rights, they see clauses in it which would have the
same effect and which would leave them without rights, with-
out protection and without even the basic, minimal recognition
which they have at present. The Prime’Minister has promised
the native people that they could be participants in all consti-
tutional amendments which concern them. What could poss-
ibly concern native people more than the entrenchment of their
rights? Yet Indian people were not consulted about the charter
of rights. In their absence,a vague clause was inserted which
does violence to their rights.

Last week, the Prime Minister said that as soon as the
constitution is brought back to Canada, native rights will be
one of the first items on the agenda. What hypocrisy! The
Prime Minister knows full well that by placing Indian rights
on a post-patriation agenda, he is denying these people their
last chance to obtain justice.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Manly: Section 50 states very clearly that any amend-
ment to the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms can only
be made in accordance with sections 41 or 42. Obviously the
Prime Minister is not willing to trust his cherished language
rights to the vagaries of such a process because he knows it
would be almost impossible for such rights to be adopted. In
the same way, he must know that if Indian rights are not

recognized and enshrined now, they never will be, not so long
as we have people like Premier Hatfield who denies the very
concept of aboriginal rights. If we believe in native rights, we
must act now. In committee we will be moving and supporting
amendments to achieve this. We take the Prime Minister at his
word that he will be willing to accept amendments.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!’

Mr. Manly: The other night, the Minister of Transport (Mr.
Pepin) asked for a spirit of compromise. I ask the government
if, in that spirit of compromise, whether it will change its
position and recognize the basic rights of our native people so
that they are not compromised right out of the picture. I ask
the government to include as schedules to the constitution such
documents as the treaties and the royal proclamation of 1763
which will assure the native people that their native rights are
not being denied.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me point to a fact that is
often ignored when we speak about Indian people. We often
hear the statistics about poverty, unemployment and poor
health. We watch television documentaries about substandard
housing and the failure of the educational system. We know all
about the negative side of Indian life, and every six months or
so it becomes a two-day wonder for the media. What we do not
hear or see is the positive side–that there is something good
about being Indian. For hundreds of years Indian peoples in
North America have refused to assimilate or lose their identity
as Indians. In spite of poverty, discrimination, bad “housing
conditions, the lack of opportunity on reserves and denial of
their rights, they hang on to their Indian identity and culture.
There is something good for them about their Indian culture.
Obviously they have something very valuable.

Q (0030)

What they ask from Canada is a recognition of their rights
so that they can maintain their identity and the culture which
is so important to them. They ask for their rights so that they
can build a decent economy which will enable them to main-
tain their status, rights and culture with some dignity. Native
people do not believe that being Indian, Metis or Inuit must go
handin hand with poverty. I believe Canada needs the contri-
bution native people can make to our social fabric. We can
learn from them. We have the wealth and resources in this

country to afford a pluralistic society. We do not all need to fit

into the same mold. The.nativ.e..people of our country can only
make a contribution if we recognize their rightful place in our
society and give them their due.

On behalf of the more than one million native people of this
country, I appeal to the government to recognize and entrench
the rights of native people so thatthey can take their full place
in Canadian society, and, furthermore, so that Canada can
achieve its destiny as a nation of justice and opportunity for all
people.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

COMMONS DEBATES

4045

The Constitution

Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington): Mr. Speaker, I had hoped
to follow the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan)
because he gave one of his usual speeches which did not say
very much. Had he given his speech on a manure spreader, it
never would have had a bigger load. To stand in the House of
Commons and ask people to believe when he travels around
the world that people say, “Oh, you are from Canada, that
country which has its constitution in London” is just pure
nonsense. How can anyone be expected to believe that?

An hon. Member: Express it in farm terms.

Mr. Kempling: I must remember the decorum of the House.
I cannot express it in farm terms.

