Mr. Hnatyshyn:

A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would merely inquire whether these interventions which were not of substance have been taken off my time. I think it only reasonable, if that be the case, that-

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):

Order, please. The Chair recognized that point and gave the hon. member an extra minute.

Mr. Donald J. Johnston (Westmount):

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to carry on the debate on a bill which in my opinion will be one of the most important to be considered by the House. It is a legislation which could play a predominant role in the constitutional debate and even in the existence of our country. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I cannot stress enough the significance of the legislation for us Quebeckers, my constituents in Quebec, and I know that I do not speak only for the Anglophones in Quebec but also for all Quebeckers who believe in a united Canada. It is essential that our federal government be in a position to protect the interests of Quebeckers in the face of the present threat, that is the referendum to be held by the Parti Quebecois. Such is the object of the bill. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we hope that the debates in the House will rise above partisan considerations.

I was very disappointed to read the comments made by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) in connection with the bill. I even felt that her comments were demagogic. I would like to quote an example, Mr. Speaker. [English]

At page 2039 of the Hansard for December 12, 1978, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands said:

I do not find this legislation before us today to be in that spirit of honesty and forthrightness which this difficult subject demands. I see this legislation as being

Referenda

devious, dangerous and even deceptive. It purports to be an act respecting public referendums in Canada on questions relating to the Constitution of Canada. It is, instead, a blatant attempt to subvert and undermine the responsibilities and duties of the Canadian system of responsible government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the contrary is true. She is looking for non-existent motivations in that bill. As we often say, she is looking for difficulties where there are none.

Mr. Paproski:

You haven't been around here long enough.

Mr. Johnston (Westmount):

I expect to be around here a long time.

I must emphasize the point that we in the province of Quebec, no matter which language we speak, are understandably sensitive to this particular issue. We want this law. My constituents are not interested in debating points or in playing partisan politics on a matter of this importance.

Mr. Speaker, I wish the opposition would take the same approach.

During the course of my campaign as recently as last autumn, I found that one of the concerns of the people of the province of Quebec of whatever policitical stripe is what the federal government has done to help in the critical situation in which we find ourselves. This is a serious matter which I can understand members from other parts of Canada perhaps not being sensitive to.

Unfortunately many of the people in Quebec, probably like many other people across this country, fail to appreciate the nature of the federal system. They look to the federal government as having some magical, superior powers with which to deal with such problems and with Bill 101. Of course, that is not the case. Here we have before us a proposed law through which all members of this House can do something as a federal government for the people of the province of Quebec who are at this moment menaced, whose rights dre threatened and who are also threatened with being separated from the rest of Canada, perhaps through the use of a referendum being proposed by the provincial government.

This is one of the few legal steps we can take and one of the few concrete things we can do to demonstrate the fact that we will not let the people of Quebec be the victims of a referendum on a question posed which is ambiguous, unfair or meaningless. I do not believe that this law will ever be used. I have more confidence in my government of Quebec as a resident of that province than to think that the government of Quebec will put forward a question deliberately designed to fool the people of that province into providing a yes answer to a trumped-up question.

The existence of this law is very important to me, Mr. Speaker, and it is very important to the people in my riding. I

80047-24'/$

January 26, 1979

Referenda

suspect the same holds true of all of the people across the province of Quebec. I would be very surprised if Conservative candidates and members of parliament from Quebec were to take the attitude taken by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands because they are not threatened with separation-

Oh, oh!

Mr. Hnatyshyn:

It is our country too.

An. hon. Member: Who do you think you are?

Mr. Johnston (Westmount):

There are six million people in the province of Quebec, six million Canadians, and they have to be our concern. Most of those Canadians want this law.

What about sovereignty association?

Oh, oh!

Mr. Johnston (Westmount):

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but 1 did not interrupt the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):

Order, please. The hon. member for Westmount has the floor. I suggest we listen to him.

