Mr. Johnston (Westmount):

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) permit a question? I might add, Mr. Speaker, that there is no one in the House with a fresher mandate than mine. The question I would like to ask relates to the hon. member's support of the principle of referenda. Unfortunately I was not here to listen to the remarks of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), but I gather that it is the position of the official opposition that the principle of the bill is acceptable, but that the scope of the questions which can be asked under the bill is too great. That is my interpretation of what I understood this evening and, if I may, I would like to have the hon. member's response to that. Having read clause 3(1) it struck me that the scope was really quite narrow.

Mr. Hnatyshyn:

You are new around here!

Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to deprive other members of their right to speak, but the hon. member who put a question has a right to an answer. The position put by my hon. friepd from Kingston and the Islands, as I understood her, was put very precisely. She said that the existence at the federal level of a clear set of rules, which ensures the utmost freedom of speech and fullness of debate prior to the holding of any referendum on Quebec, is important. There are four or five areas within the speech she made which indicate that the principle of referenda is not repellent to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, nor does it repel me. 1 hope that answers the question of the hon. member. I am quite prepared to answer any questions, but I presume this bill will go to committee and will be dealt with quite fully.

Mr. Pelletier:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):

The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) on a point of order.

Mr. Pelletier:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Two or three times in his speech, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) referred to the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent)-

-as the five foot six member.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):

Order, please. I would like to hear the hon. member's question of privilege.

Mr. Pelletier:

I think it improper to use these words. We do not refer to the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) or the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) as the five foot two members-

Mr. Hnatyshyn:

Tiny perfect!

Referenda

Mr. Pelletier:

-and I do not think it should be used as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton used it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):

The hon. member for York-Simcoe on a point of order.

Mr. Stevens:

It is a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. As everybody can see, it is clear that I am not five-foot two.

Five-foot one!

[ Translation]

Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the sheer size of a man is a true measure of his greatness but rather the kind of head he has on his shoulders. In the regard Mr. Speaker, I wonder what is the policy of the Progressive Conservative party on the subject matter of Bill C-9. Indeed, it is extremely difficult of anyone who listened to the speeches made by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), to know what is the position of that party on the issue of the Referendum Act. What is extremely difficult to explain, Mr. Speaker, is the inability of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton to defend his leader after it was twice suggested here in the House of Commons that he would negotiate his country if 60 per cent of people voted yes in a Quebec referendum.

Some people bury their heads in the sand, and when they come to the province of Quebec-it is extremely important in this country-they know that people outside of Quebec do not listen to them as much because they use French, and therefore they feel they can say any silly things. They may try to make the people of Quebec believe something. The next day they fly to another part of the country where they say exactly the opposite. They are certain that nobody will contradict them. They believe there are in Canada people who do not understand both languages. There are others, Mr. Speaker, who, in their wishful thinking, believe they live in a unilingual country. They think because they speak in some way in Quebec they will not be understood elsewhere, and because they speak in some other way in the provinces they will not be understood in Quebec. They are understood just the same, Mr. Speaker; furthermore, they will always be understood. I think the important thing-Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, and it does not seem a long time for some members or perhaps too long for a few, but the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has made the worst speech 1 have ever heard in the House. I do not claim to be the official critic of a party but I can say at least, Mr. Speaker, that I can recognize when somebody has the future of his country at heart, because the bill before us is extremely important for the future of our country.

December 12, 1978

Referenda

We have not introduced this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, solely to while away the time in the House, we introduced to guarantee the very foundations of our democratic society in Canada. What we want to do with Bill C-9, Mr. Speaker, is to guarantee to the Canadian people as a whole that no government will be able to usurp or to break this country unfairly. When we say unfairly, Mr. Speaker, we want to ensure that those who were elected in Quebec through the democratic process do not break this country in a way which would clearly be antidemocratic. I will explain this way. What I mean, Mr. Speaker, is that it would be extremely easy for a party which forms the government to try to deceive the population on the terms of the question. 1 believe it would be evidence of political immaturity for the federal government to evade its responsibilities by not introducing a legislation such as Bill C-9.