It has been written that when the British Parliament had the
BNA Act before it in 1867, the act passed in 30 minutes
because a much more urgent matter was waiting to be intro-
duced. That matter was an act dealing with the licensing of
dogs. It was a much more urgent matter than the constitution
of Canada. The reason it took only 30 minutes to pass was that
the British House had full knowledge that several years of
discussion had preceded the writing of the act. The Parliament
of Westminster knew that such discussion had taken place.
Some of it was very bitter, but in the final analysis a consensus
was reached and they felt justified in passing it in 30 minutes.

We have heard many members on the other side say that the
country has been confounded, put in a strait-jacket oriwhat
have you, for 53 years. I had a resume done by the parliamen-
tary library of the constitutional conferences from 1927 to
1980. Anyone reading it would realize that it is just not so, the
country has not been tied. There have been many, many
instances where there has been complete consensus. In fact
there were two occasions when the premiers and the federal
authorities agreed unanimously to suspend further discussion
on the constitution because they had more urgent matters
before them, most of them dealing with the economy. Anyone
who tries-to persuade the people of Canada that somehow we
have been strangled and tied for 53 years is perpetuating a
fraud.

The first time the provincial premiers met, shortly after
confederation, it was to deal with a revenue matter. They met
to deal with revenue-sharing because the provinces had given
up tariffs to the federal government and the federal govern-
ment had expanded, in lieu of tariffs, a per capita grant. They
met because the rising population in the provinces was such
that the revenue was just not adequate. This is really what we
are talking about today. When we get down to brass tacks, we
realize we are talking about revenues again. The federal
government is in a revenue bind. It just does not have enough
revenue coming in. It does not want to go the honest route of
taxation, as my party endeavoured to do. They are trying to
put a claim on provincial revenues so that they will not have to
raise federal revenues as much as they probably should.

This debate has taken some rather strange twists and turns’

today. Members have told us we took up too much time on
points of order and questions of privilege and that is one of the
reasons why the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard)

4046

The Constitution

brought on closure. If one looks at the record, one will find
there was a total of 86 minutes, or one hour and 26 minutes, in
the full 24 hours of this debate devoted to questions of
privilege and points of order. That is really not very much
time. If that is one of the reasons for bringing on closure, it is
an absolute fraud.

It. has been argued that there is a crisis in the country. The
crisis is in the minds of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and
those around him who perceive the difficulties in the country
as a crisis. There is no crisis in the minds of the people outside.
In my eight years as a member of Parliament—and I know
many members have been here longer–I have never had a
constituent ask when the Constitution of Canada would be
changed or tell me that it should be changed.

An hon. Member: You ought to travel with Gene.

Mr. Kempling: He encounters it outside of the country. The
hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) participated in the
debate the other day. It was a good, measured speech, but he
left the impression that the four million or so immigrants who
have come to Canada since 1945 are demanding that the
charter of rights be written into the constitution. I cannot
believe that people who came here from Uganda, Chile,
Poland, Hungary, India, Tibet, the Caribbean, Viet Nam,
Great Britain, any country in the western world or the mid-
east, are asking for a charter of rights to be put in the
constitution. That is just not so. They came here because we
offered a better form of government, a better livelihood and
more security than they ever had in the countries they left.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Kempling: They came here from dictatorships. They
recognized that there was freedom here. I do not think one of
them came here with a burning desire in his gut to change the
constitution of Canada. That is a fraud as well.

9 (0040)

We have expressed our views on closure and our concerns
about the committee stage. We have heard members opposite
say: put this debate to the committee. Members on this side
have expressed their views on that aspect to some extent. But
why are we reluctant to see it go into committee without
having our full say? The reason is that we have watched how
the committee system in this House works over the years. We
have watched the way in which those experts on the other side
have manipulated the committees of the House of Commons. I
would ask you, sir, to sit in a committee of the House of
Commons and watch them play the game of the clock. You
know how that is done. The ministerappearing before the
committee arrives a few minutes late, which takes up ten
minutes. Then the chairman decides to read a report of the
standing committee and that goes on for another ten or 15
minutes. Then the minister reads an opening statement which
can take another ten or 15 minutes. Maybe the minister’s
assistant is with him and he will be asked by the minister if he
wants to make a statement. That goes on for yet another ten or

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, I980

15 minutes. Then with the points of order and the general
razzmatazz back and forth, the next thing you know an hour
of a two-hour committee meeting is over. That is what we are
afraid of. That is why we want to know the terms which will
govern the committee. That is why we are asking that the
committee proceedings be televised. That is why we want it
broadcast–so they cannot play games, so they cannot play the
game of the committee.

