1987-10-21

Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, today many hundreds of Indian people, most of them young, rallied on Parliament Hill to protest vigorously the Government's decision to limit and restrict its spending on education for Indian and Inuit students.
Thousands of young Indian and Inuit students will be unable to pursue post-secondary education this year because of the Government's complex system of capping expenditures and creating categories of eligibility. Funds for primary and secondary education are being shifted here and there across the country, and Quebec is about to lose nearly $3 million in the process.
Indian control of Indian education is proceeding at a snail's pace. When there is a transfer of responsibility, it is with fewer resources than when it was retained under government control.
1 say, Sir, to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight), and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), re-examine your spending priorities. I ask, do not cast aside yet another generation of aboriginal young people.
Six thousand one hundred and thirty-nine Indian people have signed documents urging the Government of Canada to fulfil its treaty and trust obligations, and provide the necessary educational funding. Those signatures will be delivered this afternoon to the Prime Minister's Office. The Indian people of Canada do expect a positive response.


EFFECT OF TELEVISING PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago the House of Commons was introduced to the heat of television lights and the ever watchful eye of automated cameras. During the past decade the House of Commons has been trivialized by being televised. The new medium has brought a new message.
The televising of House of Commons Question Period has reinterpreted the rule book without rewriting the rules. The rule of relevance is vanishing. The notion that questions ought not to be argumentative has given way to the new medium that demands heat and attack.
No longer is substance the essence of politics. Very few people measure the warrant, the premise, the presumptions, or the evidence upon which conclusions are drawn. The new medium encourages unsubstantiated accusations. Cute expressions have become a substitute for research. Shrillness and high drama are characteristics that are observably more present than a decade ago.
Parliament, citizens, and the process of thoughtful democracy have been the losers. Our nation and her citizens have turned more negative. Accomplishments are seldom applauded, because in every great achievement there is, no matter how small, a dark phase to be exploited, and television drama and exploitation are synonymous. Television has reduced our character and diminished our procedures.
Ah, TV or not TV, that is the question.
Whether 'tis is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous comment, or by opposing end them . . . Et tu, Brute\


PERSONS AWARDS
Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the 1987 Persons Awards will be presented to five outstanding Canadian women to honour their contributions toward improving the status of women in Canada.

October 21, 1987
The "Persons Case" was won on October 18, 1929, by a group of suffragists known as "The Famous Five". Led by Judge Emily Murphy, the first woman magistrate in the British Empire, this group of Alberta women included Louise McKinney, Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby, and Elenrietta Muir Edwards. Together they fought to have women defined as persons under the law and succeeded in their struggle.

I want to ask you to join me in celebrating the anniversary of this remarkable achievement by paying tribute to the women who have followed in the footsteps of the Famous Five: Jacqueline Laprise-Demers, Margaret Catherine Harris, Frances Laracy, Kay Macpherson and Norma Walmsley. It is very encouraging to see that their efforts to improve women's social economic status have been acknowledged by the Canadian Government. I hope this recognition will inspire other women to take part in the struggle to improve the status of Canadian women.

As Rosemary Brown once said, "Until all of us have made it, none of us have made it".



Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join the Hon. Member in congratulating the five women who are to receive the Persons Awards today. In 1929, five other remarkable women ensured that Canadian women would be legally recognized as persons, which gave them the right to be appointed to the Senate. Those women were Emily Murphy, Louise McKinney, Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby and Henrietta Muir Edwards, who won this battle through their own efforts.
With the Hon. Member and all the Members of this House, I wish to congratulate today's award recipients, and especially Mrs. Jacqueline Laprise-Demers and Mrs. Norma E. Walmsley, both from Quebec.


TRIBUTE TO LATE ROSA BECKER
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, on this day, the anniversary of the Persons Case, when five Canadian women will receive awards in the Senate this afternoon, in
recognition of their contribution to and leadership in improving the status of women in Canada; on this day when we pay tribute to the women who were innovators in our country, either by their activities or by their approach and attitudes, I would like to pay a posthumous tribute to Mrs. Rosa Becker, who died last November in Franklin, Quebec. Mrs. Becker was 54 when the Supreme Court awarded her half the assets she had earned while sharing the life of her spouse for twenty years on a farm in Valleyfield. When the court handed out its judgment in December, 1980, Mrs. Becker was happy that she had helped advance the cause of women through this particular case. When she died six years later, she was working as a maid on a farm in Valleyfield and had yet to obtain a single penny of the money she had been awarded, and all because her lawyer had taken his own fee before handing over the money she had been awarded. She left a message, asking the women of Canada and the Government to change the legislation so that when a similar judgment is handed down, the money and assets are give to the client before the lawyers can take out their own fees.
We wish to pay tribute to Mrs. Rosa Becker and to all women in similar situations.

[DOT] (MIO)


CRIME PREVENTION
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, community crime prevention was given a major boost today with the launching of Mobile Watch. Mobile Watch will link cellular phone and two-way radio operators with local police departments in order to provide fast information on criminal activity. All Mobile Watch members will become part of a standardized reporting system enabling them to report suspicious activity to the police as it happens.
Over the next 18 months, Mobile Watch will involve 800 corporations, 40,000 vehicles and 100,000 cellular phone users in the fight against crime. I commend the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher), Metro Toronto Police Chief Jack Marks, the Association of Investigator and Guard Agencies, and the Canadian Society for Industrial Security for developing this outstanding non-profit crime prevention program.
Community crime preventions do work. Mobile Watch, together with Neighbourhood Watch, provide Canadians with a chance to become more involved in maintaining the safety of their community. They send a clear message to anyone contemplating criminal activity-"We're watching you."
October 21, 1987


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON CAPE BRETON
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Cape Breton whose economy is so dependent upon the operations of two Crown corporations are very concerned about the potentially devastating effects of the Government's trade deal with the United States.
The Cape Breton Development Corporation sells coal to the Nova Scotia Power Corporation under a special arrangement to protect the jobs of Cape Breton workers. This underground coal is more expensive to produce than American coal and would not be competitive.
Sydney Steel, a provincial Crown corporation, receives preferential treatment from Canadian National and from the Canadian International Development Agency in the purchase of steel rails for use in Canada as well as internationally.
Because the Government has agreed with the United States to open government procurement to competition from the United States and because the Government has also agreed to take measures to ensure compliance by provincial and local authorities, there is an urgent need for the Government to clarify this issue. It should tell the people of Cape Breton and of Canada whether provincial and federal Crown corporations and federal government agencies, such as CIDA, will be required to purchase from the lowest bidder, whether American or Canadian, or whether they will be prevented from operating such programs which support jobs and industry in the regions of Canada desperately needing government action to assist in economic development.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, Agri-Fuels Canada Limited is planning to construct a $90 million ethanol plant in Dawson Creek, B.C. A large portion of the required grain will come from farms located in the Alberta Peace country. The use of ethanol in gasoline has many advantages. The opportunity for farmers to market their grain would create jobs, keep people on the farms and stimulate economic activity to help farmers through these difficult times. The use of ethanol would also result in a cleaner, safer environment.
The market currently exists for ethanol in Alaska. However, in order to ensure the success of the plant, action must be taken to secure a Canadian market. The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle), who has worked hard to ensure this project's success, advised me that Petro-Canada should be making a decision this week on the use of ethanol in its product.
I strongly urge Petro-Canada officials to come to a positive decision to use ethanol from the Dawson Creek plant as a fuel additive.


PERSONS AWARDS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in the House of Commons today who have made a very eloquent statement on this very important day, Persons Day. This day would not be complete without mentioning Senator Cairine Wilson who, of course, was the first woman Senator of our country and a resident of Cumberland Township in the riding of Glengarry- Prescott-Russell.
I am sure all Members of the House will remember and will have heard about the famous debate as to whether or not women were considered persons before the law. The whole debate was created by the appointment of Cairine Wilson to the Senate.
I still have the honour to represent members of Cairine Wilson's family. Indeed, two of her sons still live in the constituency of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I am sure that this is a very special day for all members of the Wilson family, as well as for all women and, indeed, all Canadians.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, once again I am required to bring to your attention the anti-worker actions of the Government and, in particular, its Crown corporation Canada Post.
Following the strike earlier this year by the Letter Carriers Union I presented in the House an internal document of Canada Post which documented the activities of management during that strike. It pointed out that many workers feared harassment and discipline if they exercised their legal right to refuse to do the work normally done by those on strike.
At the same time, I also referred to a Canada Labour Relations Board ruling in Halifax which found Canada Post management guilty of breaking the Canada Labour Code.
We now have further stories on the activities of Canada Post. During the most recent CUPW strike The Toronto Star, among other media, reported that agents of Canada Post were lurking in bushes wearing army fatigues and blackened faces.

October 21, 1987
Oral Questions
They were also reported to be following women picketers home and peering through their windows.
These types of activities are entirely unwarranted on the part of Canada Post. They worsen worker-management relations and they put into question the Government's commitment to civil liberties.
These actions must be investigated. I call upon the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) to initiate an immediate, open and complete investigation into the activities of Canada Post during the recent lawful strike by its employees.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I would like to direct a question or two to the Deputy Prime Minister.
In his speech last night to the Business Council on National Issues the Prime Minister said: "We have maintained the Auto Pact, and have made important potential gains for our parts industry". That is quite an astounding claim when the same day the chairman of the largest Canadian auto parts manufacturer called the Prime Minister's agreement "nonsense". He called it "stupid trading". He said that the deal would cost Canada "a multitude of jobs" and that his company would move to the United States if the deal went through.
The president of another major auto parts manufacturer in Canada said this: "I can assure you that if the so-called free trade deal were to go through, my consideration would be to set up plants in the United States".
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister this. How can the Prime Minister of of Canada have the nerve to say that this trading deal is good for Canadian auto parts workers when two of the major auto parts companies in the country say that they will move to the United States and set up plants in that country if the deal goes through?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman wants to quote selectively then perhaps I can do the same. The Automotive Industry Association of Canada called this a tremendous opportunity. Dean Wilson, President of the Automotive Industry Association of Canada, in summing up the results of the recently negotiated free trade agreement said: "We feel very positive about the work done by the Canadian Government, Mr. Reisman and his negotiating team".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the quotes I gave to the House came from people who have responsibility for workers in the country and who manufacture original automobile parts. They know what they are talking about and they have said what they will do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, last night's speech delivered by the Prime Minister in Toronto before the big guns of the business community contained a whole series of statements, most of them erroneous. The major car parts manufacturers rightly denounced the Prime Minister and indicate they will move their plants to the United States. Considering that these people reject the trade agreement negotiated by the Prime Minister with the United States, will the Prime Minister agree to withdraw it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why we would want to withdraw the agreement because we also believe, as a government, that we have the responsibility to the workers of Canada. That is why we have provided a climate through our policies wherein close to a million new jobs have been created since this Government assumed office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We will continue to take up our responsibility.
One of the key initiatives toward economic growth and prosperity for Canada, and long term durable jobs, is the successful negotiation of the free trade arrangement. The right hon. gentleman should get on board and be part of the action. Be positive for a change, rather than negative.


John Napier Turner: What we have here is a little more feeble bravado from the Deputy Prime Minister who did not deal with the substance of questions relating to the auto parts manufacturers.


DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, let me move on to other ground on which the Minister may or may not feel more comfortable. It concerns the proposed dispute mechanism between Canada and the United States.
Last night, the Prime Minister said in one breath in the same speech that he had gained permanent access to the U.S. market, then admitted that U.S. trade laws would continue to
October 21, 1987

apply against Canada. He then said that the so-called dispute mechanism: "guarantees fair and impartial application of respective laws", but went on to say that the mechanism would not deal with "fine points of law".
In the same speech the Prime Minister said on the one hand that he had permanent access to the American market; on the other hand that American trade laws would continue to apply in their protectionist vein; and on the third hand-if he had one-that the mechanism would not apply fine points of law. In light of these contradictions of the Prime Minister, affecting one of the essential elements of the agreement, namely, the character of the dispute mechanism, what will the Prime Minister do to explain to Canadians that this is a good deal for Canada?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as the agreement says, the dispute settlement mechanism is a binding dispute settlement mechanism. Let me read one sentence for the Leader of the Opposition. It states that the binational panel would apply the appropriate standard of judicial review applicable under the domestic law of the party under whose authority the order was challenged.
The significant point here is that having a binational court of appeal will make the process, whether it is within Canada or the United States, a more fair and impartial process. That is what we have been seeking during the course of these negotiations, an impartial application of the law. Our laws in Canada are very similar to the United States laws. Where we have had difficulty in the past is where we have felt their laws have not been applied in the most impartial way.


TABLING OF COMPLETE TEXT OF AGREEMENT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance is trying to tell us what is in the trade agreement with the United States. However, all we have so far is a document entitled "Elements of the Agreement".
On October 5 the Prime Minister promised the House that he would table "the complete text of the agreement as soon as the wording is finalized". It is now October 21. Exactly when will that complete text be tabled in the House? When will the Prime Minister keep his promise?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, right now the work is under way to translate the elements of the agreement into the legal text as is the normal process for this type of agreement. I expect that that text would be available some time during the month of November.


VIEWS OF AUTO PARTS MANUFACTURERS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance just told us that it will be another six weeks potentially before we get the complete text of the agreement. How can the Minister of Finance try to convince the House and Canadians that he knows what he is talking
Oral Questions
about when he claims that the agreement is so good for Canadians in the face of the clear views of leaders in the auto parts industry, for example, when he cannot even give the House a complete text? How can he say he knows what he is talking about in the face of clear evidence from people like the heads of the auto parts manufacturers who say that what they know about the deal shows it is a disaster for Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, possibly I might turn that back to the House Leader of the Liberal Party. If he does not know what is in the final text, why is he criticizing it so much?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MEXICO AND ISRAEL-REACTION TO AGREEMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last week we heard the Mexicans say they would never have signed the kind of deal-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Crosbie:: You are talking through your Mexican hat.


Mr. Riis:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: It's a Mexican hat dance.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Show some respect for the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


John Edward Broadbent: Last week we learned the Mexicans would never have signed such a deal as we did in the resource sector. Today the Israelis have said Canada gave away a hundred times more than the Americans in the deal. Beyond that, we also learned today that before the ink was dry on the agreement, the United States proceeded to violate it.
Specifically we learned that the United States, in violation of a clause to which it is already committed pertaining to both countries avoiding subsidies in terms of trade in agricultural products with other countries, in clear violation of this section of the agreement, has begun to negotiate a grain sale with the Soviet Union and India which entails going after our markets with subsidized grain sales from the United States.
Very simply, having negotiated a deal that is already unfair to Canada, how is the Government possibly going to respond to this hypocritical action by the United States?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party excels even his own former record by that question which contains no fewer than three direct misrepresentations. He misrepresents the Government of Mexico in what it said last week. He misrepresents the Government of Israel, and let

October 21, 1987
Oral Questions
me read him part of the relevant statement. I will read it all to him, if he wishes. It was released by the Embassy of Israel:
With regard to the story which appeared today in the Canadian Press, it is
important to note that the general impression created there is erroneous. It is
Israel which is now studying some of the benefits accorded to Canada in the
draft agreement and the possibilities of incorporating similar benefits in future
U.S.-Israel trade agreements.


John Carnell Crosbie: Right on!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: That's great, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: The rules of the House prevent me from calling those misrepresentations what they are, but they have become a consistent pattern of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and he should respect the people of Canada and this Parliament more than using his position to cast misrepresentations around the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will refer the Minister to what the Israelis actually said, which was that the Canadian Government gave away a hundred times more than they got.


PROPOSED UNITED STATES SALE OF SUBSIDIZED GRAIN TO U.S.S.R. AND INDIA
John Edward Broadbent: I want the Minister to deal with the problems of Canadian farmers, which he did not deal with at all.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: The clause in question, on page 14 of the documents produced by the Government of Canada, specifically prohibits the United States and Canada from having subsidies, right now, after it was signed, in agricultural products sold to third parties. The United States, after it signed this, specifically went after our markets in the Soviet Union and India with subsidized grain products, a clear violation of the accord it signed. How is this gutless Government now going to respond to that?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, speaking of gutless, this Government is not jerked around by Bob White and Shirley Carr.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Whether the actions taken by the U.S. are consistent or not with the trade agreement regarding attempts to take away traditional Canadian markets, they are wrong, and the Minister of State for the Wheat Board and myself have protested them. We will continue to oppose that attempt by the U.S. to seek markets which traditionally are Canadian. More than that, we will continue to show international leadership by trying to reform international trade
practices as was symbolized yesterday by the statement tabled by this Government in Geneva on agricultural trade.


CANADIAN POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to get this very clear. The U.S. signed this agreement in one of its many forms on October 4 or October 5 and specifically committed itself not to subsidize agricultural products. It is now specifically going after Canadian markets in clear violation of that agreement. Is the Minister saying that notwithstanding that, the Government of Canada, instead of clearing up this matter right now, is simply going to say: "Oh, dear, how shameful.!" Is that the Government's response?


John Carnell Crosbie: What nauseous dishonesty.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): No, Mr. Speaker, that is not our response as the earlier exchange indicated. The Leader of the NDP should stop his systematic misrepresentation. I say that not only in the context of this Question Period but more generally. It is not at all in the tradition of Tommy Douglas and David Lewis to abuse his privileges so consistently in this House of Commons.


John Carnell Crosbie: A Broadbent initiative.