Mr. Johnston (Westmount):

Often in Quebec and elsewhere in this country I find a misconception in that we have grown so regional in our thinking. Some people outside the province of Quebec seem to have grown insensitive to the fact that, as I have said, there are over six million people at the moment who are faced with a referendum. This referendum will be conducted by a provincial government. Surely we are not to deny the federal government the right to conduct similiar referenda on any subject of constitutional importance.

I do not understand the basis for the objections of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. member for Sasfeatoon-Biggar, which I have read, but I will come back to that in a moment.

The fact is that today we often focus attention on Alberta. Alberta is a region. What is important about Alberta? Why we care about Alberta is the fact that there are approximately 1.8 million Canadians in that province, according to the 1976 census. There are approximately 2.8 million Canadians on the island of Montreal and there are as many Canadians that are faced with this menace from the province of Quebec as there are Canadians west of Ontario in the western provinces, including British Columbia.

Let us not lose sight and perspective of what we are dealing with. We are dealing with a very serious and real threat. It is very important to us in the province of Quebec that this law is put in place and put in place soon.

I noticed that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) in his comments made on December 12 said that we should not move hastily. I do not think haste should be used in the adoption of any law of this importance. I think we should all work together in a non-partisan way to produce a law that

is going to afford the kind of protection to Canadians who live in the province of Quebec which they require.

This bill is consultative. This bill permits the Government of Canada to take the pulse of the Canadian population. This bill cannot bring about fundamental constitutional change. This bill could be referred to, as we often refer to the Quebec referendum bill, as a sophisticated public opinion poll. What more can be read into it than that? Is the opposition saying to us that we are not to know what the Canadian people feel about particular constitutional issues? Would they also like to muzzle private polls, Gallup polls, and Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen polls which I receive regularly, to find out what business people are thinking in certain areas of the country and communities? That is what this poll is for. Are we to deny the people of Canada the right to express their opinions on matters of this kind?

I would be quite in agreement with the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar and with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands if this situation were to be in any way binding upon parliament. I agree that that would be a denial of the parliamentary democratic system. I am sure everyone would agree with that, and the leader of the New Democratic Party stated it categorically during the course of his comments.

I find this debate quite extraordinary in that I find nothing in this bill other than the right of the federal government, after very substantial debate, in fact more debate than is allowed under the referendum bill of the province of Quebec, to put a question to the Canadian people or to one part of the country for their opinion. It can relate to anything contitutional, but it is certainly not going to change the entrenched provisions of any of our constitutional laws, particularly when it is not binding on this parliament. So there is nothing devious. There is nothing dangerous. I find it extraordinary that the Canadian people should be denied this right.

Accordingly I feel that the debate is somehow getting off track and into areas of partisan politics where it should not be. It is not that kind of legislation. I might also say that the consultative process is very important. However, there may be other ways we can go as well. This kind of referendum bill is certainly one of them.

I felt on this whole question of constitutional debate that we should have involved the muncipalities. I regard municipalities as having an important voice. I know that the Canadian Federation of Municipalities believes it has an important voice and should be speaking on constitutional issues and be at the negotiating table. In a very few years approximately 80 per cent of this country will be urbanized. The powers and the responsibilities of our municipalities are very great. In 1976 municipalities spent 23 per cent of government expenditures in Canada. They should be involved in a very real way. So this is another area of consultation that we should be looking at.

I say the more consultation with our constituencies, the better. That is why I go back to my riding to find out what the people are thinking. Apparently the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar prefers not to know what Canada is thinking. I want to know what Canada is thinking on these constitutional

January 26, 1979

issues. I like to know what the mayors and the aldermen are thinking and what problems they have. The more input we have, the better. In the particular issue before us the immediate problem we have is a situation in the province of Quebec which is threatening.

In conclusion, I as a member from Quebec want to underline the significance of this legislation. I ask the opposition parties to share the concern of their fellow Canadians. I cannot emphasize the importance of not permitting this debate to degenerate into bickering and partisan politicking. I ask them to reconsider their views and the impact they can have.

