Mr. Speaker:

Does the minister have leave to table these documents?

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of

the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of these documents and the need to have a record, would it not be a good idea to append them to Hansard?

Mr. Speaker:

Is that agreed?

Agreed.

[Editor's note: For documents referred to above, see appendix.]

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):

Mr. Speaker, in view of the correspondence which has just been tabled between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Quebec indicating that the government of Quebec is not prepared to concur in proceeding with the amending formula known as the Ful-ton-Favreau formula, would the Prime Minister care to indicate to the house what action the government now proposes to take with a view to having a constitution in Canada amendable by Canadians?

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):

Well, Mr. Speaker, the formula in question, as my hon. friend knows, has been approved by the heads of all the provincial governments at a federal-provincial conference. Approval has been confirmed by the governments of all the provinces but one, the province of Quebec. The Premier of that province has said that he is not willing to proceed with this matter at this time. He has postponed consideration.

At the moment we are giving consideration to this matter in the light of our statement in the Speech from the Throne that we intend to proceed to do everything we can to have the constitution of Canada repatriated, or patriat-ed. What is the best way to proceed in the existing circumstances? I do not know. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker-and we have been giving consideration to this-one way of making progress would be to set up a parliamentary committee.

Mr. Douglas:

May I take it from the Prime Minister's remarks that the government has no intention of proceeding with the Fulton-Favreau formula unless there is unanimous concurrence by all the provinces?

Mr. Pearson:

I think that would go without saying. Otherwise we would have brought this formula before the House of Commons for consideration in the last session.

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):

I wonder, since the government is considering setting up a committee to deal with the amending formula, whether consideration could not be given to broadening the scope of such a committee in order that it might deal with the whole question of a revised and dynamic constitution of Canada without confining itself solely to the question of amendment.

Mr. Pearson:

I will be glad to give consideration to that question, but I am bound to add that if we cannot agree in this country upon a procedure for amending our own constitution within our own boundaries it might be difficult to agree on a totally new constitution.

Mr. Brewin:

Does not the Prime Minister consider that it might be easier to arrive at a proper amending formula with the over-all picture than to agree on a formula which imposes a rigidity on something which is perhaps out of date?

Mr. Pearson:

That is something which a committee of the kind to which I have referred might well consider.

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):

In view of the desirability of repatriating our constitution, or patriating it, to adopt the word used by the Prime Minister; and in view of the increasing support given from various quarters, including the

January 28, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry young student Liberal body in the province of Quebec only the other night in favour of a national constitutional conference, would the Prime Minister not consider convening such a conference now, bearing in mind that our centenary is just around the corner?

Mr. Pearson:

With all respect to the right hon. gentleman I think it would be preferable for this government and this parliament to consider the matter before the calling of a federal-provincial constitutional conference representing, I assume, all parties. I think we had better see whether we can come to some agreement in this parliament first.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

What is the reasoning behind the statement just made by the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that it is the very converse of the course he has so far followed? Is it because of the failure to secure unanimous consent as particularly evidenced by the correspondence tabled today? Is it this which causes him now to place the matter before parliament? He spoke of setting up a committee. Would such a committee be a committee of both houses or just of the House of Commons?

Mr. Pearson:

I think that could be considered. Consideration could be given to whether it would be a committee of the House of Commons or of both houses. I would point out to the right hon. gentleman that perhaps the first question to go before such a committee would be the particular formula which has already been approved by every government in this country and on which members of this house might like to give their views.

They are not now being given such an opportunity to give their views in this house because of the fact that we cannot now proceed to bring it here in view of the attitude of one province. I am sure my right hon. friend would be anxious to be the first to appear before such a committee and tell it what is wrong with the formula which was first produced by his government, then by this government and confirmed by the government of every province.