Charles Joseph Clark: We have made very clear to the U.S. our view that, specifically with regard to the use of their existing subsidies, to seek traditional Canadian markets is wrong and we want it stopped. We have gone beyond that to try to work with other countries to change international agricultural trading patterns, actions which had never before been taken by a Canadian Government. They are being taken by this one because we know it is better to act with leadership internationally than to simply sit and shout from your seat.


UNITED STATES EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM-GRAIN SALES-CANADIAN POSITION
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs as well. Today we learned that the U.S. is prepared to spend hundreds of millions of dollars through its Export Enhancement Program to steal our traditional wheat and other grain markets in China and Russia. At the same time it would lower the price Canadian farmers are receiving.
I want to know what specific protest the Government of Canada is making to the U.S. Is it going to call in the Ambassador and tell him to cease and desist in these unfair trading practices?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member has only learned today that the U.S. is using its Export Enhancement Program to seek to take over Canadian markets and those of other countries, I wonder where in the world he has been for the last several months when the U.S. was doing exactly that and this
October 21, 1987

Government and others were intervening to try to protect our traditional markets.
He asks what we are doing. Among other things, it is on the list of things I intend to be discussing with Secretary Shultz-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Here we are. The NDP would prefer to sit back and be told how to shout by Shirley Carr. What we are going to do is continue to express to the U.S. at the highest levels, and I will be meeting Secretary Shultz on Saturday, our concern about this program, and repeat our request that the U.S. stop using that program to try to cut in on traditional Canadian markets.


EFFECT ON CANADIAN MARKETS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the U.S. agreed in the free trade deal to take into account Canada's interests when it uses its Export Enhancement Program. Yet within two weeks of the signing of the deal we find out it is stealing our markets. Why is the Government spending $12 million to promote free trade when it knows the Americans broke the deal within two weeks?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the reason we are seeking this kind of arrangement is because we know it will be very much in the interests of Canadians generally and Canadian agriculture in particular. The deal had been very carefully and fairly negotiated to protect the interests of Canadian farmers who thought their interests might have been threatened, and also to advance the interests of Canadian producers who wanted access to a larger market.
There were in existence U.S. programs which caused us problems before the deal was in place. They are still the law of the United States and are still being applied by the U.S. We made it clear we want those programs stopped. I have done it and I will do it again. We are going to do everything we can to try to continue to protect the interests and traditional markets of Canadian farmers.


UNITED STATES COUNTERVAIL DUTIES
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, a few short weeks after the initiation of these free trade talks in Quebec City the U.S. imposed countervailing duties against our hogs and pork. About a year later it did the same thing on softwood lumber. The Government told us that would stop once we got an agreement. The agreement was signed and tabled in this House. Where the hell is the Government's response to this?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lewis:: The Emmies are in March.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member has put his question.
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I heard the-


John Carnell Crosbie: Profane histrionics.


Charles Joseph Clark: -profanity; I missed the question. Perhaps he could repeat the latter.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has been missing the question for two years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The Minister assured us on pork, hogs, softwood, saltfish, raspberries, steel, potash, and a number of other issues, that if there was a free trade agreement the U.S. would not indulge in these kinds of activities. It is clear today that it has continued to indulge in subsidizing exports to India, China and Russia, contrary to clauses in the free trade agreement. Since we have had those assurances over the past two years that this sort of thing would stop once such an agreement was signed, why is it continuing?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Canadian Labour Congress and the political Party it controls, the N DP-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: That is my question. You answer it!


Charles Joseph Clark: I am answering the question put by the farm spokesman.


John Carnell Crosbie: Nauseous and noisy.


Charles Joseph Clark: I understand how difficult it must be to be the farm spokesman for a Party controlled by the Canadian Labour Congress.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The farmers are listening to you.


Charles Joseph Clark: Their position historically has been that they should simply do nothing at all about the problems facing Canadian producers; they should not try to put in place a better arrangement-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Egmont.


SOCIAL PROGRAMS-FISHERMEN'S SEASONAL UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister for International Trade told the House "that social programs such as unemployment insurance are not part of the trade deal". She went on to say "They are preserved and protected". The Deputy Prime Minister knows full well that, under the free trade deal, a dispute settlement mechanism or review panel can only review American countervailing duties

October 21, 1987
Oral Questions
to ensure that such action complies with existing or future U.S. trade laws. In light of this fact, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he can now say that seasonal unemployment insurance benefits for fishermen will be exempt from future countervail duties.
Auto Pact, Mr. White was against it, the socialist Party was against it, and now Mr. White is-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that that was the subject of a countervail action and it was defeated.


FISHING INDUSTRY-EFFECT OF AGREEMENT
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with an omnibus Trade Bill that is before the U.S. Congress at this present time, one which could come into effect before January 1, 1989. The Minister knows full well that the Bill before the U.S. Congress could have very severe ramifications for the fishing industry.
Why did the Government fail to get an agreement from the United States when it was negotiating the free trade deal to exempt fishermen from future countervail duties and future American trade laws?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have made it absolutely clear on this side that social programs of any form are not and have not been a part of the negotiations and are clearly outside the agreement that was signed and tabled in the House on October 5. Anything else that the Hon. Member wishes to talk about is speculation in his own mind.
*
* *


FREE TRADE-POSITION OF SOCIALIST PARTY IN 1965
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, this morning's newspapers are proof positive of the hundreds of thousands of dollars expended by the socialist party to rant on about free trade with the funds of the very people who, since 1965, have owed their living to free trade in the car industry, unless this is the way Mr. Bob White has chosen to run as a candidate in response to the invitation of the Hon. Member for Terrebonne. To the Minister, if one of the socialists' major sources of funds can be traced back to free trade in the auto industry, I should like to know where they stood in 1965: For or against free trade? For or against one out of five jobs in Canada? For or against-


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who will realize that the deal that was signed on the weekend of the 4th has now been broken by the United States. If it is broken in this area, it will be broken when it comes up for shakes and shingles, for softwood lumber, for potash, for fish or for any area at all. The Minister has indicated that he will protest this, that he will go to Washington to indicate our concern. Surely to goodness if the Secretary of State is serious about what the Americans have done, he will suspend the signing of this agreement until the whole matter is resolved?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, a couple of corrections, if I might. One always has to do this with the members of the NDP because of their peculiar view of the truth. I did not say I was going down to Washington. I said I would have discussions with Mr. Shultz, which I will be doing in Brussels on the weekend.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Answer the question.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am not sure why the New Democratic Party wants to shout down answers. The actions of the United States in furtherance of an existing program are actions which we oppose but they are not actions which are in breach of the agreement in issue.


REQUEST THAT SIGNING OF AGREEMENT BE POSTPONED
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the text of the agreement says that each party has agreed to take into account the export interest, of the other party and the use of any export subsidy on agricultural goods. The Americans have obviously broken the agreement that Canada signed, which means that they can break it on softwood, on shakes and shingles or on any other areas that come up. Rather than simply make a phone call to protest this, will the Secretary of State do something serious and indicate to the Americans that the signing of this agreement will be put off until this is resolved?


Charles Joseph Clark: In all likelihood, Mr. Speaker, the question was directed to the leader of the socialist Party. But the answer is that, at the time when the House of Commons considered the


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I suppose what the New Democratic Party would do is threaten to take violent action against the United States.
October 21, 1987


Nelson Andrew Riis: What are you going to do? Are you going to wimp out again?


Mr. Clark (Yeilowhead):: Since their policy-let me refer to the agreement. This part of the agreement says that each party has agreed to take into account the export interests of the other party in the use of any export subsidy on agricultural goods exported to third countries, recognizing that some subsidies may have prejudicial effects on the export interests of the other party.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Don't do anything about it.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: The House Leader of the NDP keeps babbling from his seat and will not let me answer the question. The actions that have been taken by the Elnited States in pursuance of an existing program do not breach the treaty that was initialled.


FISHERIES-UNITED STATES COUNTERVAIL DUTIES
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In January of 1986 the United States imposed duties on the salmon and herring fishing industries in Canada. A few months prior to that in 1985, duties were imposed by the Americans on fresh Atlantic groundfish. These duties were imposed while we were supposedly negotiating in good faith with the Americans on a free trade agreement.
Why did the Government sign this agreement without first asking or demanding that the Americans drop these countervailing duties? Is it not true that by consenting to this agreement, Canada has acknowledged and legitimized existing countervailing duties in the United States as well as all subsequent countervailing duties imposed by the United States?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member were to check his facts, he would discover that no duties were imposed against herring and salmon by the United States in January of 1986. In other words, he is absolutely incorrect in that assertion.
Second, the imposition of a countervailing duty against unprocessed Atlantic groundfish destined for the United States is a clear example of why the dispute settlement provisions of this agreement have been so necessary and will bring untold benefits to the fishery which in fact in all respects gains immensely as a result of this agreement.


POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE COUNTERVAIL ACTIONS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. If the United States International Trade Commission decides that its domestic industry is being injured by Canadian imports, then it can still impose duties on Canadian fish, even under the free trade agreement with the United States.
Oral Questions
Are we Canadians, and in particular fishermen on the Atlantic Coast, supposed to depend upon the influence of the Prime Minister with the President of the United States to prohibit countervail on fisheries, or is it true that the Prime Minister has failed with his dear pal in the United States to get a legal text that would prohibit future countervail against Canadian fishermen, particularly those on the Atlantic seaboard?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, what seems to irritate the Hon. Member and his colleagues in the minority Parties is that we have achieved a mechanism within the context of this agreement which represents a great step forward not only in terms of dealing with an independent court of arbitration on matters of dispute regarding trade remedy law but in fact a general lowering of tariffs which encourages more processing at home, more exports, and more dollars in the pockets of each and every fisherman and plant worker in Canada.


UNITED STATES EXPORT SUBSIDY PROGRAMS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Secretary of State just made an extraordinary statement when he said that there had been no breach of the agreement by the United States. The agreement says on page 14 that each party has to take into account the export interests of the other party in the use of export subsidies on agricultural goods exported to a third country. If that does not mean that the United States should stop using its export subsidy programs, then what indeed does that clause of the agreement really mean?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the clause means what it states. This allegation is put by the New Democratic Party as they flail around for some other justification to oppose an agreement that they decided ideologically, or were instructed by the CLC, to oppose some time ago. Their allegation is that this is in breach of the agreement. It is not.


John Edward Broadbent: Good stuff, Joe.


GRAIN SALES-UNITED STATES EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, 1 know the Secretary of State is not a lawyer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: But as Secretary of State for External Affairs he is one of our chief negotiators.
I wish him to tell the House what this clause means for the farmers of Canada and the people of this country who are concerned about our sovereignty and our exports, if it does not mean that they are supposed to take into account the export

October 21, 1987
Oral Questions
interests out of our country when they subsidize grain sales to the Soviet Union, India, or China. What does that clause mean, if it does not mean that they are not supposed to do that if it threatens our markets? Please tell the people of this country what is meant by that phrase.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member has not had my distinguished career at law school, and I thank him for the generosity of spirit that would cause him to make that comment on the floor of the House of Commons.
The Hon. Member and I have been engaged in exchanges before with regard to the Export Enhancement Program in the United States. That program has been in place for a long time. It is a program that we oppose. We oppose it both in its application to traditional Canadian markets, and we have opposed it relatively successfully there, because our share of grain exports has been increasing rather than decreasing during the period in question.
We also oppose it through the GATT. We will be opposing it again in representations that I intend to be making directly to Secretary Shultz to try to protect the interests of Canadian producers.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: What does the clause mean?


Charles Joseph Clark: I repeat the point that the allegation by the New Democratic Party respecting the agreement, as with so many of their allegations, is false.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: What does it mean, Joe?


TAX REFORM
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the White Paper on Tax Reform, 1987.
In view of the fact that policy holders are becoming increasingly worried about the proposals which discourage insurance companies from maintaining reserves, would the Minister make a statement on motions to clarify his intentions in the matter?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in my judgment the tax reform proposals do not discourage the insurance companies from creating reserves. What they do is put the provision of reserves for the banks, trust companies, and life companies on a more balanced basis. As the Hon. Member knows, they are designed to ensure that the life insurance companies do pay their fair share of tax. That is the nature of the proposals that we have put forward.
We are listening very carefully to the views of the Finance Committee that has been hearing representations from the insurance industry. We have also been consulting with the industry. We will be making our views known on this particular matter once we have all those views in place.


SOLVENCY LEVELS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that legislation passed in this House in June allows the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to mandate solvency levels, would the Minister think it reasonable that at least those levels be allowed as business expenses for taxation purposes?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are getting into quite a technical area here, as I know my hon. friend does realize and does agree. These matters are before the Finance Committee, and because of the level of technicality that is prevalent, they are probably best dealt with in that committee.
Once the committee makes its report, I would be happy to discuss it further with the Hon. Member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In his Murmansk speech of October 1, Mikhail Gorbachev made a number of proposals relating to Arctic countries' cooperation in such fields as disarmament, natural resources, and the setting up of a joint Arctic Scientific Council. Has our Government made any formal response to those proposals?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have not received the proposals, although we have naturally noted what was said by Mr. Gorbachev in his Murmansk speech.
We are interested in continuing to pursue the question of Arctic co-operation with the Soviet Union, and indeed with other countries that share, as we do, an important North.
Earlier this year we renewed the Arctic Sciences Agreement. The Hon. Member will know that there have been a number of exchanges, including those by the now Secretary of State when he was Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and spent some time in the Soviet North. We intend to continue that high level of co-operation.
We will look very carefully at the proposals put forward by Mr. Gorbachev in his speech. Naturally, we will not conclude
October 21, 1987

any agreements with them on the basis of a speech that he makes. If there are some specific proposals that might flow from it, we would be interested in pursuing them in detail and formally.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-U S. EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Surely, the Minister will agree that, regardless of what one thinks of the agreement, it is a very serious matter for all concerned if the Americans are able to take this type of action in spite of the agreement that has been reached between this Government and the Government of the United States.
The Minister has outlined for us what the Government has done before the agreement with respect to this, and what the Government intends to do in the future when all of this is outside the agreement. Given that the agreement does state what it states with respect to the use of any export subsidy, which has been repeated over and over again, will the Minister please answer the question as to what this clause might possibly mean, given that the United States, subsequent to the signing of the agreement, has been able to do what it has done?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the first question asked by the Hon. Member in his capacity as the foreign policy spokesman for his Party. I wish to congratulate him on his appointment to that position.
The original position that had been put forward by the New Democrats in this Question Period-and I wish to answer the question directly-had been that because of an action taken with regard to an existing Export Enhancement Program in the United States, we should throw out the trade agreement. 1 find that extreme, and I find its premise wrong. It does not breach the agreement.
I certainly do believe that this action by the United States, with regard to the Export Enhancement Program, is not consistent with the spirit of the trade agreement. That is the point that I will be making to George Shultz when I see him in Brussels on Saturday.


CANADIAN POSITION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, our allegation was just that, that this did breach the agreement, and that it was something that the Government should take seriously enough to indicate, as was suggested by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, that the signing of the
Oral Questions
agreement might be suspended until such time as the Americans explain their action.
What we are urging upon the Government is within the context of the Government's own policy that, if it takes this agreement seriously, and if it expects that the United States should behave in a particular way with regard to export subsidies, why will it not indicate to the United States that, pending withdrawal of the action it has taken in the last few days, the Government will not be willing to sign any agreement because the Americans have indicated that they do not intend to respect it anyway?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be both extreme and wrong to come to the conclusion that the Hon. Member has with regard to the intention of the United States respecting the agreement that has been initialled. I think it would be foolish and it would cost Canada thousands of jobs were we to put aside the agreement, or even to suggest that we were going to suspend a signature which is, in any event, not going to occur for some time.
With regard to the principle, not only have we been making that case, and not only about the Americans but also about the Europeans who are using subsidies to try to take away traditional Canadian markets, but we intend to continue to make that case.
I will be making it again personally on Saturday, and we will be adding to our argument the fact that this action by the United States, while it does not breach the treaty, is not consistent with the spirit of that agreement.


VALUE OF AGREEMENT TO FARMERS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns subsidized wheat sales by the United States designed to displace Canadian markets.

I want to ask the Minister if what he has told us moments ago is correct in other words, that there was no breach of the agreement. If a sale of millions of tonnes of wheat, oilseed, and milk to the Soviet Union, China, and India at bargain prices does not constitute a breach of the agreement, can the Minister tell the House what in blazes is the value of such an agreement if it does not protect us any more than that? What redeeming value is there for Canadian farmers in such an agreement?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question several times.

October 21, 1987
Tabling of Documents
In terms of the value for Canadian farmers, a number of Canadian farmers who practise supply management had been concerned about this arrangement. The way it has been negotiated leaves them with no cause for concern.
A number of Canadian farmers had been seeking wider access to American markets. As a result of this agreement, an access which was denied them before is now in place.
A number of Canadian farmers know that it is in their interest to have a more buoyant Canadian economy. As a result of this agreement, we will have a more buoyant Canadian economy.