I see nothing in this bill that can in any way be detrimental to the parliamentary democratic process. I prefer that a structure exist that can deal with all constitutional questions and the financing of all referenda so that provision will not have to come up if a referendum is indeed to be debated in this House. It can be debated now and the mechanism put in place so that it will be there for all of us.

At the moment we are dealing with an issue in the province of Quebec. In the future who knows what issue we will want to take the pulse of Canada on in this area of constitutional reform, which is so terribly important to all of us.

With those comments I will terminate my intervention in this debate. I repeat, my point of view may be somewhat different from that of members of the opposition. I put before them the point of view of someone directly involved with the problems of the Quebec referendum. I see nothing in their arguments that lead me to believe that this bill should undergo any alteration whatsoever. I am a listener. I do not believe I am partisan. However, in the arguments I have heard, as we often say in Quebec-

[ Translation]

There is nothing there.

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely appalled. I am also extremely happy to follow the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Johnston). I would like to have seen the text of what he said because I cannot believe what he was saying, that this arm, tool, instrument or sword will never be used. Then why involve this House in a debate?

If as the hon. member for Westmount has indicated-and it is obvious from the way things have been developing-the problem of the separation of Quebec is the focus or feature that this government wants to attack, why the hell have they not been honest enough to say so?

Hear, hear!

Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):

Why have they not produced a referendum in the terms that they feel will be required to be used?

The other absolutely incredible statement made by the hon. member for Westmount was this: "Why are you going to

Referenda

deprive us of the instrument to make a sounding across Canada, so that we can disregard it?" They are not even going to use it when they get it.

Do they not know what Canada wants? I know what Canada wants. Canada wants to stay together. I take a back seat to no one in this House or in this country on my record for this country as a whole from coast to coast to coast. Now, put that in your buzz saw and buzz it a bit! I have proved that three times. The first time I proved it was the time when one member in particular in this House could not prove it. I was prepared to put on a uniform and prove it. Thank God there are more of us around this House who did that.

I also proved it when I proudly represented this country abroad up to the point when my pride in my country began to wither in the face of the policies of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his minions behind him. I had to resign. I could not represent the policies being negotiated by this Prime Minister and this government.

The third time I proved my desire to keep this country together was when I took the oath of office as a member of this House to represent my constituency. If anyone here feels they have to go beyond this oath, they should be ashamed.

Let us make no mistake. This is one of the most important debates facing this country. It is certainly the most important debate that has taken place since I have been in parliament. Let there be no doubt that we are embarked today on constitutional reform and institutional reform as well. That is certainly the way we are proceeding.

I ask myself this: should any government with the record of this government be given the right to introduce constitutional amendment or institutional reform of this general, sweeping nature and significance when, (a) it is in the final days of its mandate, and (b) it has such a dismal record of performance, bringing this country to its knees? During its ten years in office, this government has managed to drag this country down in a manner that no one would have thought possible ten or 11 years ago.

Miss MacDonald:

The task force said it yesterday.

Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):

As my colleague said, the task force said it yesterday. I wish to read from page 16 of the task force document which was praised yesterday by the Prime Minister. In the fifth paragraph, on page 16 of this document, I read the following words:

Another factor concerns the central government itself. Fifteen years ago-

That was 1963. Let's remember what happened in 1963:

-it stood high in the minds of a large number of Canadians, and was widely regarded with respect and a feeling of loyalty. Even those who felt little loyalty to it at least respected its efficiency and competence. Today, that is much less true; "Ottawa", as we found on our tour, is for many Canadians synonymous with all that is to be deplored about modern government-a remote, shambling bureaucracy that exacts tribute from its subjects and gives little in return.

I could not have said it better myself.

January 26, 1979

Referenda

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):

Order, please. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.

At one o'clock the House took recess.