We have watched it, sir. We have seen committees. of the
House of Commons sit knowing that a member from our side
was to propose an amendment. Before he could do so, the
government members left the committee so that there would
no longer be a quorum. We have watched that game being
played and that is why we are concerned that this committee
should receive the proper attention it deserves.

Members opposite have suggested that this measure is like

an ordinary bill, that we have first reading, second reading and
then reference to committee, after which it comes back for
report stage and third reading upon which debate continues.
We do not believe this. The government House leader has not
told us how long the debate will go on after the report comes
back to the House. He will not say.

Mr. Pinard: There is no limit.
Mr. Kempling: Now he says there is no limit.
Mr. Clark: But there will be closure again.

Mr. Kempling: That is right. We know there will be closure
again. We know the games they play. We know what to look
for. We have tried to the best of our ability in this debate to
expose the games they play so that the people of Canada will
see the way they manipulate the business of the House.

The other point I wish to make is that very few people in
Canada have read the British North America Act. There IS
hardly a person in the country who has read the reference
which is before the House. So you have a population which
does not know the act, does not know the reference, but which
is being persuaded by subliminal advertising, in many cases, to
urge their members of Parliament to amend the constitution.
That is a fraud. I

What the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and my
colleagues on this side of the House have been asking is that
the committee be allowed to travel across Canada to hear the
views of Canadians, those Canadians who do not know what is
in the BNA Act, who do “notknow what is in the resolution

which is before the House. That is what we want. We have put

an amendment forward which would allow the committee to
travel so that Canadians in all parts of Canada can be heard.
That matter has yet to be ruled on but I do not have much
confidence that our requests will be agreed to.

We have this matter before us now, a motion to refer a

proposed resolution to committee. And we know the games
they play in committee. The subject matter which is being
discussed is not broadly understood across the country by the

October 23, 1980

people of Canada. I am sure the committee will not be allowed
to travel to hear the views of the native people and others in
various parts of the country. That is what really upsets mem-
bers on this side.

. Listening to members opposite—and I think I can say this

because I am from Ontario—-what disturbs me most is how
little they understand about the feeling in western Canada. I
I have spoken with my hon. friends here who are from western

Canada and I think I am a fair judge of their character,

sincerity and honesty, and I do not think I have ever seen so
much emotion from members as I have seen from the members
of our caucus who come from western Canada. They are really
concerned and upset.

This summer I travelled twice to western Canada and I
spoke with the people there. ,I sensed the feeling of frustration.

I And when members stand up and talk about separatism in the

west, I believe them. I believe the forces are gathering out
there and if we fail to listen to them it will be a tragedy.

I see from an article in the newspaper tonight that the Prime
Minister is threatening further closure on this debate so that
he can meet his deadline.

A few months ago the province of Quebec was engaged in a
referendum. Members opposite came to us and asked for our
support. They asked us to go into Quebec with them. The
Leader of the Opposition went into Quebec and appeared on a

a platform with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien). Other

members of our party also went into Quebec to speak for the
No forces. The chief government whip came to me, as whip for
our party, time and time again and said to me: I have
so-and-so who wants to go into Quebec to campaign for the No
forces, could we have a “pair” for him? And I know he will tell
you that we co-operated. I told him we would give him a
“pair” any time any member opposite was going into Quebec
to speak for the No forces. We kept our word every time.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Kempling: What we are asking here today, and what we
have been asking for in this debate is that we be afforded the
same courtesy.