FREE TRADE-GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully suggest that the Minister has failed to respond to the question put to him.
Is he now prepared to tell the House just how many times the Americans will have to break the agreement, or the spirit of the agreement, as he puts it, before he gets up to tell them we have had it and the whole deal is off?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question in English on a number of occasions. I am pleased to answer in French and repeat that farmers and the agricultural community stand to gain major benefits from the free trade agreement which the Canadian Government has signed with the Americans. People working in industries protected by the supply management system will continue to be so protected. As to other Canadian farm producers who are seeking larger markets, American markets, these markets are now open or will be open to them once the agreement has been signed, but right now they do not have access to these markets.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to advise Hon. Members that this will be the last question of Question Period. On a single question, the Hon. Member for Skeena.


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Eighteen months ago the Government denied plans to implement the Nielsen "Buffalo Jump" of the 1980s.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister explain why his Government, as laid out in the Nielsen plan, has been over the last 18 months cutting funds to Canada's Indian, Inuit, and Metis people across the board in post-secondary education, creation of new bands and reserves, economic development, Bill C-31
implementation, claims and test funding, housing, and the list goes on?
Why is the Government cutting the budgets to those Canadians who face the highest levels of unemployment, the highest rate of infant mortality, the highest rate of incarceration, and the lowest life expectancy of all Canadians?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member shares with the Government the concern for adequate post-secondary education.
I think the evidence clearly points to the fact that greater emphasis has been placed on post-secondary education. For example, the support for Indian post-secondary education now stands at some $93.7 million. This has grown from less than $9 million a decade ago. The number of full-time students has been increased by some 148 per cent, to over 11,000 students since 1981-82.
While that is tremendous progress, as the Hon. Member knows there still remains much to be done, and the Government is committed to doing more.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petitions Nos. 332-2966 to 3322972 inclusive, 332-2975, 332-2978, 332-2981, 332-2983, 3322990, 332-2999, 332-3026, 332-3028, 332-3029, 332-3101 to 332-3103 inclusive, 332-3105, 332-3108, 332-3109, 332-3127, 332-3147, 332-3198, 332-3209, 332-3212, and 332-3222.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Hon. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association on the 18th Conference of the British Islands and the Mediterranean Region, which was held on the Isle of Man from June 7 to June 13, 1987.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
October 21, 1987



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventh and eighth reports of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business, in both official languages.
The seventh report deals with the selection of a votable item pertaining to the seventh draw which took place on October 8, 1987. May I note that pursuant to Standing Order 36(1 )(b) this seventh report is deemed adopted when laid upon the table.
The eighth report deals with the criteria which the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business has developed for the selection of votable items.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



FISHERIES AND OCEANS-EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION TO TRAVEL

['Agreed.']
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties, and I think you would find consent for the following motion to be placed immediately. I move:
That, further to the order of reference given by the House on September 28, 1987 allowing the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to travel to Norway from October 24 to 31, 1987, the House authorizes the committee to extend its trip for four days to include a visit to Scotland to examine the Scottish aquaculture industry and questions related to the control of fish diseases.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member of State have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I have a duly certified petition to present to the House of Commons from members of the Cree Indian Nation resident in northeastern Ontario who consider that the Migratory Birds Convention Act violates their law and custom, as well as their treaty and aboriginal rights.
Order Paper Questions
First, they are urging the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnaty-shyn) to withdraw the 11 charges made under the Act. Second, they call upon the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) to order the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to stop its harassment of Indian people under this Act. Finally, they ask that the Government initiate a review of the Migratory Birds Convention Act and complete the process of amendment, which was begun several years ago, designed to protect and recognize aboriginal rights with regard to the hunting of game birds.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present a duly certified petition from constituents of mine in Thunder Bay-Nipigon as well as from residents of the neighbouring riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan.
The petition protests that the federal Government's White Paper calls for changes to the taxation structure of Canada but does not change an already unfair tax structure for average Canadian families, while allowing wealthy Canadians earning over $100,000 per year not to pay their fair share and in fact to receive a tax cut under the proposal.
The petitioners also protest the fact that the changes permit
60,000	profitable corporations to pay no income tax at all. They particularly protest the possibility of a tax levy on food and on other essential items.
They call upon the Government to restore full indexation to the personal income tax system. It is my pleasure to present this petition to my colleagues in the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure-indeed it is an honour-to present, pursuant to Standing Order 106, a petition on behalf of a number of western Canadians who are concerned about the Government's approach to Bill C-55.
They ask Parliament to recall that the standing committee of Parliament dealing with refugee status has proposed a new procedure which, if adopted, would fairly and effectively solve the problems of backlogs and unsubstantiated claims. It has the support of the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress and virtually every other group in the country knowledgeable on refugee issues. Therefore, they ask the Government to withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute it with legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[Stage Direction]
October 21, 1987
Order Paper Questions
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, question No. 191 will be answered today.


Mr. Caccia: Did the government raise with the International Atomic Energy Agency the issue of the proposed transport of plutonium by air over Canada and (a) if so, on what date and in what manner (b) if not, for what reason?


John Carnell Crosbie: Transport Canada advises as follows:
(a)	Not applicable.
(b)	No, the Canadian Government did not specifically raise the issue of the proposed air transportation of plutonium over Canada with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as this is not the proper forum. Consultation was carried out bilaterally with the principals involved, Japan and the United States.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Minister have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, October 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn:
WHEREAS the Constitution Act, 1982 came into force on April 17, 1982, following an agreement between Canada and all the provinces except Quebec;
AND WHEREAS the Government of Quebec has established a set of five proposals for constitutional change and has stated that amendments to give effect
to those proposals would enable Quebec to resume a full role in the constitutional councils of Canada;
AND WHEREAS the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto sets out the basis on which Quebec's five constitutional proposals may be met;
AND WHEREAS the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto also recognizes the principle of the equality of all the provinces, provides new arrangements to foster greater harmony and cooperation between the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces and requires that conferences be convened to consider important constitutional, economic and other issues;
AND WHEREAS certain portions of the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto relate to matters referred to in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982]
AND WHEREAS section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province;
NOW THEREFORE the House of Commons resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the schedule hereto.

[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, 1987 Constitution Act, 1867
1.	The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 1 thereof, the following section:
"2. (1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada; and
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.
(2)	The role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph (1 )(a) is affirmed.
(3)	The role of the legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec referred to in paragraph (l)(b) is affirmed.
(4)	Nothing in this section derogates from the powers, rights or privileges of Parliament or the Government of Canada, or of the legislatures or governments of the provinces, including any powers, rights or privileges relating to language."
2.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 24 thereof, the following section:
"25. (1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate, the government of the province to which the vacancy relates may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada the names of persons who may be summoned to the Senate.
(2)	Until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the person summoned to Fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be chosen from among persons whose names have been submitted under subsection (1) by the government of the province to which the vacancy relates and must be acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
3.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 95 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Agreements on Immigration and Aliens 95A. The Government of Canada shall, at the request of the government of any province, negotiate with the government of that province for the purpose of concluding an agreement relating to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province that is appropriate to the needs and circumstances of that province.
95B. (1) Any agreement concluded between Canada and a province in relation to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that
October 21, 1987
[Stage Direction]
province has the force of law from the time it is declared to do so in accordance with subsection 95C(1) and shall from that time have effect notwithstanding class 25 of section 91 or section 95.
(2)	An agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) shall have effect only so long and so far as it is not repugnant to any provision of an Act of the Parliament of Canada that sets national standards and objectives relating to immigration or aliens, including any provision that establishes general classes of immigrants or relates to levels of immigration for Canada or that prescribes classes of individuals who are inadmissible into Canada.
(3)	The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in respect of any agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) and in respect of anything done by the Parliament or Government of Canada, or the legislature or government of a province, pursuant to any such agreement.
95C. (1) A declaration that an agreement referred to in subsection 95 B( 1) has the force of law may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement.
(2) An amendment to an agreement referred to in subsection 95B( 1) may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized
(a)	by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the
legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement; or
(b)	in such other manner as is set out in the agreement.
95D. Sections 46 to 48 of the Constitution Act, 1982 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of any declaration made pursuant to subsection 95C( 1), any amendment to an agreement made pursuant to subsection 95C(2) or any amendment made pursuant to section 95E.
95E. An amendment to sections 95A to 95D or this section may be made in accordance with the procedure set out in subsection 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, but only if the amendment is authorized by resolutions of the legislative assemblies of all the provinces that are, at the time of the amendment, parties to an agreement that has the force of law under subsection 95B( 1)."
4.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 96 thereof, the following heading:
"General"
5.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 101 thereof, the following heading:
"Courts Established by the Parliament of Canada"
6.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 101 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Supreme Court of Canada
101 A. (1) The court existing under the name of the Supreme Court of Canada is hereby continued as the general court of appeal for Canada, and as an additional court for the better administration of the laws of Canada, and shall continue to be a superior court of record.
(2) The Supreme Court of Canada shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada and eight other judges, who shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.
101 B. (1) Any person may be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who, after having been admitted to the bar of any province or territory, has, for a total of at least ten years, been a judge of any court in Canada or a member of the bar of any province or territory.
(2) At least three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be appointed from among persons who, after having been admitted to the bar of Quebec, have, for a total of at least ten years, been judges of any court of Quebec or of any court established by the Parliament of Canada, or members of the bar of Quebec.
101C.	(1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the bar of that province and are qualified under section 101B for appointment to that court.
(2) Where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is
Constitution Amendment, 1987
appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
(3)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) of any of the three judges necessary to meet the requirement set out in subsection 101 B(2), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the Governrhent of Quebec.
(4)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) otherwise than as required under subsection (3), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the government of a province other than Quebec.
IOID.	Sections 99 and 100 apply in respect of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
IOIE.	(1) Sections 101A to 101D shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws under section 101 except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with those sections.
(2) For greater certainty, section 101A shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws relating to the reference of questions of law or fact, or any other matters, to the Supreme Court of Canada."
7.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 106 thereof, the following section:
"106A. (1) The Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national shared-cost program that is established by the Government of Canada after the coming into force of this section in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a program or initiative that is compatible with the national objectives.
(2) Nothing in this section extends the legislative powers of the Parliament of Canada or of the legislatures of the provinces."
8.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following heading and sections:
''XII-Conferences on the Economy and Other Matters
148.	A conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year to discuss the state of the Canadian economy and such other matters as may be appropriate.
XIII-References
149.	A reference to this Act shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
Constitution Act, 1982
9.	Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"40. Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)	the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(e)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(f)	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(g)	the Supreme Court of Canada;
(h)	the extension of existing provinces into the territories;
(i)	notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and
(j)	an amendment to this Part."
[Stage Direction]
October 21, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
10.	Section 44 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"44. Subject to section 41, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons."
11.	Subsection 46(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province."
12.	Subsection 47(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution."
13.	Part VI of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"Part VI
Constitutional Conferences
50. (1) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year, commencing in 1988.
(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have included on their agenda the following matters:
(a)	Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its powers, the method of selecting Senators and representation in the Senate;
(b)	roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries; and
(c)	such other matters as are agreed upon."
14.	Subsection 52(2) of the said Act is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) thereof, by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c) thereof and by adding thereto the following paragraph:
"(d) any other amendment to the Constitution of Canada."
15.	Section 61 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"61. A reference to the Constitution Act 1982, or a reference to the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
General
16.	Nothing in section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867 affects section 25 or 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Citation
17.	This amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, 1987.
and on the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):
October 1, 1987-That the motion be amended
(a)	in paragraph 1 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 2.(1) and substituting the following therefor:
"2.(1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada;
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society;
(c)	the recognition that aboriginal peoples constitute a distinctive and fundamental characteristic of Canada;
(d)	the recognition of the multicultural nature of Canadian society, and in particular respect for the many origins, creeds and cultures as well as the differing regional identities that helped shape Canadian society; and
(e)	the recognition of the advantages of developing the Canadian economic union."
(b)	in paragraph 1 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 2.(2) and substituting the following therefor:
"2(a) The role of the Parliament of Canada to preserve and promote, and the role of the provincial legislatures to preserve and, subject to subparagraph (2)(b) to promote, the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph 1(a) is affirmed.
(b) The role of a province in relation to promotion applies from the time it is adopted by a resolution of the legislative assembly of that province."
(c)	in paragraph 2 of the Schedule by deleting section 25 and substituting the following therefor:
"25. Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate, and until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the government of Canada shall, within six months after the vacancy occurs, call an election in the province or territory to which the vacancy relates for the purpose of filling that vacancy, and, notwithstanding the provision of section 29 of the Constitution Act, 1867, for a term of nine years."
(d)	in paragraph 6 of the Schedule by deleting subsections 101C.(1) and (2) and substituting the following therefor:
"101C.(1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province and the elected government of each territory may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the bar of that province or territory and are qualified under section 101 B. for appointment to that court.
(2) Subject to subsection (5), where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
(e)	in paragraph 6 of the Schedule by adding immediately after subsection 101C.(4) the following:
"(5) Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) and, if within a period of three months, no name which has been submitted under subsection (l) is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, the Chief Justice may make an interim one-year appointment from among justices of the Federal Court of Canada or provincial Superior Courts."
(f)	in paragraph 7 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 106A.(1) and substituting the following therefor:
"106A.(1) The Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national shared-cost program that is established by the Parliament of Canada after the coming into force of this section, in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a compatible program which meets minimum national standards."
(g)	by deleting paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Schedule and substituting the following therefor:
"9. Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
40.	Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41.	An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the right of a province of a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(c)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(d)	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(e)	the Supreme Court of Canada; and
(f)	an amendment to this Part.
42.	(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1):
(a) the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators; and
October 21, 1987
[Stage Direction]
(b) the number of members by which a province or territory is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators.
(2) Subsections 38(2) to (4) do not apply in respect of amendments in relation to matters referred to in subsection (1).
42A. Notwithstanding subsection 42(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, the establishment of new provinces and the extension of existing provinces into territories shall be a matter exclusively for the Governor General in Council and the elected government of the territory affected."
(h)	in paragraph 13 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 50.(2) and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have included on their agenda the following matters:
(a)	the aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including self-government;
(b)	Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its powers, the method of selecting Senators, representation in the Senate.
(c)	roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries at the first meeting only;
(d)	such other matters as are agreed upon."
(i)	by deleting paragraph 16 of the Schedule and substituting the following therefor:
"16. Nothing in the Constitution Amendment, 1987 derogates from any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or affects Part II of the Constitution Act, 1982".-The Leader of the Opposition.
and on the amendment of Mr. Broadbent:
October 1, 1987-That the motion be amended
(a)	by adding in paragraph 2 subsection 25(1) the words "and the elected government of each territory" immediately after the word "province";
(b)	by adding in paragraph 2 subsection 25(2) the words "or the elected government of a territory" immediately after the word "province";
(c)	by adding in paragraph 6 subsection 101C.(1) the words "or the elected government of a territory" immediately after the word "province";
(d)	by adding in paragraph 6 subsection 101C.(4) the words "or the elected government of a territory" immediately after the word "province";
(e)	by deleting in paragraph 9, section 41 paragraph (i);
(0 by adding to paragraph 13 subsection 50(2) the following new paragraph:
"(c) aboriginal rights, in particular self-government;"
(g)	by adding to paragraph 13 section 50 the following new subsection:
"(3) The Prime Minister shall invite to the Conferences designated in section 50 subsection (2)(c) representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada and the governments of the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory and those groups and governments shall participate fully in all matters that affect aboriginal rights."
(h)	by deleting paragraph 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"16. Nothing in section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867 affects section 25, 27 or 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution.- Mr. Broadbent.
and on the amendment of Mr. Caccia:
That the motion be amended in paragraph 1 of the Schedule
(a)	by deleting Section 2.(1) and substituting the following therefor: "2.(1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner
consistent with the recognition that Canada constitutes aboriginal and multicultural societies, with English and French as the official languages of Canada, French-speaking Canadians being centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada and English-speaking Canadians concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec".
(b)	by deleting Section 2.(3).
and on the amendment of Mr. Allmand:
That the motion be amended in paragraph 1 of the Schedule by adding immediately after subsection 2.(4) the following:
"(5) Nothing in this section derogates from any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the Parties. I think you will find
Constitution Amendment, 1987
that there is consent for the following suggestion with respect to the rotation of speakers this afternoon.
We would suggest that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) be allowed to complete his remarks and that he be followed by the Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer), the very capable chairman of the special committee, who will be followed by the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), with the suggestion that should the Hon. Member for Oshawa require additional time to complete his remarks that the House give its consent to that extension. The next speaker would then be the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) followed by my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). It would then be the suggestion that the House return to the normal rotation of speakers.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of accommodating the House, you will have noticed that the Liberal Party, the Official Opposition, has given up its spot in the rotation of speakers. In doing so, and Wednesday being a short day, it could be that we will only get one speaker on today. I would like the patience and possibly the understanding of the House in that should the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), who will speak for the Liberal Party of Canada, need a few minutes extra to cover his points, he will be granted that time.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There seems to be a disposition in the House to agree with the request of the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier. Is there unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke on Monday, I was comparing the position taken by the New Democratic Party at our convention in Montreal in March when we had arrived at the end of a lengthy period of reflection on the question of Quebec and Canada with the actual terms of the Meech Lake Accord.
We called for the Constitution to recognize the uniqueness of Quebec, and the Accord recognizes that Quebec constitutes a distinct society. We said in our resolution, in our Party policy, that Quebec should be able to opt out with compensation if there was any transfer of provincial powers to the federal level with which it disagreed. That is contained in one of the provisions of the Accord. We said that Quebec should have a veto on any amendment that would alter federal institutions when these were considered vital to the security and preservation of the French language and culture in Quebec. As you know, the Accord provides that there is in fact a veto to every province because of the rule of unanimity for changes in federal institutions.
The fourth part of our resolution, which as I say was arrived at after a great deal of sober and serious reflection, wanted the Party to explore new constitutional provisions. The purpose would be to protect the linguistic rights of Quebec's majority