Mr. Speaker, we are not introducing a bill on referenda strictly for the fun of it. We introduce this bill to make sure that if ever the group of bourgeois who are in power in Quebec decide to fool around with the meaning of the referendum question we could redress the wrong that would have been done and we could know, clearly and accurately, whether Quebeckers want to remain within Canada or not. 1 believe there are hon. members in this House who have yet to understand that the future of Canada is at stake right now, in 1978, and not in six years or ten years from now. Too many members on the other side of this House are prepared to endanger their own country for the sake of power. 1 do not understand them, Mr. Speaker. It is maddening to see how these people refuse to understand the problem which now exists in Canada. It is shocking to note how these people prefer to destroy the will of the House of Commons that wants to try to keep Canada united through the present government which represents people from all parts of the country. Mr. Speaker, it is extremely difficult to understand how come these people, after what we heard tonight and after so many years in the opposition, have not learned anything yet. I think they are now a permanent opposition party. They have not learned yet to listen to the grass roots. That is what is important. These people, Mr. Speaker, have not realized what a Quebecker wants at all costs to stay within Canada. They do not take the trouble.

Mr. Speaker, they should take the trouble to look into the underlying principles of Bill C-9, particularly on the matter of referendum procedures. These were dealt with in a very superficial way. With all the experience of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, I would have expected from him a much better worked out speech on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, to my mind there is no serious awareness of the real urgency of having a referendum act in this country, an act that would enable us to ensure that democracy is safeguarded in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I hear voices on the other side. Unfortunately they know nothing about the way the party in power in Quebec communicates. If they think as some do, that Quebeckers can be bought off when they cannot speak

the way Quebeckers want to be spoken to, well, they will miss the boat, Mr. Speaker. And in the House of Commons they will have, many will be missing, namely the representatives of Quebec. Then they will wonder whether the House of Commons can survive after that. There might even be a House of American representatives in our area.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is imperative that those people become aware, once and for all, that all the Quebec people want is simply that their problems not be made light of, that they be solved. Quebeckers want nothing more. They also want something that is basic. I feel that, humanly speaking, if French Canadians are truly respected, then, it should be understood that the French language should be respected throughout the country. When we can finally tell Quebeckers that you, on the other side, have a deep respect for them, then there will be no more problems in Canada. But Quebeckers are not convinced, Mr. Speaker, that people on the other side want them in Canada. On the contrary, a good number of them wonder if people like the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton would not simply want them to opt out. Unfortunately, they already see themselves in power. Were it not for us in Quebec, they might be in power. Those guys are ready to negotiate their country for power. Mr. Speaker, I will not dwell on them any longer. I would rather speak of the bill, which is more important and more sensible.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to summarize the bill which to me is extremely important. The Quebec premier, Mr. Levesque, incidentally is my MLA, I did not vote for him, but he won his election anyway. Mr. Speaker, the Quebec premier said that our referendum legislation was "full of holes", nothing but holes. I will show him, Mr. Speaker, what has more holes.

I would like to make 19 points, 19 comparisons between the Quebec legislation and the bill before us this evening. After that, let him try and find holes! Anyway we are going to find some.

Mr. Speaker, according to Bill C-9, referenda should only deal with constitutional matters. The Quebec legislation says that referenda may deal with any matter, but there could not be more than one referendum on the same subject during the same legislature. They are ready to do anything to gain power. They said that they had a taste for Quebec, but now they have a taste for power, Mr. Speaker.

Second point. We are making quite clear, Mr. Speaker, after the answer given this afternoon by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde), that the referendum would be held for consultation purposes only. In their legislation they say that a referendum might be held for consultation purposes or to submit to the people a bill passed by the National Assembly before its final approval. So they pass a legislation but they consult the people before giving it their final approval. They are putting the cart before the horse.

December 12, 1978

Third point, Mr. Speaker. Let us not forget that the Quebec Premier said that our bill was full of holes. We say that the questions asked in a referendum could only be worded by a government member, at least by the entire cabinet. If you look at the legislation, Mr. Speaker, it is characteristic of the bourgeois clique that runs the show in Quebec; only the premier could word the questions put in a referendum. When the leader says jump everybody agrees and the others have nothing to say.

Such is the basic democracy they talk about in Quebec.

The next point-I go on with the bill full of holes, according to the Quebec Premier. The questions should be worded so as to allow the voters to answer yes or no, which does not exclude the possibility to ask several questions, including alternative questions. He forgets this himself!