There is a serious situation in western Canada. I really do
not think members of the government party understand how
serious it is. We are asking for time to continue this debate.
We are asking for time to get out to the people in western
Canada and speak to them. We are asking for time for the
committee to travel across the country. We are asking, in all
sincerity, that the committee be allowed to travel so we can
test the depth of the concern in western Canada and let those
people be heard before we make the final changes in the
constitution. That is all we are really asking, sir.
or (0050)

Let me conclude by saying that in a democracy constitutions
come up from the people, not down from the government.
Today, that process, by the imposition of closure has been
stopped. Therefore, I cannot support the motion that is before
the House at this time.

COMMONS DEBATES

4047

The Constitution

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the hon.
member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang), but would like to bring it
to the attention of the House that at this time, according to the
provisions of Standing Order 33, no members will be recog-
nized after one o’clock. Any member recognized prior to that
time has the usual time limit.

Mr. Clark: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, during the
remarks by the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling),
who indicated his concern that there would be limits placed
upon the debate after the matter came out of committee, the
government House leader called across the floor and said,
“There is no limit”. That is to say there would be no limit on
debate in this House of Commons after the matter came out of
committee. Obviously, that is of real importance. Would the
government House leader rise and give us a categorical assur-
ance that there would be no limit upon the opportunity of the
House of Commons to debate this matter after the report of
the committee.

Mr. Munro (Hamilton East): That isn’t a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the government House leader
wishes to rise on the point of order, the Chair will recognize
him, but the Chair has recognized the hon. member for
Kitchener (Mr. Lang).

Mr. Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the
Opposition has a very learned House leader, and I am sure
that he can learn a lot from him about the rules of the House

of Commons.

Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, as a new
member of Parliament I feel very privileged to participate in
this debate and to have the opportunity to share with hon.
members of this House some of the thoughts and views I feel
are germane to this discussion on the constitution. In order to
acquaint myself with many of the constitutional issues that are
now before us, I have had to conduct myself for the past few
months not unlike a student who is cramming for an important
exam.

In the process though, I have run across some insights which
I think would be useful to this debate. One in particular stands
out in my mind. It reads and I quote:

I confess that I do not entirely approve of this constitution at present, but sir, I
am not sure I shall never approve of it, for, having lived long, I have experienced
many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to
change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but
found to be otherwise. It is therefore that, the older I grow, the more apt I am to
doubt my own judgment of others.

Nevertheless, I doubt whether any other convention we can obtain may be
able to make a better constitution; for, when you assemble a number of men, to
have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those
men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local
interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect produc-
tion be expected?

It therefore astonishes me, sir, to find this system approaching so near to
perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting
with confidence to hear that our counsels are confounded like those of the
builders of Babel, and that our states are on the point of separation, only to meet
hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another’s throats. Thus I consent, sir, to

4048

The Constitution

this constitution, because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is
not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors I sacrifice to the public good.

This quote is from a man who was an entrepreneur, a
philosopher, an inventor and a world renowned statesman. The
speaker was Benjamin Franklin, the place was the constitu-
tional convention in Philadelphia in 1787, almost 200 years
ago.

The situation Franklin described is remarkably similar to
the one we as members of Parliament are confronted with in
considering this constitutional resolution. Like those who
framed the American constitution, we have inherited a legacy
of failure upon failure in our attempts over the past 53 years to
achieve a national consensus on the constitution. We must not
let the quest for some elusive constitutional perfection paralyse
the need and responsibility we have to govern Canada
effectively.

If we are to learn the lessons of history, it is clear we have to
push forward for constitutional renewal despite the cries of
those. who would consider this resolution for a little bit longer
in this House of Commons or a little bit longer in committee
or a little bit longer with the provinces.

. What may seem like an arbitrary timetable for the constitu-
tional resolution is actually the only realistic course of action
for our government to take in the wake of the Quebec referen-
dum. If the government chose to delay the process any longer
we would clearly be abdicating our national responsibility. A
promise was made to the people of Quebec and the people of
Canada on the question of constitutional renewal and that
promise must be kept. Indeed, the wishes of The Canadian
people themselves are the paramount consideration in the
government’s policy of constitutional renewal.