October 21, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
while at the same time ensuring the preservation of minority language rights as they now exist in the Constitution. We were not exactly sure how to do that, and put it aside for further study.
1 regret that the Premiers were unable to resolve this particular issue in their discussions at Meech Lake and in the Langevin Block. I believe this is a matter which should be dealt with in the future because, as Quebec has indicated through Bill 101 and by other means, there are particular requirements in that province as a French speaking island in a North American continent which speaks English, where the protection of the language of the majority as well as the protection of minority language rights should be sought.
There can be no question about the fact that New Democrats have concerns over the Accord. I share those concerns. But we have to put these in context with the fact that Quebec is saying yes to Confederation. It is in that spirit that 1 support the Accord and intend to vote for it when it comes to the vote next Monday.
Nonetheless, I and my colleagues share the concern that the Accord passes over the question of whether or not the rights that were won after such a battle by women at the time of the constitutional agreements of six or seven years ago might be downgraded by the Accord. Our experts, our members, who sat on the joint committee, did not believe that. It is not our position or belief that that is the case, but in order to ensure that that does not take place, and in response to the concerns of women's groups across Canada, we believe that the Accord should specifically ensure that women's rights are not overridden by these provisions.
We are concerned that the Accord completely ignores the essential requirement that the Constitution of Canada be amended in order to deal with legitimate concerns of Canada's aboriginal peoples. I believe the commitment at the last round, that there be a constitutional conference on aboriginal peoples and rights, should have been reiterated in the Accord.
We are concerned that one province could veto the Yukon and Northwest Territories from becoming a province sometime in the future.
We are concerned that a northerner cannot be named to the Supreme Court of Canada. We believe that that should be fixed now rather than being left.
I have to say that, given the recent difficulties, perhaps as well the Accord should be amended now in order to curtail for a limited period of time the powers of the Senate of Canada to block legislation that has been adopted by the Parliament of Canada.
When I hear other complaints about the Accord I have to say that I fail to find them convincing. It has been suggested that Canada is becoming balkanized and yet powers are not redistributed in the Accord. It has been suggested that the spending power will no longer be a useful tool for the federal Government, despite the fact that the spending power is being
recognized for the first time in the Constitution, according to the terms of the Accord. It is only where we are talking about a shared program in an area of provincial jurisdiction and where a province puts in place a program that meets the national objectives that a province will be able to enjoy the financial compensation which is called for in the Accord. That is a very narrow set of requirements, Mr. Speaker. It is still open for the federal Government to use its spending power exclusively, rather than on a shared basis, in order to act in an area which is largely of provincial jurisdiction.
The question here is the nature of the country. I believe that Canada has to operate co-operatively. I was here in this Parliament as an observer, as a journalist in the 1960s. I have seen the development of the provincial levels of Government in the past 20 years during my active career as a journalist and as a politician. The provinces have much more competence than they had back in those days. They have a much greater share in spending and in the provision of social services. They are closer to being equal partners with the federal Government than they were at the beginning of the 1960s. I do not think there is anything wrong in recognizing that in a constitutional Accord, which at the same time reserves the essential powers already there for a federal Government.
My Party, however, recognizes that we cannot run Canada, a country which is 4,000 miles in breadth, as though it were a centralized small state like the United Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We must have decentralization. Everybody acknowledges that whether we are talking about regional development policy, economic development policy or the Constitution. I believe we have the right balance in the Accord.
Some people have expressed concern over the provisions recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. I simply say to them that the New Democratic Party since its foundation in 1961 has sought to recognize the uniqueness of Quebec. We have used a number of different formulae but we have not wavered in our recognition that Quebec is a unique society. Yes, of course, that can create some difficulties.
If the alternative is not to have a country that is whole, then surely we must recognize what observers have said from the beginning of the foundation of our country, that having a part of Canada where French is the language and culture of the majority is something unique and distinct and it should be recognized in the Constitution.
It has been suggested that because of the rule of unanimity we are freezing constitutional reform. I disagree. The fact is that most amendments to the Constitution can continue to be made on the basis of the majority plus seven provinces. The rule of unanimity only applies to certain areas where it did not apply before, namely, to the area of federal institutions. I regret that perhaps this makes the process of Senate reform more difficult. The process of the abolition of the Senate will
October 21, 1987

be more difficult. Nonetheless, we can get to that later. We are bringing Quebec in right now and we are not stopping the power of the majority of the provinces, for example, to change the allocation of powers between the federal and provincial levels if that is what they want to do.
I have already dealt with the question of women's rights. I want to note, however, that both the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and the Federation des femmes du Quebec agree with the position that with an abundance of caution, there should be a saving clause. I would hope that Members of all Parties would accept that particular amendment by the New Democratic Party.
I want to conclude by speaking about two important decisions which are now before this Parliament and this country. First is the issue of the Meech Lake Accord, the constitutional amendments, and the second is the issue of free trade. I want to talk about the process that is taking place in those two particular questions.
It is now some 25 years since the beginning of the quiet revolution, 30 years since the beginning of the quiet revolution in Quebec. It is 25 years since Canadians have begun to actively ask, "What does Quebec want?" as it was phrased in Ontario, and to work in different ways to find a new basis for partnership between the rest of Canada and French-speaking Canadians in the Province of Quebec.
When we embarked on constitutional change in 1981, it was after a referendum in Quebec in which Quebecers spoke in favour of Canada, but that was on the basis of a pledge by Canadians from the rest of the country that real action would be taken. Now we have a second run and real action is being taken. The Meech Lake Accord follows proposals made first by Premier Levesque and then by Premier Bourassa. It follows lengthy negotiations. It follows a process of discussion by the premiers as well as by their representatives. It will not be ratified until it has been endorsed by this Parliament and by the legislature of every province. The process has been criticized by the select committee, by the joint committee. Nonetheless, there has been a lengthy process in which every Canadian could become involved, and this for a document of only 12 pages.
When the President of the United States said two and a half weeks ago that Canada and the United States have signed the basis of a new economic constitution for North America, have signed what amounts to an economic union between Canada and the United States, and I look at the process which is being followed, I am ashamed of the Government. I am ashamed of my country that we should enter into this agreement with such a faulty process.
If we sign an extradition treaty with the Republic of India, for example, it is done by the normal executive powers which the Government of the day sustains through having the confidence of the House of Commons. However, there was no mandate for the free trade agreement in the 1984 election. In fact, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spoke against it in
Constitution Amendment, 1987
running for the leadership of his Party back in the early 1980s. There has been no mandate from the people of Canada to have an economic union with the United States.
In previous years, in the 1870s, in 1911, and again after the Second World War, the prospects of economic union was discussed, considered and in one case went to an election, and Canadians indicated that they did not want to lose sovereignty. Of course, there has been a cost. We have lost, perhaps, in terms of our standards of living. Perhaps a few products from United States have not been available in Canadian stores. But we have gained in terms of our nationhood, in terms of the fact that we have done things differently, and that Quebec can now find a place within Canada which it could never find within a unified new nation comprising Canada and the United States. What we have gained is without comparison.
I believe we had better put it on the line and say that it is wrong to let the sovereignty of this country go down the drain without at least giving the people of Canada a chance to speak.
I am not afraid, as some members of the Government have suggested, for Canada to go it alone if this is a bad deal. I am not afraid to take the risk of Canada standing on its own, because we have stood alone for 120 years since Confederation. We have often been threatened with absorption by our neighbour to the south and we have withstood that successfully. 1 am proud of what we have achieved as Canadians and I believe that Canadians are confident enough to continue in that way if we cannot get a decent kind of arrangement with the United States.
I believe this country must have the chance to speak on the Meech Lake Accord, and we are speaking, through our parliaments and through our legislatures. The people of Canada have had a chance to say, yes, they want Quebec in. The people of Canada have not had that chance with respect to the free trade agreement. I believe that before the free trade agreement is entered into there must be an election in which all Canadians can speak. If the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and their Cabinet are in fact not afraid, as they accuse us of being, why will they not take this country to an election in which we can endorse the Meech Lake Accord and in which Canadians can speak loud and clear as to whether they want to give the soul of this country up to the United States?
We are gaining on the Meech Lake Accord. We are proud to be Canadians and we want to keep Canada sovereign, not to give our sovereignty away to the United States. That is why I am going to vote for the Meech Lake Accord. That is why I call on members of the government to back my claim and my Leader's call to have an election on the free trade agreement. Let us take this to the people and see what the people of Canada want. Let them speak up for Canada because this Government will not.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Members's remarks and, in particular, I would like to refer to his comments about the spending power of the federal Government

October 21, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
and the ability of the provinces to opt out of national shared-costs programs if the provinces carry on programs or initiatives that are compatible with the national objectives.
The Hon. Member says he is not concerned with this particular provision and the fact that it may inhibit the reform of our social programs or the creation of future social programs. I would like to remind him of the Canada Health Act, adopted by this House in 1984, which sets out in Section 3 the objective of that Act. It says the objectives of the Canadian health care policy is to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers. That is the objective.
Under sections relating to program criteria and conditions, one such criterion is that in order to satisfy the criteria respecting comprehensiveness, the health care plan of a province must "ensure all insured health services provided by hospital or medical practitioners", and it goes on in that same vein.
What I am concerned about is that a future Parliament of Canada would not be able to obtain the adherence of the provinces to a condition of this nature. If the government of a province wanted, for example, to exclude certain services such as, let us say, abortion services, and those services were not eligible under a plan of a particular province for reimbursement under medicare, the Parliament of Canada could not impose such a condition which is far different from the general objective of the nature that is described in the Canada Health Act under "objectives".
When the Hon. Member reflects on the difference between an objective, a criterion, and a condition, does it not give him concern that the ability of the Parliament of Canada to legislate and lead the country in the area of social programs is being diminished?
[ Translation]


Michael Morris Cassidy: -for Laurier (Mr. Berger). In fact, I find the Accord reassuring, because before, the federal Government's spending power was not defined in any constitutional document, except in comments by constitutional experts. Now this spending power will be in our country's Constitution, if the Accord is ratified by the provinces and this Parliament. The Hon. Member says: Suppose a province decides to exclude abortion procedures from its health insurance program. How could Parliament make the province's health insurance system cover these procedures? I think the Hon. Member forgets that in some of the Maritime Provinces and, if I am not mistaken, Alberta, abortions are not covered by health insurance, something I personally deplore, but that is the situation at this time. However, should the Parliament of Canada specify as one of our national objectives that no citizen should have to pay for medical services, I don't think a province could refuse
to pay for necessary procedures such as an abortion. So we are strengthening instead of weakening the situation as it is now.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member for Laurier, a Liberal Member from Quebec, is opposed to the position taken by the provincial Liberals in that province. We in the New Democratic Party support the efforts of all Quebecers to make Quebec truly a part of Canada. The Hon. Member was describing the kind of situation that might create problems in the future. And that is why he is opposed to the Accord which is Quebec's chance to truly be part of Canada. I think it is so important for Quebec to be part of Canada and to join our constitutional union, that this must outweigh the criticism the Accord has received. As for spending power as I said before, we have lost nothing, we have only gained, in terms of the federal Government's authority to use that spending power according to rules that are more clearly defined and that seem fair to the provinces and to the federal Government and to augur well for the future.


David Berger: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
The Hon. Member said that before, the federal Government's spending power was not defined in our Constitution, that it was simply confirmed by certain experts. Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the opinion of these experts is that the Supreme Court of Canada, in its various decisions, has confirmed the federal Government's authority to spend in areas that fall under provincial jurisdiction. I would therefore suggest this is a power the federal Government already has under our present Constitution and which has been confirmed by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.
I also believe there may be some confusion in the Hon. Member's mind about general objectives. The provinces can subscribe to objectives that are general enough so they can opt out of a social program or receive full compensation from the federal Government or the Parliament of Canada. They do not have to abide by the kind of criteria we discussed earlier, like the integrity of medical services.
I would also like to say to the Hon. Member that my objections to the Accord go beyond the issue of spending power. My objections are much broader and are based on many other aspects of the Meech Lake Accord which, as I see it, goes against what the Parliament of Canada has done in the past 25 years to ensure that all of Canada belongs to both Francophones and Anglophones. It goes against the linguistic equality policies introduced by various governments in the past twenty-five years. Perhaps the Hon. Member would care to read what I said a few days ago on the subject in the House.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's comments but he seems to be saying that he prefers to rely on judgments of the Supreme Court respecting the spending power of the federal Government despite the fact those judgments can be overturned. What the Supreme Court
October 21, 1987

decides today it can change tomorrow. I agree that spending power is a more important part of the de facto Constitution of Canada. If he feels the same, then I suggest it is too important to be left to the Supreme Court. It should be part of our written Constitution. That is the conclusion the Premiers and the Prime Minister came to and they hammered out an agreement which at the same time respects duality when we come to deal with shared-cost programs.
I remind the Hon. Member that spending power is unaffected if the federal Government chooses to go alone in a particular area. The only place where it is affected is in the area of shared-cost programs. In addition, I remind him that it was Liberal legislation, the Canada Health Act of 1974, which, as he says, is meant to protect the integral nature of health services, yet under that legislation certain provinces, including Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Alberta, decided to withdraw coverage for abortion.
What is really required if we get into that kind of confrontation is for the federal Government to show the political will to spell out the national objectives to ensure that a province cannot duck out of its responsibilities. What the Hon. Member is saying is that his Government did not have that political will three and a half years ago and no Government in the future can have it either. That is of course nonsense.
I would like to conclude by reminding him that the first part of the Accord recognizes that the existing French-speaking Canadians centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and English-speaking Canadians concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitute a fundamental characteristic of Canada. Certainly that is what we have been saying for 25 years. It also says Quebec constitutes a distinct society and if the Hon. Member-

If the Hon. Member for Laurier cannot agree that Quebec is a distinct society and should be recognized as such in the Constitution, that is his opinion and not mine. It is not the opinion of my Party, nor is it the opinion of the people of Quebec, including the Liberal Government in Quebec.


Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 21, I had the privilege of tabling in this House the report of the joint committee of the House and Senate which considered and evaluated the Constitutional agreement which we have come to know as the Meech Lake Accord. Before getting to the main part of my remarks I would like to offer the House some preliminary impressions that I formed sitting as co-chairman of that joint committee.
At the outset, when the Meech Lake Accord was drafted and signed, I was not sure, nor do I believe many other Members were sure, just exactly what the implications were going to be for the Constitution. It was not until we began to sit and hear evidence, and we sat week after week, five weeks to be exact, that I became appreciative of the fact that the
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the First Ministers had drafted a superb document which was going to strengthen Canada. Week after week my belief in this document became more intense.
The second thing I would like to say is that the committee was in an anomalous situation in the sense that we had the uniqueness of having the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the Prime Minister, as well as all the premiers, agreeing that this document should form part of the Constitution of Canada. Yet there was a body of opinion within the country which felt that they disagreed with the Meech Lake Accord. This was probably best exemplified when the former Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, wrote his article which appeared in The Toronto Star.
In those situations I think there was a general determination by all members of the committee that we were going to look squarely and fairly at every issue that evolved from the Meech Lake Accord. That is why I am rather proud that the document, the constitutional Accord report, reflects all of the issues raised, whether or not one agrees with the conclusions. 1 hope that we have fairly dealt with all issues that were raised during the currency of the hearings.
This afternoon in thinking about what the substance of my remarks ought to be I thought of the testimony of Gordon Robertson and the way in which he approached the Meech Lake Accord in testifying before us. As a result I would like to also set forth the policy considerations that I think are pertinent to deciding whether the agreement struck between the Prime Minister and the ten premiers ought to be adopted.
Like any other politician in the Chamber, this summer in my constituency office I was swamped by telephone calls and other communications with respect to the Sikhs coming to our shores. In my own riding office I received somewhere in excess of 250 communications with respect to that issue. Yet, at the same time, I had a handful of calls or letters with respect to the Meech Lake Accord. So I think that I can say with some confidence that the bar stools of Cambridge do not twirl at the mention of the words "Meech Lake". Yet, this Accord to me is an historic act of national reconciliation which, if adopted, will better reflect Canadian realities.
Conversely, should the Accord not be adopted then one must be prepared to accept, at least in the foreseeable future, that Quebec will remain officially estranged and that a constitution without Quebec will continue to limp along without the willing participation of one of the key parties to Confederation.
Professor Max Cohen has called our Constitution the revered script in our national passion play. From earliest times men and women have sought to reduce to writing the values that a nation hold to be sacred. Our Constitution is now but five years old, but it is incomplete. While the 1982 Constitution Act gave us patriation, the amending formula and the Charter of Rights, the isolation of Quebec as a willing