Mr. Speaker, I would not like to sound like a Social Crediter, as I have much more respect for them than for those people, but if I went further, they have been bothering us for a long time with their famous question. That is dangerous. Mr. Speaker, there is a way to ask the question which I think is very, very important. I have nothing against people who have spent years at the university, who have studied for a long time and who have been teachers. We find a lot of those people as in the Parti Quebecois but all things considered, they should put more trust in Quebeckers. I get fed up that in Quebec, Mr. Speaker, only academics dominate people who are working hard, when the others spend their time deciding and governing. Therefore the question which will be put will be very important, and skilful as they are at manipulating crowds they believe that Quebeckers are stupid people. That will be their biggest mistake.

Recently there was a public opinion poll held in Laval, a prosperous city with a dynamic mayor. He had decided once and for all that he would not be ruled by fascists because if you do not think as the government party does you are a bad but you are okay if you share their views.

Mr. Speaker, to come back to what I have to say, housewives from Laval have clearly indicated according to the last poll they are sick and tired, and that is only a few Quebeckers who are tired of being manipulated by a sort of question which will result in a "yes" or a "no". They want to know clearly what the question will be.

And if you try to manipulate the people by presenting them with a leading question, they will come out with a loud and clear "no" as an answer to the question whether or not they want Quebec to separate.

I now would like, Mr. Speaker, to point out the shortcomings in our legislation by comparison to that of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, we are ready to grant forty hours for the consultation process to take place and when a referendum is held, they will grant thirty hours. We will not press the point for the sake of ten hours and I guess that democracy is all the more respected when more people can have more time to express their views.

Secondly, what we are saying is that after the wording of the question has been approved, the government will only have

Referenda

45 days to issue writs for the referendum. Pursuant to its act, the government of Quebec will not be able to issue any writs until the twentieth day following the day when the phrasing of a question has been approved but it could also delay the issuing of that writ indefinitely. That is their way of understanding democracy, Mr. Speaker. The Quebec government will not be able to issue a brief during the yearly census period or the two following weeks. That is the Parti Quebecois' idea of democracy, Mr. Speaker! We can also see it at work, Mr. Speaker, in its occupational safety program. They are taking away all the benefits workers have enjoyed up to now, as far as the safety is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few additional remarks but first I would like to make a very important point. I did not seek legal advice nor do I pretend to be a lawyer, far from it, but I am seriously wondering whether I or any of my hon. friends opposite, from the left to the right, will be allowed to write to our constituents during the referendum campaign to let them know our position and feelings on that matter or whether we will have to and I do mean "have to" become part of an umbrella organization before expressing our views.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is extremely important and if you have time one day you might study this bill in order to determine if it does not violate our privileges as members. If we examine the Quebec referendum legislation we notice that any organization wanting to contribute during the referendum campaign must either be in the "yes" or "no" umbrella group. If we stick to the text, this means that the member for Longueuil is not authorized to write to his electors and advise them to vote no. And also that during the whole referendum campaign members of this House will not have the right to go and speak to people in Quebec in order to convince them to stay in Canada if they are not in the umbrella group. That is what the legislation means in Quebec now.

Mr. Speaker, I find this extremely dangerous. What is sure in my mind is that I have been elected to represent people who believe in that kind of country and that the government party will not prevent me from holding public meetings in which I can express my point of view and explain why I want to keep my country as it is. If they think I am doing something illegal, Mr. Speaker, they can send me their thugs if they want to.

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely dangerous for a society which calls itself democratic to start invading rights and privileges of some members of parliament. And that is when you really see what the federal system is all about when whatever level of government unilaterally decides to attempt reducing the rights of some individuals, the other level can interfere to stand for them while if we had a separation such as the one provided for by the Parti Quebecois group, we would refer to one single government in Quebec, under a presidency, how do I know, such as they have in France with their communes or whatever, and all the frills around it, when one looks at it it is beyond understanding.