A Gallup poll conducted outside Quebec before the referen-
dum indicated that a full 68 per cent of those surveyed
preferred a renewed federalism, while only 32 per cent opted
for our present constitutional arrangements.

As the motion put forward by the hon. member for Edmon-
ton East (Mr. Yurko) demonstrated when it received the
unanimous support of this House, there is unanimous consent
to.the principle of patriation with an amending formula within
this Canadian Parliament. Virtually all Canadians agree that
we as an independent and sovereign nation should not have to
turn to the Parliament of another independent and sovereign
nation to change our constitution. Many premiers, and this
was underlined by the statement made over the weekend by
the premier of New Brunswick, also endorse in principle the
concept of patriation.

The second parallel which I would like to draw between
confederation and the establishment of the BNA Act is that
the situation in preconfederation days compares to that of the
present time. We had the Atlantic region, Canada east or
Quebec or lower Canada, and Canada west which was
Ontario. The leaders of these regions could not agree on an
agreement to form one single federal government, and it was
through the perseverence and persistence of George Brown
that an all-party committee was formed in 1864. He, as the
chairman of that committee, played a leading role in drafting

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

the document which later became the British North America
Act. This is not the first time a committee has been asked to
discuss and make amendments and consider drafts for the
constitution. This is how the original BNA Act was drafted.
So I do not understand all the consternation and temper
tantrums of the Tory party over sending this resolution to
committee.

Mr. Speaker, I see that it is drawing near to one o’clock, but
some of my colleagues have asked me to continue and I will.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Lang: Ensuring that the national interest is safeguarded
is the core of our responsibility to the people of Canada. It is
clear that patriation is in the national interest. To make
patriation more than a symbolic gesture, the inclusion of an
amending formula is imperative. For almost a month we have
heard some of the premiers and some of the members of this
House condemn the government’s initiatives on the constitu-
tion as dictatorial, unCanadian. The Leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Clark) told us it threatens to “break the fundamental
balance which has been at the heart of our federal system ever
since the Canadian nation was created.”

Let us consider this statement for a moment and examine it
carefully, particularly the words “ever since the Canadian
nation was created”. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition
seems to forget that when the Fathers of Confederation were
in the process of founding this nation a civil war was raging in
the United States. As the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie
(Mr. Irwin) pointed out in his speech, Sir John A. Macdonald
was very clear about the need for a strong central government
in order to overcome the fatal flaw in the American system
which was only resolved after millions of lives had been lost.

0 (0100)

It should be evident, despite the attempt of the Leader of
the Opposition to rewrite history, that the fundamental bal-
ance he speaks of is not so much a balance as a distribution of
powers between two levels of government with the central
government predominant. At least that is the way the Fathers
of Confederation saw it. The evolution of Canadian federalism
has been a slightly different story, though. Over the years, the

provinces have acquired more power as the federal government}
has attempted to take into account their needs and concerns-

And it has been nearly 53 years since the federal government
tried to reach agreement with the provinces on an amending
formula. Meanwhile, our independent status was confirmed by
the statute of Westminster in 1931. In the Second World War,
Canadian forces fought for the first time under Canadian
generals. In 1949, the Supreme Court became the final court
of appeal in Canada, instead of the British court, and in the

same year Parliament acquired the power to amend certain-

areas of our constitution. In 1952, for the first time, a Canadi-

an was appointed Governor General. In 1965, we adopted our
national flag and earlier this year, we formally adopted a
national anthem. It is a combination of patriation and any
amending formula that is now the key to full independence–

freeing ourselves from the last vestiges of colonial status.