October 21, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
participant in the Constitution left a grievance that would have to be addressed by future Canadian leaders.
Furthermore, with the emphasis in 1982 on the patriation process, and now on the Charter, important questions were put aside concerning the appropriate balance between the federal and the provincial Governments.
The Prime Minister and the Premiers at their Edmonton meeting in August of 1986 agreed to an agenda which would focus specifically on the issues of Quebec and the subsequent negotiations which became known as the "Quebec Round". The atmosphere surrounding the negotiations 1 think can accurately be described as pessimistic. Elowever, the bargain that was struck by the 11 Canadian leaders was welcomed by many as the miracle of Meech Lake.
It is curious that the word "miracle" was used to describe it by some people. Why did some people describe it in that fashion? I think that was because individuals with such disparate political philosophies and different constitutional track records as Premier Vander Zalm on the one hand and Premier Pawley on the other could arrive at an agreement with the Prime Minister of Canada, as well as each and every other premier, on the thorny issue of the treatment of Quebec.
What questions ought Canadians to be asking themselves with respect to the Meech Lake Accord? It seems to me that the first question should be whether or not the First Ministers were correct in having as their objective and as their priority Quebec as a willing participant in the Canadian Constitution. If this objective was correct then we must go on to ask ourselves whether the arrangements agreed upon have adverse consequences for the rest of Canada. Finally, I think it is important to ask ourselves what the consequences will be if the 1987 constitutional Accord unravels.
It is on these three points that I would like to say a few words this afternoon. From strictly a legal point of view, the 1982 Constitution applies to Quebec. But, in the words of Yves Fortier, a friend of many in this Chamber and a former distinguished President of the Canadian Bar Association:
The fact is that politically and even morally the 1982 Constitution Act does not apply to Quebec. Those who claim it does are guilty of constitutional heresy.
Or, in the words of Professor Bill Lederman, an individual, whom 1 respect a great deal:
Everyone knows in the technical, legal sense it is in force in Quebec. But that is not good enough, particularly for a constitutional document. We always have to be renewing our beliefs in and our allegiance to our constitutional principles. A bare legal technicality is not good enough.
The legitimacy of a constitution rests on the willing assent of the governed. A law that is perceived to be unfair generates resistance and resentment. This is true whether the provisions are found in a statute or in the constitution itself. It is important for us to remember our own history. When Quebec voted for Canada in the referendum of 1980 the Government of the day promised Quebec a renewed sense of federalism. I think the emotion of that time was eloquently captured by Madam
Chaput-Rolland in her testimony before the committee. This testimony has been quoted by, I believe, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett). It had a profound effect on some of us who were sitting in the room as members of the committee. She said:
1 think none outside Quebec knew the reality of the referendum. I travelled throughout Canada, about a few months later. It was all over, eh? Good. It was not exactly all over. Families against families, towns against towns, fathers and mothers not speaking to their children. During the referendum we spoke with thousands of Quebecers. Women wanted to leave to their children a country as big as the one they had received from their father. That was mainly the article that reached the heart, because your are right: In this country if we put a little more heart into what we are doing, maybe we would be aware of the hurt we inflict on others. And then we came home.
We went back to the National Assembly, back to our villages, back to our houses, back to the friends that were no more friends; they were on the "yes", we were on the "no". It was not a picnic, it was not a social gathering, it was not a think-tank, it was a battle between brothers, a dangerous, divisive battle, and we still feel it. It was not 100 years ago, it was seven years ago that we lived that referendum. English Canada could not care less one month after, and it stung me and it stung all of us who fought so hard to remain in Canada and to find ourselves outside of Canada.
Madam Chaput-Rolland recalled the lack of national reconciliation following the referendum, and the wide special sense of the betrayal among those who voted no. And so, what was Quebec's position in the aftermath of the passage of the Constitution Act, 1982? Let us examine and remember our history. The Legislative Assembly of Quebec passed a resolution which was agreed to by all Parties condemning the Constitution Act of 1982. It then moved swiftly to challenge the constitutionality of the Constitution Act, 1982, albeit unsuccessfully. Thereafter the Government made the maximum use of what we call the notwithstanding clause, Section 33 of the Charter, which excluded Quebec legislation from the provisions of Section 2 and Section 7(15) of the Charter. Furthermore, Quebec's lack of participation at constitutional conferences limited the chance of success even for reforms that did not require unanimous consent of all provinces.
It seems to me that the objective of the First Ministers was to redeem the promises made to Quebecers during the 1980 referendum and following it. In the result, the reconciliation with Quebec has been made, the Accord has been signed and this leads directly to the second question which I posed a few minutes ago. Does the bargain struck by the premiers and the Prime Minister have adverse consequences to Canada?
Perhaps in a more positive way the question can be framed as to whether or not this agreement is in the best interest of the country. Let me begin by noting that the Accord does not change the distribution of powers in any way under Section 91, Section 92 and Section 93 of the Constitution. Section 2(4) of the Accord specifically preserves the existing powers of the legislatures and of Parliament.
I was very impressed by the testimony of Gordon Robertson who attended every First Ministers' Conference since 1950 until his retirement in 1979. He pointed out that the constitutional negotiations that took place from 1968 through 1971,
October 21, 1987

and later up to 1979, fully expected that there would be changes in the distribution of power.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Accord is the inclusion of two interpretative clauses, namely, that the Constitution is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with linguistic duality across the country, which has been described as a fundamental characteristic of Canada, and with the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. These principles must be taken into account by the courts along with other rules of interpretation in arriving at a decision on a given set of facts.
As a matter of law, the linguistic duality and distinct society clauses neither grant new powers nor derogate from existing powers. An interpretative clause by definition cannot breathe life into a jurisdiction that does not exist.
The Accord recognizes that within Canada, Quebec is a distinct society. This recognition is appropriate, not only because it is historically and sociologically true but because Quebec's distinct society has already been acknowledged by the courts. The Accord does make explicit what has been implicit in our laws and constitutional arrangements for over 250 years.
It must be remembered that Quebec's distinct society includes not only the French-speaking majority but also the English-speaking minority, the aboriginal people in northern Quebec and the rich and diverse communities of other cultures and traditions.
How, then, will the distinct society clause work? How does it come to have any meaning? In the view of the distinguished constitutional experts who appeared before the committee, the distinct society clause will have an influence on Section 1 of the Charter.
For example, when a Quebec statute is challenged as being inconsistent with some Charter principle, if the court decides that there is an inconsistency or a violation of that Charter value the court will then be compelled to decide whether the provision of the statute can be saved as a reasonable limitation in a free and democratic society. This is a process that constitutional lawyers go through every day before the courts. The court would make that decision using as one factor the linguistic duality, distinct society interpretative clauses in the Accord.
The distinct society provision has not been specifically defined. But then, such phrases as "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society", which is in the 1982 Constitution has not been defined. The phrase "peace, order and good government" and "property and civil rights" have not been defined with any sense of precision in the past. It has been left to the courts to interpret those phrases in a socially relevant fashion. In due course, a body of jurisprudence will develop which will put contours around the meaning of such phrases.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Another area of controversy pertains to the participation of the provinces in the appointment process of the Supreme Court of Canada judges and Members of the Senate. The evidence before the committee was that it was common practice in other federations around the world to provide for such participation. We found no justification for having the Supreme Court of Canada, which is the umpire of Confederation, chosen exclusively by one of the players, namely, the federal Government. Similarly, our report makes the point that the Senate was intended to represent regional interests at the centre. But when all is said and done, it is still the federal Government and only the federal Government that makes appointments and I think that is a very important point to underline.
The members of the joint committee were acutely aware of concerns that have been expressed by Charter rights, especially gender equality rights. The evidence from experts has satisfied us that those rights were not placed at risk. If Members who sat on the committee thought there was a real legitimate fear that these hard-earned rights were at risk, we would have voted against it in those circumstances. However, the weight of the evidence clearly was that there were no risks with respect to this particular area of concern. These rights have since 1982 been considered by the courts in light of whatever reasonable limits the courts believed to be demonstrably justified. The courts will continue to perform this task in respect of legislation that touches on linguistic duality and the distinct society.
The third question which I raised concerns the consequences of not adopting the Meech Lake Accord. Laurent Picard, former president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, put it this way:
The choice is not between what you have and what you might have but between what you have and what you will have if the Accord is rejected.
Mr. Picard went on to say:
Once you have reached an Accord you have created a credibility. You have created a process of understanding. And to break the Accord after that is not going to bring you back to the day before, it is going to create a totally different situation. No government of Quebec will be able to accept less, so the situation will be much worse than it was before.
It is my view that if the Accord becomes discord, if it is allowed to unravel, if the terms of reconciliation are undermined, there will develop a serious breach between Quebec and the rest of Canada which will have long term consequences for the country.
Accordingly, in deciding whether or not the amendments ought to be considered, the Government Members of the committee used the test suggested to us by Dean John White of Queen's University Law School. Dean White said that the deficiencies of the Accord must be serious and they must be likely if the agreement is not to be accepted. The critics of the Accord, in the view of the committee, failed to meet that test.
Our committee did reach certain conclusions. One was that the provincial governments' concerns about giving northern territories the trappings of provincial status were unjustified. Specifically, we felt that it was unfair that a lawyer or a judge

October 21, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
from the Northwest Territories or the Yukon could not be nominated by those territorial governments to the Supreme Court of Canada. There is no mechanism in the Accord where such a recommendation could be made to the Minister of Justice for the federal Government's consideration of such a proposal. Accordingly, we are hopeful that this matter will be addressed at the next First Ministers' Conference.
Similarly, we have made certain other recommendations concerning both aboriginal peoples and the amending formula as it applies to the northern territories and we are hopeful that the federal Government will pursue these suggestions.
Finally, it was evident to all members of the committee that a new process must be created so there can be public participation in future constitutional change. Professional associations, interest groups, and members of the public want to have an input before and not after constitutional decisions are taken by First Ministers.
The committee recommended that a joint Senate-House of Commons committee be established with appropriate linkages to the legislatures of each province to report to the First Ministers on matters of constitutional importance which are brought before the committee.
I wish to conclude my remarks by stating unequivocally that as a result of the Meech Fake Accord Canada is the clear and undisputed winner. The inclusion of Quebec into the Constitution in a voluntary fashion is an act of reconciliation which will strengthen and help unify the country, and it will also permit opportunities for reform in other constitutional areas where grievances exist. For this, in my judgment, a huge debt of gratitude is owed to the statesmanship of the Prime Minister and the Premiers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, with this debate on the Constitutional Accord, Parliament is taking another significant step in the historic process of Quebec's entry into the Canadian family. This Accord concerns a number of important fields, but we must bear in mind that the fundamental purpose of the Accord is to repatriate Quebec in our Constitution.
As a country we are living up to the challenge of the unfinished reconciliation of 1982. And the fact that we are living up to the challenge provides all Canadians, men and women alike, with a unique opportunity to celebrate. As a country we can celebrate the end of the constitutional isolation of Quebecers and the fulfillment of the promise made to Quebec during the 1980 referendum.
Mr. Speaker, this Accord meets the aspirations of both the people of Quebec and all Canadians. Thanks to its positive approach towards Quebec, it enables Quebec as a distinct society to resume its place and participate fully and actively in
the Canadian federation. We in this Party are very pleased with this outcome. For a few people, Mr. Speaker, the May Meech Lake Accord signalled the begining of this debate.
Still we must not lose sight of our historic perspective: for over 20 years now the constitutional reform has been the concern of Canadians who wanted to say yes to Quebecers. Even without this Accord, from a legal standpoint Quebec is in the Constitution. That is obvious! But imposition through mere legal coercion is unacceptable in a democracy. Citizens whose lives are governed by laws must accept those laws. If they do not accept a law, it loses its moral authority. It is extremely serious when we are talking about the Constitution, the supreme law of the country.
As Leader of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this Accord which recognizes the distinct identity of Quebec.
From the time our Party was founded in 1961, until our convention in Montreal in March of this year, the New Democrats have recognized Quebec's distinct identity in Canada. Quebecers feel it is high time, Mr. Speaker, that the Constitution should reflect this reality. From sea to sea, the New Democrats believe that having a province where the language and culture of the majority is French enriches our country.
By recognizing this special character in the Canadian Constitution, we are further defining our vision of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all members of the committee who helped produce the report on the Meech Lake Accord. It is an excellent piece of work. The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) and the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) sat on the committee on behalf of my Party. I would like to stress their important contributions and extend my sincere thanks for the work they have done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, together with our caucus, they carefully examined the Constitutional Accord and concluded that it conformed to our principles as Canadians and social democrats.

I want to say something about the latter point. I have said on other occasions and have indicated in my earlier comments today that this approach to a continuing constitutional problem in our country has been met with resolve by the leaders of all of Canada's federal Parties and by our provincial Premiers. There has been a remarkably creative and productive non-partisan approach to a very important Canadian problem.
I was not at the bargaining table personally, but I want to use the occasion to compliment in this regard both the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of Canada and all the Premiers for doing a very fine job on behalf of the people of Canada.
October 21, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I also want to add, as a social democrat, that not only is this accomplishment consistent with the broader principles with which all of us as Canadians can agree, but it also is quite consistent with the philosophical objectives of my Party in particular.
In approaching a question of this magnitude from within that framework, we do consider certain aspects of our history as a nation to be of particular relevance and particular importance to us. Our broader vision is grounded on some key elements, on what has evolved as a distinctively Canadian tradition with our particular blend of the values of liberty, equality and community.
We look to our belief in the principles of co-operation which ought to be fundamental, not only in political but also in social and economic organization, and to our belief in the constant need in North America to be working toward a greater degree of Canadian autonomy, a greater mastery over our own destiny. We should also keep in mind that we want a strong public sector and a strong private sector and we give importance to both of these aspects of our social and economic institutions in society.
Finally, in approaching a question of this nature that goes in a sense to the root of nationhood, we want provincial Governments to be seen not as burdensome obstacles to some national vision but as very important entities in the nation of Canada that were there in 1867, that are there now and that have a role to play in their domain which is fully as important as the role of the federal Government in its domain.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: In that context, finally, we do believe it is imperative in a nation as diverse as ours, culturally, economically and regionally, that we have a federal Government that has very substantial powers, a very real capacity to deal with national and international problems.
We have assessed the Accord from within this particular social democratic framework as well. We find that it is quite consistent with our principles. In particular, we have looked at its provisions to ensure this consistency with regard to three particular items that have been discussed in this debate, and I wish to say something about each of them.
First is the need for an effective national Government. Second is the principle of co-operative federalism. Third is the need to maintain at the heart of our Constitution the integrity of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
On the first of those, the need for an effective national Government, I wish to say to those Canadians who have listened to arguments on the other side that the powers of the national Government of Canada have not been reduced one iota by this constitutional Accord.
Constitution Amendment, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: And I would, for this occasion only perhaps, welcome the presence of a former Prime Minister with whom I have had some agreements in the past, but also some serious disagreements in stressing this important reality.
I say to some Members of the House who have raised points of concern about the alleged whittling away of the authority and power of the central Government that in Section 91 of the Constitution there are some 29 specific, unique, exclusive federal powers. I repeat that they have not been altered one whit. They are there to be used by any Government that wishes to show effective national leadership.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: In addition, there is one section of this Accord that, prior to the committee stage, got a lot of discussion by the Premiers, by the Prime Minister and by those of us who have a constitutional role to play in opposition, and that is the section that permits the federal Government to spend in areas of provincial jurisdictional authority. I wish to make the point that if there has been any shift whatsoever, it has been to clarify, confirm, and will have written in the Constitution for the first time the right of the federal Government to spend in areas otherwise in exclusive provincial jurisdictional authority.
As a Canadian who recognizes the importance of effective central Government, particularly working in conjunction and co-operation with the provinces to implement certain national programs from time to time, whether it is medicare, as it was in the past, or a child care program, as I hope it will be in the future, we should also acknowledge that in saying this, which I believe to be the case, that we are now putting in writing what was not there before, the right of the federal Government to do this. We should pay recognition to the provincial Premiers who are acknowledging this important role from time to time of the federal Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: It addresses the concerns that are genuinely felt by some Members of the House, as well as other Canadians. It simply states that if a national program, for example, in child care is brought in, it has a flexibility built into it that enables us to say that if we have a child care program that meets certain national objectives in Prince Edward Island-

The details are not necessarily the same as for a small town in Quebec.