Mr. Speaker, it is both extremely dangerous and important to point out the reasons for Bill C-9 now before us. If members

December 12, 1978

Referenda

in this House, and I would invite them to listen closely, if members are to be restricted in their right to speak or hold public meetings in support of Canada in the province of Quebec during the referendum campaign, without being a member of the yes group or the no group, it is extremely dangerous for our Canadian society and our Canadian democracy to let this go unchallenged. Things are happening in Canada where one part does not give a damn about the other. What is happening in Canada? Some people believe that because a dreamer or a saviour has come, the other side's problems are solved. Mr. Speaker, the problem is much deeper. If ten, twelve or fifteen members of all sides decided during the pre-referendum campaign or the referendum campaign in Quebec to hold public meetings for a united Canada, it would be interesting to find out whether we would have the right to do so.

Mr. Speaker, under the legislation that was passed in the province of Quebec, members would not have the right to do so. They would have that right if they were to join the yes umbrella, and we know what it means to join the yes umbrella. I am quite ready to associate myself with the provincial Liberal party, but let us not forget that the communist party also supports them. It is against separation. Therefore, I would have to associate with the communists.

Well, I would not suggest for a moment that the New Democratic Party are communists. In my view, they are socialists, albeit bourgeois socialists. They are intellectuals controlling workers and taking their funds for electioneering. This is what they are doing. A great leader once said they were Liberals in a hurry, but as far as I am concerned I feel they are backwards on a number of things. When we look at the principles and the main provisions in the legislation before us, the clear realization is that we have a responsible government.

I should like to mention some provisions of Bill C-9 which I feel are the most important, although I have already mentioned a number of others. First of all, referenda should deal only with constitutional issues. They could be part of an advisory process. The answers to the questions would be an unequivocal yes or no. The referendum legislation would expire at the end of a five-year period, unless parliament decided otherwise. Our referenda could be held either in a designated area or at the same time in a few designated areas or everywhere in Canada. As I indicated earlier, the consultation process on a definite question would last 40 hours. As to the writs, 45 days would be required. The bill provides also for a judicial recount in cases where the results are very important and the number of "yes" and "no" votes are too close. Mr. Speaker, the reason I fully support the underlying principle of this bill-something hon. members opposite will or can not understand-is that its purpose is to safeguard the democratic process in Canada. And I have a lot of respect for those who do not think that way, Mr. Speaker, but I say one thing, they did not consider at length the problem that exists in Canada.

If the separatist party in power in Quebec said clearly our question is going to be so clear that people are going to be able

[Mr. Olivier.)

to answer yes or no, that our question is going to be: Do you want to remain in Canada, yes or no, there would probably be no need to introduce this bill immediately. That is what is important. There are fundamental reasons why the Parti Quebecois keeps postponing its proposed referendum. First of all, everyone knows that they are scared to death of the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). They know that on his own ground which is the province of Quebec, Mr. Rene Levesque is going to go down to defeat. And they know also that when the people of Quebec are going to be called upon to make a choice between Rene Levesque and Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the answer is going to be 70 per cent for Mr. Trudeau. They know that. Twenty per cent will be undecided and 10 per cent will be for Mr. Levesque-and I am being generous.

Mr. Speaker, I will never draw enough the attention of this House to the problem of our democracy that is at issue in Quebec and in Canada because of the umbrella organizations because members of the House will probably not have the right to speak during the referendum process if they are not members of the umbrella organizations. That is extremely important. Although I seldom share the opinions of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, I think she has the right to say what she has to say in my riding, in my province, in my city or in her city-everywhere. I think it is normal, even if I do not think like her. But 1 say one thing, I believe she has not yet understood that she will not be able to do so during the referendum period in Quebec unless she is part of the umbrella organization. I find that extremely odd, Mr. Speaker.

There are some who seem to say that the Liberal party is in trouble. I challenge them to come and see what is happening in Quebec. Because we stand for the people of Quebec, because Liberal members elected to Ottawa stand for the interests of Quebec and always do so energetically, they imagine that we cannot understand the other problems that exist in this country. But the important thing in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to help all hon. members from the province of Quebec and the members of all parties in the House and place them in a position where they can take part in an honest debate on the desire of a population to remain part of the country. There are too many people in the House, Mr. Speaker, who figure the future of the country is a matter of dollars and cents. This country will never make it as a united country if people, be they in the Liberal party, in the Progressive Conservative party, in the Social Credit party or in the New Democratic Party, believe that we will make friends with those who oppose the idea of a united Canada by pretending it is strictly a matter of economic problems. It is not so. We will never solve Canada's problems by talking about dollars and cents. Never! The problem will disappear when people start respecting those who come from Quebec, be they French-speaking or English-speaking. There is a French-speaking majority in Quebec. There is an important minority in Canada which demands to be respected like other Canadians living outside Quebec. And as long as people fail to understand this problem, Mr. Speaker, it will not be