October 23, 1980

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Lang: The process has been a gradual one. But the
forces who advocate Quebec separatism did not spring up
overnight either. And when the final vote was tallied on the
night of May 20, it was clear that we had a jobto perform. To
dilly-dally any longer on the question of constitutional reform
would have been a fatal error. There are times for compromise
and negotiation, and there are times for action. This is a time
for action pure and simple.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Lang: But that is not the only reason we must proceed
quickly. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien) pointed out
in his very eloquent address, we must act now in order to
provide the momentum for further reform. Canada has far too
much economic potential as a nation to let it be continuously
stalled and sidetracked by an unending process of constitution-
al negotiations. The purpose of this constitutional resolution is
to remove the doubt, the uncertainty and the deadlock that
have plagued past constitutional talks. This demands leader-
ship and leadership demands courage. The Liberal party lacks
neither, Mr. Speaker, so to conclude, I would like to ask the
members opposite to leave go their doubts, their fears and
their divisiveness. No constitution is perfect. But however
perfect or imperfect the constitutional resolution before us is,
all members of this House must recognize that a constitution is
an act of faith–faith in the Canadian people, faith in the
generations of Canadians who will carry on in the spirit of
tolerance and equity that has largely characterized our past,
and will hopefully characterize our future.

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order! order! order! In accordance
with the provisions of Standing Order 33–

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In accordance with the provisions of–
Mr. Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I demand the right to be heard.
Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Wenman: Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I demand my
right to be heard. I–

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please!
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Cossitt: Mr. Speaker–

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

COMMONS DEBATES

4049

The Constitution
Mr. Cossitt: Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Wenman: I demand the right to be heard here. I will
not sit down until I have been heard.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, order!
Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Wenman: I demand protection from this House of
Commons. I demand from the Governor General of Canada—
I demand to speak now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order, please!

Mr. Wenman: I demand my right to speak and I am going
to speak. The Bill of Rights of Canada is being—this is a
mockery. It is a mockery, Mr. Speaker, because of the very bill
that we discussed. I demand that we have the freedom to speak
in this House. This is a hypocritical bill. My right is being
denied to me—-not only my right but the right of everyone who
has spoken in this House. Mr. Speaker, I demand my right. I
will not be seated until I have been heard.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The House will recog-
nize the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) on a matter
of privilege. The hon. member for Pembina on a question of
privilege.

Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
demand on behalf of myself and my colleagues the opportunity
to participate in this debate. We have a responsibility to those
individuals who have elected us and I wish to exercise that
responsibility.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Elzinga: The Prime Minister gave a commitment in his
news conference that all us members of Parliament would have
an opportunity to participate in the discussion on our constitu-
tion. He has reneged on that promise.

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I invite hon. members to be seated. I I

am hearing one member on a question of privilege and surely
courtesy to their colleague requires that they allow the hon.
member I have recognized to have the floor. Would the others
please be seated? I am recognizing the hon. member on a
question of privilege. Surely his colleagues will at least extend
that courtesy.

Mr. Elzinga: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister
in his conference indicated that all members of Parliament
would have an opportunity to participate in this debate. It is
obvious that we who come from all those parts of Canada
other than central Canada feel a basic need to speak in this

4050

The Constitution

debate because effectively this resolution makes second class
citizens of all those individuals outside Quebec and Ontario.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Elzinga: This resolution further confirms the feelings of
westerners in developing that feeling of alienation. It is a belief
held by many that this Prime Minister is aggravating the
situation. We hope to have an opportunity to participate to
assure them that they do have a voice in the constitutional
debate and this voice has been muffled and closed by the
closure motion brought in by the Liberal government opposite.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Any hon. Member: Question!

Mr. Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I demand—
Mr. Cossitt: Question of privilege!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair finds there is no question of
privilege, that the Standing Orders of the House of Commons
have been observed. The Standing Orders of the House of
Commons have been observed. It is my duty at this point–

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: —to interrupt the proceedings-
Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Cossitt: This man is a dictator!

Mr. Wenman: You may not. We must be heard. The hon.

member for Fraser Valley West will speak in the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order!

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: –raised by the hon. member—
Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Cossitt: Who runs this country?

Some lion. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order! Order, please!

Mr. Cossitt: A question of privilege.

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Order,

please. Order! Order, please.

Mr. Wenman: I will not be seated.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order! Order! Order, please. The hon.
member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) has been recognized on a
question of privilege and the Chair has listened and is going to
rule on the matter the hon. member has raised.