-or in British Columbia, or in a Prairie community, that the needs for child care will be diverse, reflecting the diverse regions of our country and the diverse sizes of our communities, and as long as fundamental principles are adhered to, established by the national Government, that is precisely the

October 21, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
type of national program that we would wish to put in place in any case.
I wish to turn immediately from that question of the continuing need to have a central Government that has effective powers in Canada, where I have said that if anything there has been a heightening, certainly a heightening of the recognition of those powers and not any reduction whatsoever, to the second question of co-operative federalism.
Certainly in my Party the term "co-operative federalism" was used at the 1961 founding convention, and it has been used by members of other Parties, particularly during the period of the Government of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson. 1 stress that it was a notion pursued by all, by leading elements in all Parties, that in our federal state we have to get built into this great country of ours the notion that when we are embarking upon programs that innovate, co-operation is necessary. But also in the ongoing work that has to be done in the federal state, whether or not we are talking about innovation, we have to be supersensitive as a people to the need to cooperate between the various levels of Government.
Therefore, one of the provisions that I welcomed that was not only in the original draft of the Accord, but also in a subsequent draft, was the right of the provinces to participate in the selection of Supreme Court judges. If Supreme Court judges are going to be making decisions, as they do, in matters that affect federal and provincial powers, and if they are going to make decisions that affect the rights of Canadians, federal citizens as well as provincial citizens, it is entirely legitimate and appropriate that the provinces play a role in the selection of Supreme Court judges. I think that is a good recommendation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I wish to now turn to another provision on the same point of the need for expanding co-operation between the federal Government and the provinces, and the provinces with each other, which is the suggestion that we will be having regular conferences to discuss constitutional reform. In the future, hopefully we will not have to have them because they are dealing, quite literally, with the crisis of unity of the country. If we do institutionalize such conferences-and I will have some more to say about the need to have Canadians participate more directly-hopefully when a problem begins to emerge, at the regular annual conference that discusses constitutional change, the federal Government and the provinces will come together and be able to address the need for change before a problem becomes a crisis. Again, I think that that provision is a good one, and it will be conducive to the spirit and reality of co-operative federalism.
The next aspect of this Accord that I wish to say something about is the Charter of Rights. I wish to say at the outset that my Party would not support the Accord if we believed the rights of Canadians under the Charter were overridden in any way by this Accord. I say in this context that the Charter
remains, and it remains as strong after this Accord as it was before this Accord was introduced.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Notwithstanding our belief that the Accord will be good for Canada, we do have some serious concerns and objections. For that reason we have proposed some amendments. I wish to mention at the outset the reasoning that lay behind those amendments.
When any group of Canadians in any of Canada's political Parties receive a constitutional document, and one does not need to be lawyer to do this type of thing, they can find lots of things wrong with it after perusal of some 20 seconds. I am tempted to say if one is a New Democrat, it can normally be done after five seconds, but I will not say that.
The serious point I wish to make is that any constitutional document that one has will always be short of what a person in good faith can deem to be desirable in terms of additional conclusions. We all have an agenda and a favourable item that we wish to have included in a major proposal for constitutional change.
When my Party addressed this Accord it was aware of the plethora of proposals that could be made to add to it. We are also very conscious of the fact that the document was prepared with care, thought about with prudence, and that it is absolutely essential to gain acceptance in the early future by the Parliament of Canada and all provinces. Therefore, we did not want to propose a whole extended range of amendments. That was an important part of our thinking. The number of amendments we had in mind had to be few in number and had to be, of course, totally consistent with the Accord itself. Therefore, we proposed three of them, and I want to speak briefly on each.
The first one was on aboriginal rights. I do not think there ought to be a Member of Parliament who, at this point in our time as a nation, should be ignorant of the moral need to act and to act with speed in redressing the legitimate moral concerns of our aboriginal peoples.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The reality is that in the last Constitution go-around in 1982 we in Parliament entrenched aboriginal rights. It was a historic battle in the many stages of the process, but it was a historic accomplishment at the time. Many of us believed that by the time we got to this round certain specific rights of our aboriginal people needed to be addressed in a further more comprehensive way and, specifically, that the long overdue right of aboriginal Canadians to have some form of self-government ought to be put in place.
Therefore, it was with regret that we did not see a commitment in the Accord to have a further conference on this subject when we had commitments to have further conferences on
October 21, 1987

other subjects which, if I can put it this way, are certainly no more important than the claims of our aboriginal peoples. We have an amendment which deals with that, and it deals with the rights of aboriginal peoples themselves to participate in those conferences which will come up with a settlement of a number of claims, particularly the moral claim of establishing a form of aboriginal self-government in the country.
The second area of concern was the injustice which is now being foisted upon Canadians in the northern part of our land. It is a sad irony, in one sense, that we should be going from a form of isolation in our Constitution of the people of Quebec to imposing another kind of isolation upon Canadians in the North. This is completely unacceptable to my Party. Frankly we do not understand. 1 have written to the provincial Premiers and to the Prime Minister, and I cannot understand why we cannot get an amendment, even at this point, which would redress this grievance before we put it in place with this Accord. It is this injustice which is now being imposed upon the people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, both with regard to the process of becoming a province and to their right to participate equally with other Canadians in the selection of Supreme Court judges and Senators.
I repeat that the best way of dealing with one injustice for one part of Canada is not simultaneously to impose another injustice on another part of Canada.
Our third amendment deals with the equality rights of women. We in my Party do not believe that the linguistic duality-distinct society interpretation clause abrogates, supersedes, or overrides sexual equality rights or any other rights guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, I add immediately-and on Persons Day how symbolically appropriate it is to be making this point-that in earlier debates and discussions in the development of the Accord some of us said that no matter how remote or how unlikely an adverse effect of the distinct society clause would be in respect of aboriginal rights or our multicultural heritage, Sections 25 and 27 of the Charter should be included in Section 16 of the Accord, as we said, out of an abundance of caution.
As Hon. Members of the House will know, this change was made. We believe that the reasoning or concerns held by Canadians who were sensitive to the possible abrogation of aboriginal rights and multicultural rights were addressed. However, if it was legitimate to make a change to address those concerns, even though we did not believe those rights threatened, surely we ought to be making the same changes as this affects the rights of women. The same abundance of caution should be applied to sexual equality rights. This, in our judgment, could once again be done without in any sense jeopardizing the Accord.
I suppose in this context I would like to make a special appeal to the Premier of the Province of Quebec and to the other Premiers to give some serious second thought to accepting an amendment on this important point.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
The equality rights of women in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were won, incredibly as it may seem, a mere five years ago through a collective struggle. Again to be frank, it was really initiated and carried through by the women of Canada themselves who, by force of their argument and force of their concern, made the rest of us listen. The great struggle they had, which was carried on subsequently in the House of Commons, led to the establishment of Section 28 in our Constitution. It is a matter of which we as Canadians should be proud. Section 28 does for Canadian women what the United States has yet to do for women in the United States. We can be showing leadership in this regard, and in showing leadership, I say to the Prime Minister in this context, I hope he will give some consideration to accepting the kind of amendment we favour, which would reassure Canadian women on this important point and at the same time be totally consistent with the Accord before us.
I would now like to say a few words about some further proposals for future constitutional reform.

I would first like to say a few words about the Charter. Several groups that appeared before the committee expressed concerns that went beyond the scope of the 1987 Constitutional Accord.
The concerns of national womens' groups and their constitutional experts, of visible minority groups and others arose, for instance, from the legal interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms during the first five years of its existence. We must maintain the guarantees for the rights and freedoms of Canadians, including equality rights. A review of the Charter requires considerable participation on the part of the public and sufficient funding to enable all Canadians to make their views and concerns known.
Representatives of our visible minorities presented to the committee some convincing arguments about the need to examine, above all, Section 33 of the Charter, the "notwithstanding" section. We believe that Canada will not have an egalitarian society until the Charter's guarantees equality for minorities can no longer be compromised. We therefore suggest that a future first ministers' conference consider repealing Section 33.

We also agree whole-heartedly with representatives of ethnocultural associations who, in welcoming the Accord, stressed that constitutional recognition should also be given to Canada's ethnocultural reality as a fundamental characteristic of Canada. We too think that should be done.
The Canadians making these suggestions emphasized that one-third of Canadians are of neither English nor French origin. The Charter already recognizes Canada's multicultural heritage, and it is time that we moved one step further in the constitutional evolution of our country.

October 21, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
I urge the First Ministers to move quickly to recognize in the Constitution Canada's ethnocultural reality as a fundamental characteristic of our nation.
New Democrats also agree with those who told the committee that Canadians must more directly be involved in future constitution making. The Constitution, after all, belongs to all Canadians, not just to the politicians here in the House of Commons or in the provinces. We must have a process that permits the people of Canada to participate in the discussion of constitutional reform before First Ministers deal with certain matters, and not just after. We want changes made in that direction.
I want to conclude with this observation. As I have indicated, the work done by the First Ministers, including the Prime Minister, and the committee that studied this question, has been a first rate job for the people of Canada. The Accord, as many Canadians have said both in this House and outside, is not a perfect document. But this constitutional Accord is a good document, good for Canada, good for Quebec, good for all the other provinces and good for individual citizens who want their rights preserved. We need to support it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: But I say this, that constitutions, no matter how good, do not cause progressive change in themselves. Constitutions lay the framework that permits active men and women to bring about changes that will make Canada a more just and compassionate nation. What is needed, in my view, is the political will now to act within a newly established constitution to achieve these goals.
With this reconciliation of monumental importance with the Province of Quebec and with the renewal of co-operative federalism, we must now strive together to make a better tomorrow for all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments? Resuming debate. The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the resolution on the Meech Lake Accord which brings Quebec back into the constitutional fold, which strengthens national unity and unblocks the process of future constitutional reform.
May I commend the Leader of the New Democratic Party today both for the excellence of his comments and the generous outlook he has taken on the problem of constitutional reform. While I was absent, my right hon. friend, the Leader
of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), spoke and I commend him as well for the leadership that he has adopted on a very sensitive national issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have recommended this Accord to my colleagues in the Government. I recommend it today without reservation or qualification to all of my colleagues in the House of Commons. I commend it as well to future generations of Canadians, confident that the Accord will stand the test of time and the scrutiny of history.
Eleven First Ministers from four political Parties support this Accord.

The three national leaders of Canada's political parties in the House support it as well. Today, I sincerely invite all Hon. Members to join with us in this unique act of nation building, in saying "yes" to Quebec, "yes" to Canada, and "yes" to future constitutional reform.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 want to speak today, briefly and from the heart, as a Quebecer and as a Canadian. Our constitution, the fundamental law of the land, is more than words on paper. It defines the terms of our living together, it expresses our prospects for a future together. It enunciates the way we see ourselves as a people and as a nation. The Meech Lake Accord has been scrutinized by the joint Senate-House Committee, which received 301 submissions and heard testimony, I am told, from 131 groups and individuals-from every walk of life, from every segment of our society.
The committee concluded that the Accord should be adopted by Parliament because, and I quote them:
It "represents a reasonable and workable package of constitutional reforms".
I want to pay tribute to the committee and its co-chairmen, the Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer), and Senator Arthur Tremblay, for their distinguished contribution to the national life of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: And, Mr. Speaker, I also pay tribute to a Senator, something we do not do very often in the House these days, but I am referring to a Conservative Senator, the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations, the Hon. Lowell Murray, who played an absolutely vital role on behalf of the federal Government in this great undertaking.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I followed the committee's work quite closely and noticed a common thread running through the weeks of testimony. Canadians know that, without
October 21, 1987

the willing assent of Quebec, our Constitution is fundamentally flawed. Deep down inside, every Canadian knows that. Certain promises were made to Quebecers at the time of the 1980 referendum, solemn promises about constitutional renewal, which were not kept, unfortunately. With the Meech Lake Accord, that promise, made to Quebec on behalf of all parliamentarians, has been honoured on terms that are good for all Canadians. And I think it is a significant aspect of our debate because, Mr. Speaker, we have not acted with haste, nor have we improvised the results, as the NDP Leader indicated.
The Meech Lake Accord culminates more than two decades of intense constitutional debate in this country. Its elements are not new. As my friend the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party, reminded his former Leader when he appeared before the committee, the Hon. Member said, and I quote:
As I remembered, you mentioned restricting the federal government's spending power; you talked about granting effective concurrent jurisdiction in the field of immigration and in Quebec, there were the Cullen-Couture agreements. You suggested provincial participation in Senate appointments. Your aim, expressed in different bills and your personal convictions, was to allow the regions to have a voice in Parliament.
But the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, a distinguished parliamentarian, might have added that the former Prime Minister had also proposed provincial involvement in Supreme Court appointments and at the 1980 round of constitutional talks he was prepared, and I quote him, "to recognize the distinct French-speaking society centred in though not confined to Quebec " in the constitution. How can it be wrong now when it was proper then? And 1 commend the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier for his outstanding contribution.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The fact was, however, Mr. Speaker, these earlier proposals did not meet with success, and no one should underestimate the grave risks we ran as a country with Quebec left on the constitutional sidelines, as a result.
As the Hon. Robert Stanfield told the committee: In 1982 we created two Canadas, one that felt bound by the agreement and another that did not. Only Quebec's agenda was not addressed in the 1982 Accord. Only Quebec was left out. I ask, how would we all have felt had the concerns of women, aboriginal people and multicultural Canadians not been addressed in 1982? I ask all Members of the House to consider the sadness and sense of exclusion the people of Ontario would have felt if such basic constitutional arrangements in 1982 had been entered into without the approval of their elected representatives at Queen's Park. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I would never have agreed to a constitution that left Ontario on
Constitution Amendment, 1987
the sidelines, and I have worked hard to correct a similar situation regarding Quebec.
Although legally binding, the 1982 Accord did not bind the hearts and minds of Quebecers to Canada. The consequences in a generation or two may have been absolutely incalculable for all Canadians representing all regions of this House from the Gaspe to the coast of British Columbia. Imagine the possibility of another referendum on independence in Quebec where the Prime Minister of Canada would enter the campaign and solemnly promise on behalf of all Canadians to renew the Constitution. The leader of the anti-Canada forces would only have to say that Quebecers had heard such promises once before from a Canadian Prime Minister and were not about to be fooled a second time. What would the federalist forces say to that? What would be said of us for failing to seize this moment at this unique time in our history? What would be said of those in this House of Commons who did not act judiciously as the incomplete Constitution with which we were all left inexorably gave rise to separate Canadas?
In reopening the constitutional debate, in renewing the constitutional process, we had both an opportunity and, I think, on behalf of the people of Canada, an obligation. The opportunity was to seek Quebec's signature on our Constitution on terms that were fair to all regions and that built on the substantial achievements of 1982, patriation, the Charter and the amending formula. Unless we believe in a country whose Constitution represents two-thirds of the population, unless we believe in the emergence of two Canadas, our obligation was to secure Quebec's signature on terms consistent with the national interest. I sought that opportunity as Leader of my Party. I undertook that obligation as Prime Minister of Canada, and on behalf of all Members of Parliament I believe we have delivered on that commitment to all the people of Canada.
Today I wish to speak to both my colleagues in the House and to our fellow citizens in the country. All of us have come to this place with our own perspective and our own sense of Canada, with our own view of the country. This House gives us a unique perspective on our vast and diverse country, a national outlook fully consistent with our roots and origins. Wherever we come from, whatever our outlook, we all love Canada. The voices we hear every day in this House are the voices of Canadians in English and French, in idioms that also celebrate the multicultural diversity of our people.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine too many countries where a fundamental question of nationhood-such as the one posed in Quebec during the referendum-would have been resolved in a fully peaceful and democratic manner. For those Canadians who also call ourselves Quebecers, it was a most remarkable experience. We all remember the solemn undertaking given on

October 21, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
May 14, 1980, at the Paul Sauve Arena, by the Prime Minister of Canada-whom I approved indeed, whom we all approved-on behalf of the Government and people of Canada, and I quote him, "to renew the Constitution". But something else was said that night, and all Quebecers, all Canadians, can still remember these words, and I quote: "We, the Quebec MP's" he said "Are laying ourselves on the line, because we are telling Quebecers to vote no. And we are telling you in the other provinces that we will not agree to your interpreting a no vote as an indication that everything is fine and can remain as it was before. We want change and we are willing to lay our seats in the House on the line to have change" he said.
Mr. Speaker, six days later, in a great springtime of hope for our country, Quebecers did say no to separation. But that affirmation of confidence in Canada was never redeemed. In the constitutional discussions that followed the referendum, and I do not pass a value judgment on anybody's motives, the fact is that after the constitutional debates that followed the referendum Quebec was left isolated and alone. The eloquent promise made on the eve of the referendum to a whole population remained unfulfilled. All Quebecers longed to put these bitter divisions behind them, and it remained for those of us in public life to find a way.
At Sept-Iles on August 6, 1984, I made a pledge of my own, to seek Quebec's signature on the Constitution, on terms that it could sigh "with honour and enthusiasm". I believe the manner in which the members of the Quebec National Assembly said yes to Canada is evident testimony to the genuineness of their commitment and their willingness to enshrine it. All of us will always remember the words of Premier Bourassa at the signing ceremony on June 3, when he said, and I quote: "It is with great pride as a Quebecer and as a Canadian that I am here today to express my deep satisfaction with the re-integration of Quebec within the Canadian Constitution".