December 12, 1978

solved in Canada. On the contrary, they will still manage to split and divide this country. Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that with Bill C-9 we cannot be certain of winning the referendum, because we are sure that the party in power in Quebec, the Parti Quebecois, will lose the referendum. I tell you one thing; be careful, you are dreaming in colour. A growing majority of Quebeckers think that the other provinces do not want them anymore. I tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, to believe that the referendum will automatically be rejected in Quebec is to dream in colour. I tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, if there were a referendum in the Longueuil riding tomorrow morning, if we asked the question yes or no, do you want to stay in Canada, I am not sure Canada would win. The population in Longueuil, Mr. Speaker, is 93 per cent Frenchspeaking, 8 per cent English-speaking, and 4 per cent immigrants. Mr. Speaker, this is really significant. People on the other side think it is easy to be a member of parliament in Ottawa. If you believe it is easy to be a member of parliament in Ottawa when you are from Quebec you are mistaken. You should come in our ridings where we are always defending ourselves, where one keeps repeating that the Parti Quebecois is not telling the truth, that it is not true that English-speaking people are out to get us, that it is not true that they want to destroy us, that it is not true they are this and that. When you come to do this work for us, I will begin to have some respect for you.

[DOT] (2132)

Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier). Sometimes it is good to remind ourselves that no particular side of the House has all the answers with regard to some very difficult questions relating to matters of national unity. I think it sometimes is easy for us to inflate rhetoric and to take a parochial view, looking at these particular issues with our own immediate concerns in mind.

[DOT] (2142)

Let me be certain to leave no doubt in anyone's mind that, as far as I am concerned personally, in respect of the province of Quebec its continuation within confederation is essential. 1 feel as strongly about that as the hon. member for Longueuil, and as strongly as any member across the floor of this House, as any member in the NDP or the Social Credit party, or an independent in the House.

When I address myself to this particular legislation, and if I do not find it to be completely perfect, I do not want anyone in any part of this House to suggest I am not being patriotic, or not attempting to bring to this parliament the best possible legislation in relation to the problems we are now facing in the province of Quebec.

Let's hear the rest.

Mr. Hnatyshyn:

You are going to hear the rest. The fact of the matter is I am going to make some observations in respect of the legislation, and I will address myself to some provisions of the bill which I very seriously think are counterproductive to the task we in this House have regarding the issues concerning

Referenda

national unity with which we are faced today. I want to deal with the productive side of things, and with those things particularly and specifically.

As my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), has pointed out, we are not looking at this particular situation and this bill in the context of a vehicle for constitutional change in the broad spectrum of that concept, but rather we look at the obligation of this government to bring forward legislation that will deal specifically with the problems we face today. That is the matter to which we should address ourselves. We should be considering how to attack problems by legislation brought before this House that will have the general support of members on all sides, rather than the type of legislation that in fact may only have limited support.

I hesitated a bit before getting up, sir, as you may have noticed. I am concerned about this debate. The Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Reid) was in the House earlier today, and, although he is newly appointed, I had hoped he would address himself to this particular bill, giving us some idea of the direction of the action he proposes to take. He has not been here all day. I must say, quite candidly, that it disappoints me that he should not be in the House during this very important debate on a matter so relevant to his portfolio. I do not know the reason, and there may be a very legitimate one. No one has yet said why that minister has not participated in the debate and has not been in the House. I know the minister is busy, but if any bill involves a very substantial part of his responsibility, this one does. I think it demands his attendance in this House at all times and full participation in the debate. Otherwise we can only draw a conclusion about this bill that I do not want to draw.

I was a member of the joint committee on the constitution studying Bill C-60.

You were not there too often.

Mr. Hnatyshyn:

I was in attendance, although I was away for a couple of weeks with the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) and others considering the constitutional situation in Germany. We wanted to come back with a proper perspective in respect of this matter.

When I went to that committee studying Bill C-60 I was advised that there was unanimity on the part of members of the government party, and that it was a matter of government policy that members on that side of the House should give it full support.

That's not true; that's not true.