COMMONS DEBATES

October 23, 1980

The Chair finds, after listening carefully to the hon. member

for Pembina that the provisions–

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Cossitt: Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member

for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) please sit down? Will the member
please take his seat?

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Cossitt: No!

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Wenman: No!

Mr. Cossitt: I demand to speak!

Mr. Wenman: I demand my right to speak on the Constitu-

tion of Canada for the people of my riding. We have not been
heard. Hon. members on the other side have not been heard .

either.

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! ,
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has listened to the matter

of privilege raised by the hon. member for Pembina and is
ruling that there is no valid point of privilege established, that
the Standing Orders of the House of Commons are being

observed.
Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Wenman: I demand the right to speak. It is my duty to

protect my rights as an hon. member.
Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is now my duty to interrupt the

proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary—
Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: —to dispose of the motion now before

the House.
Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Wenman: We demand the right to speak now.

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will put the question. The question is

on the amendment of the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte
(Mr. McCain).

Mr. Wenman: I demand the right to speak!
Mr. Cossitt: Mr. Speaker—-

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Wenman: Mr. Speaker, we want the right to speak–

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, we want the right to speak.

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Wenman: I demand the right to be heard, Mr. Speaker.

An hon. Member: No! ,
[Editor’s Note: At this point some members left their seats

and approached the Chain]

An hon. Member: I demand the right to be heard on the
constitution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I call to the attention of
the hon. members that they can make speeches only from their
places in this House.

I call to hon. members’ attention that according to the rules
and practices of this House they can only be recognized from
their places. Hon. members cannot be recognized from other

places.
An hon. Member: I demand the right to be heard!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I call to the attention of
hon. members Standing Order 12(2), which reads as follows:

When Mr. Speaker is putting a question, no member shall enter, walk out of, or
across the House, or make any noise or disturbance.

An hon. Member: I demand the right to be heard!
An hon. Member: We want the right to speak!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I ask hon. members to
take their places in the House and observe the rules of the

House.
An hon. Member: I demand the right to be heard!
Mr. Siddon: This is our constitution at stake.

An hon. Member: This is a free country. I have the right to
be heard.

An hon. Member: Stand up for democracy.

Some hon. Members: We have the right to be heard.

An hon. Member: What goes on here? How does this man,
Trudeau, run the whole country singlehanded like this?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must invite hon. members to show
respect for this institution by returning to their places. I invite
hon. members to return to their places in this House.

An hon. Member: I demand the right to be heard.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I invite hon. members to return to
their places.

COMMONS DEBATES

The Constitution

4051

An hon. Member: The Prime Minister has misled this

House.

An hon. Member: I demand the right to be heard.

Mr. Chrétien: Where is the leadership on the other side?

An hon. Member: I demand the right right now to speak on

the constitution.

An hon. Member: This is freedom of speech?

An hon. Member: Where is the War Measures Act?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I ask hon. members to

return to their places.

Mr. Dick: Privilege!

An hon. Member: Bring the constitution home.

An hon. Member: What about the Vancouver consensus?

An hon. Member: Privilege!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment,

please say yea.

Some hon. Members: Yea!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some hon. Members: Nay!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the nays have it.
(And more than five members having risen):

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
The House divided on the amendment (Mr. McCain) which

was negatived on the following division:

0 (0200)

(Division No. 17)

YEAS
Messrs.

Althouse
Andre

Baker

(Nepean-Carleton)

Beatty .
Benjamin
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Broadbent
Cardiff
Carney (Miss)
Clark

(Yellowhead)
Clarke

(Vancouver Quadra)
Coates
Cook
Cooper
Cossitt
Crombie
Crosbie

(St. John’s West)
Crouse
Dantzer

Darling

Deans

Dick

Dinsdale
Domm

Ellis

Elzinga

Epp

Fennell

Fraser

Fretz

Friesen

Fulton

Gamble

Gass
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton

(Qu’Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple
Creek)

Hargrave

Hawkes
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Jarvis
Jelinek
Jewett (Miss)
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Knowles
Kushner
Lambert
La Salle
Lewis
MacI(ay
Malone
Manly
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCuish
McDermid

The Constitution

McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Miller
Mitchell
(Mrs.)
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
Patterson
Rae
Reid
(St. Catherines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche
Rose
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Siddon
Skelly
Speyer
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Thomson
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wilson
Wise
Wright
Young–113

NAYS

Messrs.