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it was a long time since I or anyone else had heard a Premier of Quebec make such a profound commitment to Canada, and when that takes place all Canadians, and the profound sentiments of Canadian unity, benefit from one coast of Canada to the other.
I also support the Meech Lake Accord because it corresponds as best it can, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party pointed out, with how we can organize the affairs of our federation and how we can try to live together as Canadians. The Hon. Eric Kierans, who served with distinction at both levels of government in the Lesage and Trudeau Cabinets, captured, I think, the essence of the Accord when he said:
I am for Meech Lake because it is the closest that we have ever come to the division of powers enshrined in the British North America Act and the real spirit of that Act.
At Sept-lles I undertook to establish a federal-provincial advisory and co-ordinating body which would operate at the
highest levels and seek to harmonize the policies of the two levels of government and respect provincial jurisdiction. I believe the Meech Lake constitutional Accord translates that vision of Canada into reality.
Federal-provincial relations need not be a theatre for dramatic and sterile posturing. They can become, as we are witnessing, with the co-operation of all of the First Ministers, a unique laboratory for effective and productive economic and social action.
1 have spoken of the historic opportunity presented by this Accord, but we are no less aware of solemn obligations, in the eyes of our fellow citizens and in the eyes of history itself. It is the obligation of Parliament and the Government, and the solemn duty of the Prime Minister, to uphold the national interest. It is equally the duty of Parliament, the Government, and the Prime Minister to protect the rights of individuals and groups who compose our society. For as one of our founding fathers, George Etienne Cartier, observed over a century ago:
In a country such as ours, all rights must be safeguarded, just as all convictions must be respected.
I think the Meech Lake Accord is very much in harmony with those principles. It builds upon and in no way negates the significant achievements of 1982, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As the joint committee notes, the recognition of duality and Quebec's distinct society will not "have the effect of justifying an erosion of bilingualism or charter rights, or lead to a denial of multiculturalism".
In the view of the First Ministers, all of them, according to the Government's best legal advice, and consistent with the preponderance of expert legal testimony at the hearings, nothing in this Accord overrides the guarantees of the Charter, or takes away in any way from minority language rights, equality rights for women, or Canada's multicultural heritage.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is the best expert opinion. That is our intent in presenting the Accord. That is our commitment.
Let there be no misunderstanding whatsoever. In voting for this Accord, Members are upholding the rights of our language minorities, English-speaking in Quebec and Frenchspeaking outside Quebec. Let no one misconstrue our commitment, either now or at any time in the future. If I, for one moment, thought that anyone's rights were being overridden by this Accord, I would not have recommended it to my colleagues in Government, and the Government of Canada would never have brought it forward for consideration in Parliament today.
In my maiden address in this House, on the Manitoba language question, I said that in my judgment there is no obligation more compelling and no duty more irresistible in Canada than to ensure that our minorities, linguistic and otherwise, live at all times in conditions of fairness and justice.
October 21, 1987

That remains my view today, and I know it is the view of every single Member of this Elouse.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: As many people have noted and as many observers have commented upon, we are already reaping the benefits of a stronger and more united Canada.

On September 1, in Quebec, I met with Premier Bourassa prior to the Francophone Summit, in itself another event which relates to national reconciliation, a very significant event in terms of the French dimension of our international personality. I was especially struck by something he said on that occasion: "Never have we known a period of national solidarity as profound as that which we are experiencing today," he observed. I applaud the Premier, and all his colleagues, for their statesmanship and vision. Individually and as a group, the First Ministers had the courage, and summoned the political will, to do the right thing for Canada.

On behalf of all parliamentarians I salute all First Ministers who participated in this noble objective.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, they are mature men, sensitive and intelligent human beings, and all Premiers knew that as long as Quebec was absent from the table, the Constitution Act of 1982 was dangerously incomplete. And they knew that as long as Quebec was absent, the constitutional process could not go forward on other important issues such as Senate reform, aboriginal rights and fisheries.

With the Accord, Quebec comes back to the constitutional table and back to the table of the Canadian family. In supporting the Accord we are opening the door to future constitutional reform. For example, without the participation of Quebec, reform of the Senate was both legally and politically impossible. You can talk about it all you want, but it could not have taken place in the absence of Quebec.
On the question of aboriginal rights we came very, very close to achieving a resolution of the principal issue at the 1985 First Ministers' Conference. It is my view that we would have come much closer, given the track record of succeeding Quebec Governments on this very sensitive issue, indeed we probably would have succeeded in 1985, had Quebec been part of the process at that time. Justice would have been achieved for our aboriginal peoples, at least in a substantial measure, two years ago. We must now, in my judgment, manage this issue with great care, as we have done with the Quebec Round.
We are continuing to discuss with aboriginal groups a number of important ideas for a fresh start on constitutional recognition of self-government, as well as the question of
Constitution Amendment, 1987
constitutional funding. Most of all, as we tried to do in the Quebec Round, we have to get together as parliamentarians to create a climate that can help to ensure success in bringing justice to our native peoples.

Mr. Speaker, on the important question of gender equality rights, the Joint Committee notes: "We do not believe that the entrenchment of the distinct society duality clause will in any realistic way erode the present constitutional protections of individuals rights, including gender equality rights." I refer Hon. Members to the testimony before the Joint Committee of Mrs. Francine McKenzie, President of the Quebec Advisory Council on the Status of Women, who shares this view, and to the remarkable comments made by my friend, the NDP Member from British Columbia, who has shown strong leadership in this case as in many others. This is what Mrs. McKenzie said:
Let me remind you that it was because of the special request made by women's groups in 1982 that section 28 was put into the Canadian Charter. In this way, the right to equality came foremost in the constitutional hierarchy and thus for the past five years it has been clear that the constitutional rights and freedoms granted to the men and women of Canada must at all times be exercised in equality.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is a telling argument. [English]
On the question of the Territories, the joint committee noted that their residents will continue to be constitutionally eligible for appointment to the Senate and the Supreme Court. The Government shares this view and agrees with the committee that First Ministers may wish to examine the matter at future constitutional conferences. This Government will continue to encourage the political evolution of Canada's North. Indeed, we are taking steps to facilitate and accelerate that evolution which will contribute to a much stronger nation.
In perhaps a more general way I would refer Hon. Members to the comments of the Hon. Jack Pickersgill, former Clerk of the Privy Council, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, and a senior cabinet Minister who served four Liberal Prime Ministers and Canada with enormous distinction and accomplishment. I am sure there are Conservatives, no longer in this House, who would not agree entirely with that statement because, among other things, Mr. Pickersgill was a most accomplished parliamentarian who took it out on many Tories and a few New Democrats as well. Given his life's work and his tremendous contribution to Canada, I was particularly interested in some comments he made shortly after Meech Lake. He wrote: "On the eve of that meeting," in reference to Meech Lake, "I would not have given the First Ministers one chance in ten of success. I was excited and delighted when they reached accord. Once I read the document I was satisfied it met the requirements of Quebec without in any way reducing the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. I was delighted

October 21, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
by the generous and united reception of the miracle of Meech Lake by all Parties in Parliament".
Mr. Pickersgill later said: "If we allow this opportunity to pass, my guess is that it will probably not arise again for another generation, and never again will it arise on such reasonable terms". I agree with Mr. Pickersgill on that. It was for us to seize the moment. It is a great tribute to all Members of the House of Commons that we have done just that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is about Canada. Although, obviously, the object of the exercise was to bring Quebec back into the fold, we have achieved many gains for Canada with the Meech Lake Accord. We have obtained the return of Quebec to the Canadian constitutional family-a pretty important event- with honour and enthusiasm. One would not want another backing into an important situation of this kind. There had to be the pride, the dignity and the acknowledgement of Quebec's unique role in our development, and that requires enthusiasm. It requires the output of one's mind, but also the output of one's heart.
We have reaffirmed the principle of the equality of provinces, large and small. Since when does Alberta have to be a second-class province in this regard, or British Columbia, compared to some other provinces? Under this agreement all the provinces are equal irrespective of size. I think that is a tremendous affirmation of what we truly believe in in the House of Commons.
As my friend, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, has pointed out, we have, very importantly, for the first time, given constitutional recognition to the federal spending power. We entrenched our commitment for the next round on Senate reform and other issues in our ongoing constitutional process. Canada's First Ministers said all along right from the beginning that if no egregious error was found in the text, we would proceed with the resolution. There are complaints. There are concerns. There are suggestions. But no such egregious error has been indicated.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, without hesitation, that the Government of Canada is not prepared to jeopardize this act of national reconciliation by reopening for renegotiation virtually every section of the Accord, as some would have us do. We believe that this is very much in the national interest of Canada, and we are bringing it forward in that light.

Mr. Speaker, the Meech Lake Accord is not only a sound document-it is one that conforms to a consistent, generous and logical vision of Canada. It respects the equality of Provinces and values the distinctiveness Quebec brings to Canada. It specifically reaffirms the strength and the leadership of the national Government in the great constitutional debate. Quite obviously, the Accord is not perfect. But if we
wait for perfection, we risk undoing what has been accomplished and will make no progress at all.

I urge the House to adopt this resolution. The Quebec National Assembly and the Saskatchewan Legislature have already ratified the Meech Lake Accord. I suggest that the House and other legislatures adopt the resolution in exactly the same spirit.
I support the Meech Lake Accord because it is a time for healing in this country. It is a time for redeeming solemn pledges. It is a time for Members of Parliament and Canadians to take the long view of history. It is a time for federal arrangements which better reflect the very nature of our country and the sentiments of our people. It is a time for making Canada whole again. It is a time for putting the divisions of the past behind us so that we can, as a united country, meet the challenges of an increasingly complex and interdependent world.
It is a time to continue the task of building one Canada, united and strong. That is what Meech Lake is all about-one Canada. We saw the emergence of two, and this is about one, built on tolerance, fairness and generosity for all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I stand where every Prime Minister from Sir John right through to Mr. Diefenbaker have stood on behalf of my Party and all Parties in this House. All Prime Ministers have been motivated by the concept of the integrity of this country, one Canada. The possible emergence of two was something that had to be dealt with firmly, fairly, equitably and with generosity and vision. That is what leadership is about. This House is invited to take a great act of national leadership and bring Canadians from one end of the country to the other together again in one-
[ Translation]
-one Canada, united, strong and prosperous. And that is what Meech Lake is really about!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to follow the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) and the Prime Minister in this most important debate. By speaking today, they have both done a lot for Canadian unity.
I would like to begin my comments by quoting the words of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), who said the following in his speech of September 29:
Canada is a partnership of its peoples and provinces, a partnership which can be willingly embraced but not imposed. This concept is understood and accepted by Canadians from coast to coast.
As I rise in this House today to support the adoption of the Meech Lake Accord, I have to ask myself, after listening to some of my colleagues, whether they have really understood
October 21, 1987

and accepted the quite accurate definition given by the Minister of Justice of the nature of Canada. Our country is a federation, a political system comprised of two levels of Government which must complete and complement each other to serve the population. It is a delicate union of often very different people spread out regionally over an immense continent. Indeed, it is a union which has defied all logic for over 120 years.
We have to marvel at the fact that, throughout our history, we have always been able to solve our problems and settle our differences relatively peacefully. As we know, other countries have had wars and revolutions, but not Canada.
While I fought vigorously against them politically, I must say that I have always admired the democratic understanding of the supporters of independence in Quebec. Mr. Rene Levesque and his supporters used elections and a referendum to try to achieve victory for their political ideals. They did not succeed. However, to defeat them, their opponents had promised in May of 1980 a renewed federalism and a new, updated Constitution which would take into account the legitimate aspirations of the various partners in our federation.
That was the beginning of the great constitutional debate of the early 1980s, which led finally, after many years of frustration, to patriation of our Constitution and to entrenchment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was a major achievement.
I do not have enough time here to pay tribute as much as I would have liked to the former Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. However, I shall simply say that, because of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he will be remembered as one of the greatest Prime Ministers of Canada, if not the greatest. On the other hand, while the Constitution Act of 1982 was the crowning achievement for some people, it was unfortunately for many others a show of strength and an agreement excluding Quebec.
In the euphoria of success, we federal Liberals did not fully realize the bitterness of those who had been left out.
We rationalized this situation at that time by saying that the PQ would never have agreed anyway. But they were not alone in condemning this agreement passed without the consent of Quebec's duly elected Government. This explains why the Members of Quebec's National Assembly, PQs and Liberals alike, voted against the agreement. 1 will even say that, intoxicated with this success, we invited Her Majesty the Queen to come over and celebrate with us this triumph, although she was in the eyes of several opponents at that time the living symbol of colonialism.
Because the constitutional issue had become an open sore, it had to be treated. It had to heal as soon as possible. The Leader of the Conservative Party, for one, was well aware of
Constitution Amendment, 1987
the need to have it healed. He should be commended for having stated in Sept-Iles in August of 1984, and I quote:
We must make commitments and take concrete steps to achieve the goal which I have set for myself and which I repeat today: convince Quebec's National Assembly to approve with pride and enthusiasm the new Canadian Constitution.
This is also what Premier Bourassa had in mind when he stated the five conditions which he insisted had to be met before the Government of Quebec could adhere to the Constitutional Act and when he sent Mr. Remillard, his Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs on a tour of the provincial capitals to explain Quebec's proposals.
As a matter of fact, Senator Tremblay emphasized this on August 27. I think I should quote part from his remarks to show how we came about getting the accord we are dealing with today. He said:
What has specifically happened is that Mr. Bourassa's current Quebec government, having set out a number of points in its election campaign-five, which resurfaced later-and having thus obtained an unquestioned mandate from the Quebec people, embarked on the process which has brought us to the Meech Lake Accord; in exchange all the other partners were obliged to make a major concession: specifically, to respect these five points. It happened that the reasonableness of Quebec's proposals made it possible for an accord to be reached.
This is what was also understood by my leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), when in May of 1986 he publically accepted in an article published in Le Devoir Mr. Bourassa's five proposals, and made a commitment to have that new constitutional position recognized within the Liberal Party of Canada. Thus the Meech Lake Accord is the response to Mr. Bourassa's proposals. It complements the 1982 Constitutional Act. Our work remained incomplete because Quebec had not signed. Because of that serious shortcoming, this country did not really constitute a whole as we would have liked. The work had to be completed.
The Leader of the Opposition had promised to do so as soon as he would be re-elected Prime Minister. However, this Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) did it before him, because it must be recognized that all English-speaking Premiers wanted to see that page turned.
Mr. Levesque claimed he was betrayed by the latter in 1982, and I am convinced the English-speaking Premiers were eager to make good to Quebec. Such a feeling certainly made things easier for the Prime Minister. Surely we must give the Prime Minister credit for the work he did, but for modesty's sake he must recognize that the success has to be shared with the Leader of the Opposition who took the political sting out of that debate and who very early made it clear that if he were Prime Minister, just like the present Prime Minister, that matter had to be solved. And certainly the Prime Minister will accept to share the limelight with Quebec's Premier, because as Senator Tremblay reminded us, without the specific, clear and bounded proposals of the Quebec Government, it would

October 21, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
have been excessively difficult to reach this constitutional accord.
1 know the Leader of the Opposition spoke to his colleagues, the Liberal Premiers who were parties to the agreement. I know he even spoke with the Premier of his own Province of British Columbia to make sure there would be that spirit of cooperation and understanding to reach a compromise, a honourable compromise for Quebec.
In any event, this should come as no surprise, because national interest always transcends political groups. Was Prime Minister Trudeau not assured of the support of Premiers Bill Davis and Richard Hatfield when he started off on his historical process of patriating the Canadian Constitution?
This is why I do not hesitate to say today that the Prime Minister did what was to be done to bring Quebec back as a full partner into Canada. Some people suggest the Prime Minister made too many concessions to get that agreement. My answer is no. First, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech of September 29, 1987, the Canadian Government keeps its leadership role within Confederation and loses none of the powers it already has under the Canadian Constitution.
Second, when we take an impartial look at the main provisions of the Meech Lake Agreement, it must be recognized that this kind of give and take, under one form or another, already had been proposed by the previous Liberal Government. In fact, those provisions relating to immigration only enshrine some administrative arrangements agreed to by the former Liberal Government and implemented successively in the following agreements: Lang-Cloutier in 1971, Andras-Bienvenue in 1975 and Cullen-Couture in 1979. We, in the Liberal party, would be ill-advised to pretend it is a bad thing.
As a Quebecker and member from Quebec, I am happy with the provisions relating to the Supreme Court because they definitely guarantee the appointment of at least three judges from the Quebec civil law system. This practice has existed for a long time but from now on, it will be a constitutional rule. As well, provinces will now be involved in the selection of members of our highest court. I suggest this is quite appropriate in a federal state and I do not think it is an unreasonable concession.
Then, the Accord states that, until the Constitution is amended in order to reform the Senate fundamentally, provincial Governments will also be directly involved in the appointment of Senators. This is perhaps the part of the Accord that I like least, because no deadline has been set for that desirable reform of the Senate. Therefore, with time, provincial Premiers might come to like these appointments and forget that long-overdue reform. I might add that although I am not pleased, we should not forget nevertheless that the Senate was originally established to reflect precisely provincial interests in the Parliament of Canada and that the former Liberal Government was even willing to let at some time the
provinces appoint half of Canadian Senators. It is therefore difficult to believe that this initiative goes too far. It can hardly be claimed, I think.
In addition, the Accord deals with new procedures between Ottawa and the provinces for the establishment of future costsharing programs and it allows provinces to opt out with compensation in specific circumstances. Some people fear that provision of the Accord might put an end to major Canadian social programs. I, for one, do not agree with that view. The people's will and the real and pressing needs of Canadian citizens will always win over politicians concerned by their reelection. By the way, the Minister of Justice has well summarized that part of the agreement when he said, and I quote: "This is clearly an area where federal and provincial powers overlap and therefore it is necessary to negotiate accommodations to ensure co-operation and avoid court contests. Such plans can only work with the genuine support of both the federal and provincial Governments, and jurisdictional issues must be avoided in the interest of those who are to benefit from such plans."
In my opinion, this is not an excessive concession but merely an expression of wisdom.
The Accord also provides that a greater number of subjects will require unanimity for amendments and it specifies that there will be annual conferences of First Ministers on constitutional matters.
When I came to Ottawa in 1964 to work for the Minister of Justice, Hon. Guy Favreau, he was working hard to have the provinces agree to a patriation and amending formula. It was the Fulton-Favreau formula, as it was called in those days. Many more procedures have been suggested since then, including the Victoria and the Meech Lake formulas. As a matter of fact, all the successive federal and provincial Ministers of Justice have tried to find one. I sometimes get the impression that a constitutional lawyer must be hiding behind every politician. That is why I am convinced that the search for the ideal formula will go on for years and that many interesting suggestions will come up.
What is before us today is the Meech Lake formula. It reflects the very simple reality that all provinces are equal, regardless of their size, numbers and year of entry in the Canadian federation. Personally, I cannot help but think that the rule of unanimity must prevail, in all justice, for the amendment of some basic institutions in this country. This is not compromise but simply fairness. It may be an exaggeration to have annual First Ministers Conferences to discuss constitutional matters. Once a year may be too much. And discussing fisheries year in and year out may seem a bit ridiculous. But politics is the art of compromise. And if this is the price that the Prime Minister had to pay to convince Newfoundland to support the inclusion of Quebec into the Canadian Constitution, I might find that rather ludicrous, but I cannot hold it
October 21, 1987