Allmand
Appolloni
(Mrs.)
Axworthy
Bachand
Baker
(Gander-Twilingate)
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Blairs
Blaker
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Bossy
Breau
Bujold
Bussières
Caccia
Campbell
(Miss)
(South West Nova)
Campbell
(LaSalle)
Chénier
Chrétien
Collonette
Corbin
Corriveau
Cosgrove
Côté (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Daudin
Dawson
De Bané
de Corneille
Demers
Desmarais
Dingwall
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramachi)
Dubois
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
Gray
Guibault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Irwin
Isabelle
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Lalonde
Lamontagne
Landers
Lang
Laniel
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Beauce)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Loiselle
Lonsdale
MacBain
MacEachern
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Maltais
Marceau
Massé
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East)
Nicholson
(Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Prud’homme
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River)
Roberts
Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)
Rompkey
Rossi
Roy
Savard
Schroder
Simmons
Smith
Stollery
Tardif
Tessier
Tobin
Tousignant
Trudeau
Turner
Veillette
Watson
Weatherhead
Whelan
Yanakis–134

Madam Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.

[Translation]

The question is on the main motion. All those in favour will
please say yea.

Some hon. Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. Members: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
(And more than five members having risen):
Madam Speaker: Call in the members.

The House divided on the motion (Mr. Chrétien) which was agreed to on the following division:

(Division No. 18)
YEAS
Messrs.

Allmand
Althouse
Appolloni
(Mrs.)
Axworthy
Bachand
Baker
(Gander-Twilingate)
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Benjamin
Blais
Blaker
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Bossy
Breau
Broadbent
Bujold
Bussières
Caccia
Campbell
(Miss)
(South West Nova)
Campbell
(LaSalle)
Chénier
Chrétien
Collonette
Corbin
Corriveau
Cosgrove
Côté (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Daudin
Dawson
Deans
De Bané
de Corneille
Demers
Desmarais
Dingwall
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Dubois
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans

Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Fulton
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Hovdebo
Irwin
Isabelle
Jewett (Miss)
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Keeper
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Knowles
Lachance
Lajoie
Lalonde
Lamontagne
Landers
Lang
Laniel
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Beauce)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Loiselle
Lonsdale
MacBain
MacEachern
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Maltais
Manly
Marceau
Massé
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Miller
Mitchell
(Mrs.)
Munro
(Hamilton East)
Nicholson
(Miss)
Nystrom
Ogle
Olivier
Orlikow
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Prud’homme
Rae
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River)
Riis
Roberts
Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)
Rompkey
Rose
Rossi
Roy
Sargeant
Savard
Schroder
Simmons
Skelly
Smith
Stollery
Tardif
Tessier
Tobin
Tousignant
Trudeau
Turner
Veillette
Waddell
Watson
Weatherhead
Whelan
Yanakis
Young–156

NAYS
Messrs.

Andre
Baker
(Nepean-Carleton)
Beatty
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Cardiff
Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra)
Coates
Cook
Cooper
Crombie
Crosbie
(St. John’s West)
Crouse
Dantzer
Darling
Dick
Dinsdale
Domm
Ellis
Epp
Fraser
Fretz
Gamble
Gass
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu’Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple
Creek)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Howie
Jarvis
Jelinek
Kempling
Kilgour
Kushner
Lambert
La Salle
Lewis
MacKay
Malone
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCuish
McDermid

The Constitution
Messrs.

McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Oberle
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catherines)
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Siddon
Speyer
Stewart
Taylor
Thomson
Towers
Vankoughnet
Wilson
Wise
Wright –83

[English]

Madam Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

It now being 2 a.m., this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m.
pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).

At 2 a.m. Friday, October 24, the House adjourned, without
question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Read less

Leave a Reply