against him because he did not abdicate the federal jurisdiction in the area of fisheries, contrary to what some are alleging.
Last, there is in the Accord an interpretation clause which formerly recognizes two basic realities: the linguistic duality of Canada and the distinct identity of the Province of Quebec. Let us consider for a while the crux of the issue, the bone of contention, that is to say the recognition of Quebec's distinct character. In fact, this is the issue which has raised the most heated discussions during this debate. The roots of Quebec's specificity, to paraphrase a term used in the Pepin-Robarts report, are older than Canada itself. The witnesses who have appeared before the Joint Committee on Constitution of the Senate and the House of Commons pointed out that the legal basis of that notion dated back to the year 1713 at least. Thus, the co-existence of two distinct communities was formerly recognized. Others have pointed out that the Treaty of Paris, in 1763, and the edicts of various British governors recognized certain religious and linguistic rights as well as legal rights for the allocation of new lands, according to what they called "the French laws".
As a consequence, throughout our history, the distinctive and actual presence of a francophone community living in a given geographic area affected the legal and institutional structures governing it.
Those institutional frameworks, including the British-North America Act, have progressively allowed the blossoming of a modern French society in America.
As Mr. Claude Ryan said in his Beige Book, and I quote:
In the Province of Quebec, the laws, legal system, municipal and provincial institutions, voluntary organizations, media, arts, literature, educational system, social and health services, religious institutions and credit unions are mostly French by reason of the language and the culture that permeate them. So, Quebec is, within the Canadian federation, a distinct society due to its language, culture, institutions and life-style.
This recognition of Quebec as a distinct society was Premier Bourassa's first and most important prerequisite. All four claims were accepted, but for all provinces. First, there was the issue of extended powers for Quebec in immigration matters, and this was also offered to the other provinces; second, limitation of the spending power of the federal Government, which obviously does not apply only to Quebec, but to all other provinces wishing to opt out of various programs; third, the new procedure to amend the Constitution, which provides a veto for Quebec and which also applies to the other provinces; and finally, the participation of Quebec in the appointment of judges, which also applies to the other provinces.
However, the distinct identity clause is special and applies only to Quebec. I must say that this major claim could not be rejected. The Prime Minister and the Premiers recognized that fact, and at this time, I feel that I must pay hommage to three of my colleagues who could have objected to the Accord, but who, with generosity and an open mind, have decided to support it. I am thinking especially about the Hon. Member
Constitution Amendment, 1987
for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) who represents, in my opinion, the increasingly tolerant and understanding views of the English-speaking minority in Quebec. In this regard, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace is in agreement with Alliance Quebec, the major movement which defends the English-speaking minority in Quebec and which was not afraid to assert that it was in favour of recognizing the distinct identity of Quebec.
I also wish to pay hommage to two Members who represent the French-speaking minorities outside Quebec, my colleague for Ottawa-Vanier and my colleague for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell, both of whom could have said: Something is being done for Quebec, but not for us, French-speaking minorities outside Quebec, and we want it to happen immediately. However, just like the organization which represents all French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec, the Association des francophones hors Quebec, which appeared before the Joint Committee of the Senate and the Flouse of Commons, they were magnanimous enough to say that recognizing the distinct identity of Quebec would not reduce by any means the development opportunities of French-speaking minorities outside Quebec.
I therefore salute these three Members of my caucus who could have taken different stands, but who had the openmindedness to accept that, at this historic moment, we should say yes to Quebec at a time when conditions are the most favorable even to achieve an accord which will give a generous place to Quebec in Canada, and when, under the leadership of Premier Robert Bourassa, at whose abilities I grow more and more pleasantly surprised every day, Quebec is going through a period of peace and moderation and its demands have never been as reasonable.
In the final analysis, that Accord is good for Canada because it is good for Quebec. It may not be perfect and there will always be room for improvement, but it is the best deal that could be negotiated at this time by the Prime Minister of Canada and all Premiers.
Some of my colleagues who are opposed to this Accord or who have some concerns about it should remember that even former Prime Minister Trudeau and his Minister of Justice, Mr. Jean Chretien, have not made a perfect deal in 1982. They did not solve the problem of native people. They even had to grant major concessions, such as the notwithstanding clause or the "where numbers warrant" rule. However, they agreed to that deal because it was the best possible one at the time. Then, they were certainly very happy with their achievement that despite concessions and some compromise granted, because in their mind, it was a huge step forward in the constitutional area and they were right to think so. Today, some concessions have had to be made. Some adjustments have had to be left aside. Certainly the Prime Minister and the Premiers have not solved everything during the Meech Lake meeting, but they still have made a deal that will be another major step forward in the constitutional area.

October 21, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Recently I read the special issue of Life magazine on the American Constitution. In February, 1787, the American Congress instructed the delegates of the 13 states to devise measures to render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union. They assembled in Philadelphia, and for four months they worked diligently in camera to produce a 4,400 word document that is a remarkable achievement, even after two centuries.
Interestingly enough, there was a very strong opposition to the ratification of this text. Those who prepared it were saying: "It is a genuine compromise, you have to take it as a package. Now is not the time to amend it, it is the time to ratify it, otherwise the union will fall apart, and we may never have another occasion to get such a deal".
Those who were opposing it felt that it was not perfect, it should be amended. Too many things were left out, and they were predicting that, if ratified, things would not work out and it would be the end of the Union.
When I was reading the article, I thought I was reading the history of the Canadian Meech Lake Accord. Well, as you know it was ratified. The Union did not fall apart. Soon thereafter a Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. Over the years, as the United States of America grew and prospered, 16 more amendments were added.
Among those who favoured the Accord were Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, and George Washington, all of whom have a prominent place in the history of the United States.
Who remembers today those who opposed the Accord? Very few. They were so wrong; they had such a defaitiste attitude that nobody wants to remember Elbridge Gerry or Patrick Henry.
[ Translation]
To conclude, I want to say that I know that my Leader, the Opposition Leader, would like to amend the Meech Lake Accord to make it more acceptable for more Canadians. That is fine if it can be done. Otherwise, as he said himself, and I quote: "If our amendments are rejected and voted down, we intend to make these amendments part of our Party's constitutional program. We intend to make them part of the platform in the next federal election and put them before the people of Canada. If and when we form a government, we intend to make them part of the ongoing constitutional process."
The Opposition Leader is right to say that, much remains to be done. I am very glad he thus clearly established the future constitutional agenda, and I hope that under his leadership, the aboriginal people will finally obtain what they want, the Senate will become an elected body, Canada's North may have a chance to prosper under the aegis of the provinces and that
Canada's multicultural minorities will be even better protected. This is a long-range project reflecting a very clear understanding of where subsequent constitutional reforms should lead us. I may add that although the Leader of the Opposition would like to make some major changes in this document, he had the courage and strength of character to say that if those amendments were not adopted now, he would nevertheless vote in favour of the Meech Lake Accord, and I think he is to be commended for saying so. I want to say that, as a Quebecer and a Canadian, I am very proud of the Leader of the Opposition.
Parliamentarians should forget past struggles and partisan considerations and take advantage of the unique opportunity we now have in this country to say yes to Quebec. That is why I will vote for the Accord, although I realize there is room for improvement and that there are some oversights and shortcomings. I will vote for the Accord, because the Meech Lake Accord is based on a philosophy that is broad and generous enough to accept the distinct character of a province that was fully aware of its identity but failed to obtain formal recognition of that fact. I would go so far as to say, and in fact I am convinced, that this will increase the confidence of Quebecers in the legitimacy of the federal system. To me it is obvious that our country will be more united if the role and specific place of Quebec in Canada are fully recognized.
Mr. Speaker, 1 fully appreciate the concerns expressed with vigour and conviction by some of my colleagues, especially in my own Party. I believe those concerns reflect the intrinsic complexity of constitutional reform. I acknowledge and respect their convictions, because as Machiavelli once said: "Nothing in the world is more difficult to grasp, more perilous to undertake or less likely to succeed than the desire to reform the constitutional system of a State."
Though these words were said in Florence about 500 years ago, they are still true today, in our country as in many others.
Mr. Speaker, Renan described a nation as a daily plebiscite. He stressed that to be a nation, a people must clearly express its desire to live together. During the Referendum, Quebecers expressed that desire, and seven years later, the Meech Lake Accord is a new reflection of that desire. Seven years later, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to every Member in this House and especially the Members of my own Party that all of Canada must say yes. And that is why I fully support the Meech Lake Accord.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, I join in the debate today realizing that it is the end of a full day of debate which has included some very special presentations on the Meech Lake Accord by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent),
October 21, 1987

and by the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) of the Official Opposition.
I come to this debate with a kind of special background. I am one of those elected by the community of Montreal whose first language is English. As the Hon. Member for Lachine 1 am particularly pleased to have the occasion to share in this historic debate. Lachine provides an excellent example of Canada's two cultures living and working in co-operation. It reflects a wide range of opinions and a mixture of economic and multicultural heritages.
1 also come to the debate today as a member of the special joint committee which was established to review the Meech Lake Accord and the representations regarding constitutional change. I spent many hours with that committee over weeks of hearings, hearing and reading informed opinions and concerns of Canadians. I can report that the witnesses who appeared before us were virtually unanimous in their agreement with the important and desirable goal of having Quebec willingly and honourably rejoining the Canadian constitutional family.
Finally, as an active member of the English-speaking community of Quebec and as a proud third generation Canadian, 1 feel that it deserves my best effort to be a responsible representative of the community which I serve.
In 1984, Canadians elected a Conservative Government to fulfil its publicly announced mandate. The unification of Canada was one of our first priorities, together with enhanced trade, tax reform, a defence policy, improved social programs, and the introduction of fiscal responsibility to government. The first objective, the objective of uniting Canada, required a constitutional process to bring Quebec into the family willingly and honourably. I believe that all Quebec Members of Parliament support this fundamental objective to be part of a country with full commitment to the Constitution.
I should like to refer to the words of Peter Meekison when he said:
I feel very strongly that Quebec must be part of the Constitution. Moreover, it is not just being part of it. It is sitting around a table like this and having full participation by the Quebec Government.
I have been involved in this process since 1969 and 1 know what a significant contribution to the over-all debate Quebecers can make and to have them sit there and not participate, to me, is a tragedy.
After appraising all the opinions and comments of the witnesses, I am satisfied that the process of getting Canada and Quebec reunited has not come at the expense of the rights and interests of the English population which I represent. In fact, let there be no misunderstanding. By supporting the Meech Lake Accord I am saying yes to Quebec, yes to Canada and yes to the protection of minority language rights for all Canadians. All Quebecers, both English and French-speaking, share the essential need to have Quebec as full partner in Canada.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
I was attracted to a new issue of the magazine put out by the Commissioner for Official Languages. It arrived at my desk this week. Its title is Language and Society. There are a number of articles on our Meech Lake Accord. In the summaries of this new series and new magazine that all can read, and I hope people will, such thoughts are recorded as:
Public opinion, particularly among the younger generations, is increasingly supportive of the country's linguistic duality. Despite this, linguistic prejudice still raises its head from time to time in some parts of Canada.
Another comment reads:
Our minority language groups are still in a precarious situation. Far too many Canadians still do not enjoy the linguistic guarantees provided in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, especially in the educational area.
It goes on:
Canada is far from being the only country in the world searching for wise and reasonable solutions to the kinds of conflicts that can set language communities at odds.
One of the comments in a letter to the editor to welcoming the new format of the magazine comes from Royal Orr, President, Alliance Quebec. He says that the new Language and Society magazine:
-is good news for all Canadians interested in the promotion of both official languages.
That is just a summary, Mr. Speaker, of the views that are shared by my colleagues and neighbours in Quebec. Some are of the opinion that the Meech Lake Accord will be accompanied by a diminishing of rights of anglophone Quebecers. But these concerns have been studied by many of Canada's leading legal and constitutional experts and declared to be unfounded. It has been clearly stated by the majority of witnesses and, for that matter, by the Hon. Prime Minister and the Leaders of the opposition Parties that in their interpretation no loss of rights would be permitted by the amendments. In fact, Quebec's signature on the document of amendments to the Constitution guarantees the recognition and preservation of the English-speaking minority in Quebec as part of a fundamental characteristic of Canada. Furthermore, the amendment document goes on to say:
The role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures shall be to preserve that fundamental characteristic mentioned above.
Constitutional change must reflect the reality and the development of Canada as a changing nation in a changing world. At the same time it must provide for growth and preservation of rights and values. The accomplishments at Meech Lake were achieved in spite of the major differences that have been expressed in advance by leaders across the country, in spite of the strong regional interests which have always been characteristic of Canada, and in spite of the many past frustrations of those who had tried to solve the problem.
In his remarks to the House earlier today, the Prime Minister quoted one of our senior parliamentarians, the Hon. Jack Pickersgill, who said that the achievements at Meech Lake were in a sense a miracle with so many differences to

October 21, 1987
Immigration Act, 1976
resolve. The results were achieved in an atmosphere which was basically are of a common commitment. We came out of the Edmonton, Alberta meeting of First Ministers a year earlier bringing Quebec into Canada and the Constitution as a first priority for Canadians and the Governments of Canada. With the leadership of our Prime Minister this was achieved at Meech Lake. It was based on an approach which is consultation and collaboration. Compromise, yes, but also trust.
I was disappointed in the hearings of the Meech Lake committee in one respect. There was not enough time for all of us to pose all the questions to the witnesses that we might have liked. In particular, I found myself prompted to want to question our past Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, when he was with us. He had an idea of Canada with which Canadians were not comfortable. We had come to Government with the obligation and the opportunity to change the country. I wanted to ask the previous Prime Minister, knowing his particular skills in debate and in intellectual activity, at what point of importance did he place goodwill and trust in a partnership and association that is Canada? I think that is something that has been brought by our Prime Minister to this negotiating table and to the Accord that we are now debating.
There are many essential items in the Accord. One, immigration jointly managed where the provinces wish, which is exactly in line with the agreement that had been reached between Quebec and Canada many years ago in the 1970s. Two, spending powers on federal programs within provincial jurisdiction and an automatic recognition of the rights of the provinces, leaving the need for initiative and leadership by the federal Government. Three, the appointments process to the Supreme Court of Canada and, until it is reformed, to the Senate. 1 think this was a very generous but at the same time a realistic recognition of the rights of the provinces in these two areas.
Unquestionably the section of the constitutional amendment which has prompted the greatest reaction and comment among my community has been the interpretive clauses calling for the recognition of a language duality and within Canada the distinct society of Quebec. Since the 1970s there has been no question that Quebec's English-speaking community has felt anxious with respect to its historic position.
We have had attacks on anglophone rights in the original Bill 101, Bill 22 and even to an extent today in Bill 101 with the sign concerns under both nationalist and moderate Quebec provincial Governments. Many of these fears were put to rest when, by a majority of Quebecers, we voted no to a separate Quebec and no to a divided Canada. We are proud Quebecers and aware that both communities must continue to look for the balance of mutual acceptance. Much of our community supported Mr. Bourassa in 1985 because of his commitment to find an acceptable solution with respect to bilingual signs. We look forward to his living up to those commitments.
In 1982, when we patriated the Constitution with an amending formula and our Charter of Rights, the Quebec
Government refused to participate. Since that time Canada has been, if not legally but morally, ethically and spiritually, incomplete. The Meech Lake Accord repairs the omission of 1982 and represents an historic act of reconciliation. For the first time, it explicitly recognizes the presence of English speaking persons in Quebec as an integral element of Canada's linguistic duality. Quebec's distinct society within Canada which, in my opinion, represents a fact that has been in existence for many years, includes English-speaking Quebecers. As I and much of my community have always felt, we are an essential part of Quebec's distinctiveness. The courts will now be constitutionally directed to acknowledge that reality.
The linguistic duality clause affirms Quebec's role in preserving Canada's linguistic duality. Both linguistic duality and distinct society clauses must be read and interpreted together by the courts. Quebec's role in preserving and promoting its distinct society is thus qualified by its additional role in preserving Canada's linguistic duality.
I must assure this House and the constituents of English speaking Quebec, and most importantly Lachine, that I would not be promoting the Meech Lake amendments if I felt that any rights of the community have been take away. I am confident, based on the expert legal witnesses who came before the committee, that no rights would be altered because of the amendments we have proposed.
As declared so forcefully, so passionately and so effectively by our Prime Minister, the Meech Lake Accord and the constitutional amendment gives us, all Canadians, a united country ready to live and work together for mutual advantage. It is ours. Let us make it work.


IMMIGRATION ACT, 1976 MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, October 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 13(4)(a), the House will now proceed to the deferred recorded division on the motion for third reading of Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other acts in consequence thereof.
Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6.26 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.26 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, October 22, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers